RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
          • 원문제공처
          • 등재정보
          • 학술지명
          • 주제분류
          • 발행연도
          • 작성언어
          • 저자

        오늘 본 자료

        • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
        더보기
        • 무료
        • 기관 내 무료
        • 유료
        • KCI등재

          재정신청절차와 재소자 특칙에 대한 검토 - 대법원 2015. 7. 16. 자 2013모2347 전원합의체 결정에 대한 평석을 중심으로-

          최석윤 ( Choi Suk-yoon ), 최성진 ( Choi Seong-jin ), 이수진 ( Lee Su-jin ) 한국비교형사법학회 2016 비교형사법연구 Vol.18 No.4

          이 논문은 재정신청절차에서 재소자 특칙이 준용될 수 있는지 여부와 관련된 대법원판례를 중심으로 다수의견과 반대의견의 쟁점에 대해 검토한 것이다. 이 논문의 주요내용을 간략히 정리하자면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 다수의견은 재소자 특칙의 근본취지에 대해서는 아무런 설명도 없이 `도달주의 원칙과 그것에 대한 예외를 제한적으로 인정한 취지`가 `소송절차의 명확성·안정성·신속성을 도모하기 위한 것`이라고만 밝히고 있다. 이러한 관점에 따르면 재소자 특칙에 대한 준용 규정의 유무에 따라 준용 여부가 결정되고, 피고인과 재정신청인의 형사소송법상 지위차이에 따라 준용 여부가 결정될 것이다. 그런데 다수의견은 “피고인의 경우 준용 규정이 없더라도 재소자 특칙이 준용될 수 있다.”고 함으로써 `소송절차의 명확성·안정성·신속성 도모`라고 스스로 주장한 도달주의 원칙과 예외의 취지에 반하기때문에 모순에 빠진다. 더 나아가 “피고인의 지위에 있는 사람에 대해서만 재소자 특칙이 준용될 수 있다.”는 다수의견의 입장은 수형자에 대해서도 재소자 특칙을 준용하고 있는 형사소송법 제490조 제2항과도 모순된다. 둘째, 반대의견은 재소자 특칙을 `구금으로 인해 행동의 자유가 박탈되어 있는 사람에게 형사소송법상 권리를 실질적으로 보장하기 위한 것`으로 파악함으로써 실질적 관점에서 재소자 특칙의 근본취지를 제시하였다. 그리고 반대의견은 “재소자 특칙을 `피고인이라는 법적 지위`에서 비롯된 것이라기보다 `구금으로 인해 재소자의 형사소송법상 권리행사가 심각한 제약을 받고 있는 현실`을 중시하여 마련된 제도로 이해함으로써 재정신청절차에서도 재소자 특칙이 준용되어야 한다.”는 입장이다. 이와 같은 반대의견은 형식적 관점이 아니라 실질적 관점에서 재소자 특칙의 근본취지를 설명하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 `적법절차를 통한 진실규명과 형벌권실현`이라는 법치국가 형사절차의 목적과 이념에 비추어볼 때 반론을 제기하기 어려울 정도로 충분한 설득력을 가지고 있다. 생각건대 형사소송법의 개정을 통해 독일이나 일본과 같이 재정신청기간과 재항고기간을 충분히 보장해주는 것이 가장 확실한 해결책이 될 것이다. 그러나 그와 같은 입법론적 해결책은 10일이라는 재정신청기간에 대해서는 적절한 방법이 될 수 있겠지만 요원한 이야기이고, 특히 3일이라는 즉시항고의 기간은 비단 재정신청과만 관련된 것이 아니기 때문에 입법론적으로도 쉽게 연장할 수 있는 문제가 아닌 것으로 보인다. 따라서 장기적으로 입법론적 해결을 통해 정리할 수 있는 것은 그렇게 하더라도, 우선은 반대의견과 같이 해석론을 통해 문제를 합리적으로 해결할 필요가 있다. This study is to examine the issues of the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court precedent, which is related to whether the special provisions for inmates are applied to the judical ruling process or not. The main contents of this study are summarized as follow: First, majority opinion only stated that `principle of arrival and the purpose of the narrowly accepted the exceptions` was `to promote clarity, stability, and immediacy in criminal procedure` without a single explanation about the fundamental purpose of the special provisions for inmates. In such perspective, application of the rule would be decided by whether provisions applicable mutatis mutandis is there or not and application of the rule will be decided by the status gap between the defendant and the applicant for judicial ruling. However, by majority opinion stating that “in cases of defendants, without the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis, the special provisions for inmates can be applied” majority opinion contradicts their own words of stating that principle of arrival and the exceptions was `to promote clarity, stability, and immediacy in criminal procedure`. Furthermore, majority opinion`s stance by saying “in cases of defendants, without the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis, the special provisions for inmates can be applied” is also a contradiction to the code of criminal procedure §490 sec. 2 which also allows applying the special provisions for inmates for prisoners. Second, the opposition proposed the fundamental purpose of the special provisions for inmates in more of a realistic perspective by acknowledging it as `to practically assure a person, restrained his or her freedom of action by detention, his or her rights in the criminal procedure law`. In addition, the opposition`s stance is to “comprehend the special provisions for inmates as a system taking `the reality that the rights of these inmates, which come from the criminal procedure law, are restricted due to their detention` seriously into consideration rather than seeing it as `something that comes from the legal position of a defendant`, and by this the special provisions for inmates should also be applied in steps of application for a ruling. Like this, the opposition is not only explaining fundamental purpose of special provisions for inmates in not formal but practical point of view, but is also very convincing in accordance with the purpose and idea of procedure of criminal cases of constitutional state, which is `clarification of truth and realization of state punishment by due process of law`. Coming to think of it, it would be the most prominent solution to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to fully assure application period for judicial ruling and application period for re-appeal, like Germany or Japan. However, in de lege ferenda solution like this 10 days for duration of application for a ruling could be appropriate, but this is a remote story, and especially 3 days for immediate complaint, simply is not solely for application for ruling so it seems like a problem that can`t be solved simply even by de lege ferenda soved. Accordingly we could deal with the things that can be corrected by de lege ferenda solution in a long term, our priority for us is to solve the problem practically by theory of interpretation like the opposition.

