양형의 합리화를 위한 판결전조사제도의 개선방안

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The human race has arranged various ways for fair and rational judgments on the examination of an offense. There are discussions in diverse perspectives on statement of objectives of a punishment, new principles of a punishment, improved treatment within society, a new short-term imprisonment system, establishment of a guideline on the examination of an offense, a conference for the examination of an offense, dichotomization of the procedure in a public trial, rationalization of the prosecutors demand of punishment, Presentence Investigation System, and so forth. This study focused on the Presentence Investigation System among various ways for rational judgment on the examination of an offense. Imposing a punishment on a person who socially infringed on the benefit and protection of the law is established through the examination of an offense of the judiciary based on criminal procedures. The procedure of an examination of an offense enables the judiciary to specifically determine the kind and amount of the punishment for the accused. While it is important not to victimize a innocent person with a punishment, the examination of an offense to decide which punishment shall be laid on the guilty can be more important. The Presentence Investigation System originates from sentencing by the judiciary based on scientific investigation into the accused by probation officers in the United States, which developed along with the Probation system. Various countries currently apply this widely. This is a system to scientifically investigate the personality and environment of the person found guilty in the criminal procedure and to use this as a basic material of the examination of an offense. Several problems arise in operation of the Presentence Investigation System. First, in terms of implementation, the limit of investigative workforce and time confines investigation only to interviews with the accused and the family while verification at the site or valuation by professionals do not properly take place. Second, while investigation takes place for adults and juveniles both in terms of implementation, legislatively, the subject and scope of the investigation before sentencing are limited to juvenile criminals that are subject to community treatment. Third, contents and forms of investigation are insufficient. Thus, methods to improve the Presentence Investigation System for rationalization of the examination of an offense include the following based on them. The institute for investigation before sentencing needs to have a sufficient budget and experts. The investigation shall be obligatory for not only the subject of community treatment but also all criminal offenses. The subject of investigation before sentencing shall be extended to adult criminals in terms of legislation. Forms and contents of investigation shall be more professionalized. Also rationalization shall be promoted by having the point of time for the Presentence Investigation begin after decision of guiltiness.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론
• Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰
• 1. 양형의 의의
• 2. 양형 합리화 방안으로서의 판결전조사제도
• Ⅲ. 판결전조사제도의 운영현황 및 문제점
• 1. 판결전조사의 활용현황
• 2. 판결전조사 담당기관
• 3. 판결전조사의 대상 및 범위
• 4. 판결전조사 절차
• 5. 판결전조사의 내용
• 6. 현행 판결전조사제도의 문제점
• Ⅳ. 선진국의 판결전조사제도
• 1. 미국
• 2. 영국
• 3. 독일
• 4. 기타
• 5. 시사점
• Ⅴ. 판결전조사제도의 개선방안
• 1. 판결전조사기관의 전문인력 확보
• 2. 판결전조사의 의무화
• 3. 판결전조사대상에 성인범 확대 입법 보완
• 4. 판결전조사 양식 및 내용의 전문성 제고
• 5. 판결전조사 개시의 합리화
• Ⅵ. 결 론
• 참 고 문 헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박상기, "형의 집행유예에 관한 연구"

2 오병주, "형의 집행유예 및 양형의 적정성 확보방안에 관한 검토"

3 박상기, "형사정책"

4 배종대, "형사정책" 홍문사 2006

5 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2008

6 강남주, "현행판결전조사제도에 관한 고찰" 36 : 2003

7 최준, "합리적 양형구조에 관한 연구" 경상대학교 2006

8 이정국, "판결전조사제도의 확대 도입 방안"

9 이형재, "판결전조사제도의 유용성에 관한 고찰"

10 이형재, "판결전조사제도의 유용성과 확대시행 방안연구" 10 : 1999

11 이창한, "판결전조사제도의 비교법적 고찰" 법무부 12 : 2001

12 이상철, "판결전조사제도에 관한 연구"

13 최석윤, "판결전조사제도" 12 (12): 2000

14 서울보호관찰소, "판결전조사 사례연구집"

15 윤승운, "특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 적용상의 문제점과 대안" 2006

16 문희태, "우리나라 양형의 실태와 합리화 방안" 충남대학교 2006

17 김성환, "우리 양형체계에 관한 비판적 고찰"

18 최석윤, "양형의 형벌이론적 기초와 합리화방안" 고려대학교 1996

19 오영근, "양형의 합리화에 관한 연구"

20 남선모, "양형의 합리화 방안에 관한 연구" 동국대학교 1998

21 오병주, "양형의 실태 및 합리화방안에 관한 연구" 한양대학교 2000

22 최정학, "양형의 규범논리" 한국형사정책학회 17 (17): 251-279, 2005

23 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제" 한국형사정책연구원 11 (11): 2000

24 이호중, "양형기준제의 도입과 양형위원회의 설치"

25 하태훈, "양형기준과 양형과정의 합리화방안" 9 : 1996

26 이천현, "양형 관련규정의 정비방안"

27 김신호, "성인범에 대한 판결전조사제도 전면도입을 위한 연구" 경기대학교 2008

28 김선주, "보호관찰제도에 관한 연구" 4 : 1988

29 김혜경, "법정형 체계의 정비방안"

30 손동권, "범행비례적 양형론에 관한 연구"

31 박홍우, "미국 연방의 양형기준제도"

32 Home Office, "national standard for the supervision of offenders in the community"

33 Easton,Susan, "Sentencing and Punishment"

34 Allen,Harry E, "Probation and Parole in America" The Free Press 1992

35 Abadinsky,Howard, "Probation and Parole" Prentice-