        • 경험적 연구결과에 기초한 양형요소 분석

          최석윤(Choi, Suk-Yoon) 한국형사법학회 2006 한국형사법학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2006 No.4

          '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

        • KCI등재

          정당방위의 근본사상에 관한 연구

          최석윤(Choi Suk-Yoon) 한국형사정책연구원 2010 형사정책연구 Vol.83 No.-

          이 논문은 정당방위의 근본사상에 관한 기존이론의 내용과 한계에 대해 살펴보고, 기존이론의 한계를 극복할 수 있는 새로운 대안에 대해 검토한 것이다. 이 논문의 요지를 간략히 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 자기보호원칙에 기초한 개인권적 일원론은 정당방위를 국가이전의 자연적 자기방위권으로 이해하기 때문에 법적으로 구성된 공동체로서의 법치국가와 조화될 수 없다는 문제점을 안고 있다. 그리고 개인권적 일원론은 타인의 법익에 대한 부당한 침해를 방위하기 위한 정당방위를 의미하는 ‘긴급구조'를 논증하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라 정당방위의 한계 내지 제한에 대한 설명에서도 문제점을 안고 있다. 둘째, 법수호원칙 내지 법확증원칙에 기초한 사회권적 일원론은 긴급구조를 설명하기 위해 물리적 강제력을 행사할 수 있는 국가의 독점적 권한을 사인에게 위임한 것으로 설명하지만 정당방위는 처음부터 국가적 권력독점의 관할영역에 속하지 않기 때문에 이론적 전제에 문제가 있다. 그리고 사회권적 일원론은 법수호원칙에 기초하여 한편으로는 이익형량이 불필요하고 회피의무도 없다고 하여 정당방위의 과단성을 정당화하고 다른 한편으로는 정당방위의 제한을 정당화함으로써 스스로 모순에 빠지는 문제점을 안고 있다. 더 나아가 사회권적 일원론은 정당방위를 형벌에 준하는 것으로 취급하는 문제점이 있다. 셋째, 이원론은 이론적 전제와 내용의 면에서 문제점을 지닌 개인권적 일원론과 사회권적 일원론을 고유한 핵심내용도 없이 단순히 첨가하는 방식으로 절충한 것이라는 한계가 있다. 따라서 이원론은 충돌사례에 대한 평가기준을 확보하지 못하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 고유한 핵심주장에 대해서는 무관심하고 형법해석과 형사정책의 구별을 희석시키는 문제점을 안고 있다. 넷째, 정당방위의 근본사상에 관한 새로운 대안으로서 상호주관적 승인이론을 주목할 필요가 있다. 왜냐하면 상호주관적 승인이론은 기존이론과 달리 개인적 권리 내지 개인적 이익의 상호주관성을 통해 정당방위의 근거와 한계를 적절히 설명할 수 있기 때문이다. 상호주관적 승인이론에 따르면 정당방위상황에서는 법질서의 효력이 문제되는 것이 아니라 구체적 상황에 처한 구체적 인간의 개인적 이익의 효력이 문제된다.

        • KCI등재후보

          해양환경 관련 형법규정 연구

          崔錫胤(Choi Suk-Yoon), 梁珍榮(Yang Jin-Young) 한국해사법학회 2006 해사법연구 Vol.18 No.1

          '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

            The national law on the prevention of marine pollution has heavy punitive clauses on the illegal act of discharge from the ships and marine facilities. However the punitive clause seems to be discriminated according to who the pollutant actor is. That is, the punishments varies from 1 year or 10 million won to 5 year or 50 million won in accordance with whether the illegal actor is ship"s crew or marine facility"s personnel; this difference is considered unreasonable clause to impose 5 times punishment for the same illegal act affected to the environment. On the contrary the regulations of the Japan and United States on marine pollution prevention have same punishment for the illegal actor whoever it is. Considering the benefit and protection of the criminal law on the environment is environment itself and the principle of the equity of the law, it is reasonable to impose a graded punishment in proportion with whether it is intentional or not and the scale of the pollution damage, rather than the illegal actor.

        • KCI등재

          양형조사법안에 대한 비판적 고찰

          최석윤(Choi, Suk-Yoon) 한국형사법학회 2011 刑事法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

          '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

          We need to consider the following when we discuss the ways to improve the sentencing investigation system and legislative study for it. First, when we discuss the problems of the sentencing investigation system and the ways to improve it, it is necessary to consider that the number of the probation officer is not enough for pre-prosecution investigation, pre-sentencing investigation, probation work and sentencing investigation. And the probation officer's preprosecution investigation, pre-sentencing investigation and probation work need professionalism, but sentencing investigation by investigator needs the justice of the investigation into objective facts. So if the probation officer and investigator's work are divided up efficiently for professionalism and specialty, the repetitious work done by different departments and the waste of human resources will be avoided. We will need to discuss the sentencing investigation system on the premise those things. Second, it is necessary to revise the criminal procedure act and the probation law for dividing up the probation officer and investigator's job efficiently. In other words we need to make legal ground about the contents, means and procedures of the investigator's sentencing investigation system in the criminal procedure act. It is necessary to divide up the work by revising the probation law as follows; the probation officer should carry on the pre-prosecution investigation, the pre-sentencing investigation and the probation work. And the investigator should carry on the sentencing investigation. Third, because the current number of investigators is not enough for the demand of the sentencing investigation according to the implementation of the sentencing guidelines, it is necessary to recruit enough manpower. Also it is important to hire enough probation officers continuously through the appropriate demand survey because there are probation officer shortages for pre-prosecution investigation, pre-sentencing investigation and probation works. In conclusion, the investigators should be let carry out the sentencing investigation by revising the criminal procedure law for applying the sentencing guidelines rightly. Also the probation officers should be able to execute the pre-sentencing investigation, the probation work and the pre-prosecution investigation by revising the probation law. In other words, the pre-sentencing investigation system and the sentencing investigation system should be separated. Because there is a difference in the task characteristics in both systems. And there are not enough human resources and infrastructure.

        • KCI등재
        • KCI등재

          국제형사재판소 관할범죄에 대한 형사사법공조체계의 문제점과 개선방안

          최석윤 ( Choi Suk-yoon ), 이수진 ( Lee Su-jin ), 변용남 ( Byun Yong-nam ) 한국비교형사법학회 2016 비교형사법연구 Vol.18 No.3

          이 연구의 목적은 ICC 규정 및 이행법률의 주요내용을 검토함으로써 국제형사재판소 관할범죄에 대한 형사사법공조체계의 문제점을 지적하고 개선방안을 제시하는 것이다. 이 논문의 주요내용을 간략히 정리하자면 다음과 같다. 우선 국제형사재판소의 설치는 이전에 설치된 임시재판소와 비교해 볼 때 대단한 업적이라 할 수 있다. 국제형사재판소의 존재만으로도 국제관계에서 각국의 형법과 형사소송법 이론 및 제도적 발전에 지대한 의미를 가질 수 있고, 국제인권법과 관련해서도 중요한 가치가 있다. 그러나 여전히 국가의 이익과 국제형사사법정의의 실현이라는 문제 사이에 존재하는 논쟁과 긴장관계가 지속되고 있기 때문에, 이를 해소하면서 국제적 핵심범죄를 저지른 범죄자를 처벌하면서도 동시에 그들의 인권보호를 도모하기 위한 노력이 매우 절실한 실정이다. 국제형사사법정의의 합리적·효율적 실현을 위해서는 일차적으로는 ICC 규정과 이행법률의 충돌문제에 대한 정비작업이 선행되어야 한다. 그리고 ICC 규정과 이행법률에 의한 국제협력이 수직적 모델에 가까울수록 실효성이 더 클 것임에도 불구하고, 이를 실현하지 못한 주된 이유는 협력의무와 다른 조약이나 국제관습법상 의무의 저촉, 협력의무와 국내형사법질서의 저촉, 그리고 협력의무와 국가주권에 밀접하게 관련된 권리 또는 이익의 저촉이라고 분석된 바 있다. 이러한 문제는 결국 다른 의미의 법질서구축과 충돌의 문제로 이해될 수 있으며, 각각의 규정에 대한 효율적 조정을 통해 해결될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 예컨대 자국민불인도원칙의 배제를 ICC 규정에 명시한 것은 개별국가의 자국민보호원칙에 대한 효율적 조정으로 평가받고 있다. 이러한 사례와 같이 국제적 핵심범죄에 대한 국제형사재판소의 실효성을 확보하기 위해서는 국제형사사법공조와 관련된 ICC 규정과 이행법률 간에 일정한 범위에서 수직적 체계의 구축이 필요불가결한 것으로 보인다. 국제형사범죄에 대한 대응수단으로서 세계주의의 도입이 지속적으로 논의되고 있을 뿐만 아니라 점점 더 다양한 방식으로 확대되어가고 있는 실정이다. 그러나 새로운 입법을 통한 세계주의의 적용만 고려할 것이 아니라 현행법률, 즉 대다수 국가에 대해 구속력을 발휘하고 있는 ICC 규정과 이행법률의 수직적 체계화를 통해 올바른 법적용을 도모하는 것도 정의로운 국제질서의 확립에 지대한 기여를 할 것이다. The purposes of this study are to point out the problems of international cooperation in criminal justice with International Criminal Court against the core crimes and to propose the improvement plan of those problems, through examining the main contents of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the implementation of domestic law. The main contents of this study are summarized as follow: First of all, the establishment of `International Criminal Court` is a very outstanding achievement compared to the previous establishment of `temporary international criminal court`. Just by its existence, ‘International Criminal Court` has tremendous meaning in the theoretical and institutional progress of criminal law and criminal procedure law of each country in perspective of international relations. It also is of great value when it comes to international human rights law. But still, because of the controversy and tension that lies between a country`s benefit and execution of international criminal judicature justice still remains, to settle this problem and the effort to promote protection of human rights while penalizing criminals that carried out international core crimes is much in need. To carry out International Criminal Judicature justice rationally and efficiently, maintenance of the clash between the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court and the implementation of domestic law has to come first. Additionally, even though it would be more effective if international cooperation, fallowing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the implementation of domestic law, is closer to a vertical model, but isn`t. The analyzed reason for that are the infringement of the obligation that comes from other treaty and customary international law, infringement of cooperative duty and order of domestic criminal law, and infringement of the rights or benefits that is closely related to cooperative duty and national sovereignty. These problems after all can be understood as a clash in making different law and order, and is seemed to be solvable by adjusting each regulation effectively. For example, clearly stating the exclusion of principle of its nationals burindo in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is deemed to be a effective adjustment for its citizens protection principles. Like the example, for International Criminal Court to gain effectiveness in international core crimes, it is inevitable to establish a definite range of vertical system between the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the implementation of domestic law, related to international cooperation in criminal justice. Not only is adoption of universalism as a mean of confrontation to international criminal offense is in controversy, it is expanding in more diverse ways. However, we should take into account that not only applying universalism by newly legislating, but planning a proper application of law by vertically systemizing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the implementation of domestic law will contribute greatly in establishing a righteous international order.

        • KCI등재

          보호관찰제도의 정비방안에 관한 일고찰

          최석윤(Choi Suk-Yoon) 한국형사정책연구원 2005 형사정책연구 Vol.62 No.-

          This study is to improve korean probation system and to suggest a outline for the such improvement of the system. In Korea, probation system was first introduced in 1989 to be applied to the juvenile criminals. Ever since the scope of application has been expanded to sexual assault criminal (1994), adult-type criminal (1997), and domestic violence criminal (1998). Probation system is known to be one of the most advanced means of enforcing criminal policy, whereby the criminals, instead of being put into prison, can be educated and guided under the direction and supervision of the probation officers while staying home or society in general, or place under the community service order whereby to be forced to provide non-paid community services or under the attendance center order whereby, for example, to be educated on the drug abuse and traffic law abiding. In its narrow meaning, the term "probation" is referred to as the direction or guidance of the probation officer itself, however, is often referred to as a broader definition that include the activities in the narrow term as well as the community service order and the attendance center order. Probation officers make an important contribution to the criminal justice process. Simply stated, their mission is to investigate and supervise offenders whom the courts have conditionally release to the community on probation or parole. By serving as the court's factfinder, controlling the risk offenders may pose to public safety, and providing offenders with correctional treatment, probation officers help ensure that persons previously convicted of crime a law-abiding lifestyle rather than further criminal behavior. Therefore, probation officers deliver services that benefit the court, the community, and the offender. There are, however, several defects in korean probation system. First of all, in order to realize the idea of diversion and the object of probation completely, it is inevitable to introduce pretrial services system into korean criminal justice system. Pretrial services system can be valuable resource for making significant improvements in the criminal justice system because it is used in the early stages of the criminal case process. Unnecessary detention before trial not only results in unnecessary jail costs, it also deprives defendants of their liberty. And then, in order to improve korean probation system, it is also necessary to expand the scope of application for pre-sentence investigation system to general sentencing.

        • KCI등재

          미국의 재판전서비스제도

          최석윤(Choi Suk-Yoon) 한국형사정책연구원 2005 형사정책연구 Vol.61 No.-

          This study is to introduce pretrial services system in U.S.A. and suggest an outline for the introduction of the system. Pretrial services system can be valuable resource for making significant improvements in the criminal justice system because it is used in the early stages of the criminal case process. Unnecessary detention before trial not only results in unnecessary jail costs, it also deprives defendants of their liberty. Therefore decisions about detaining or releasing defendants should balance the benefits of release and the risk of flight or threat to public safety. In 1961, the first pretrial services program in U.S.A., the Manhattan Bail Project, was established in New York City. Its purpose was to assist judges in making release decisions that were more consistent and less dependent on release through financial means. In subsequent years, hundreds of pretrial services programs have been established in rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions, finding homes in probation departments, court offices, and local jails and as independent county contractors. All 94 districts in the Federal court system and more than 300 localities now operate pretrial services programs, which use a whether to release or detain defendants pending further legal proceedings. Pretrial services officers in U.S.A. are situated at a crucial place in the federal criminal justice process - the very start. In fact, officers often are the first court representatives defendants encounter after their arrest. In general, officers' mission is to investigate defendants charged with a federal crime, recommend in a report to the court whether to release or detain the defendants, and supervise the defendants who are released to the community while they await their day in court. At the core of the day-to-day work of officers is the hallowed principle of criminal law that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Officers must balance this presumption with the reality that some persons - if not detained before their trial - are likely to flee or to threaten others. Defendant may pose danger to a person, such as a victim or a witness, or to the community - that is, a threat that the defendant may engage in criminal activity. The officer's job is to identify persons who are likely to fail to appear or be arrested if released, to recommend restrictive conditions that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in court and the safety of community, and to recommend detention when no such conditions exist. If the person does not pose such risk, the officer's mandate is to recommend to the court the least restrictive conditions that will reasonably assure that the person appears in court and poses no danger. Pretrial services officers in U.S.A. deliver services that benefit the court, the community, and the defendant. Their responsibilities require them to work not only with judges, magistrate judges, and other court professionals, but with U.S.A. attorneys, defence attorneys, state and local law enforcement agents, and treatment providers. In order to realize the idea of diversion and the object of probation completely, it is inevitable to introduce pretrial services system into korean criminal justice system.

        맨 위로 스크롤 이동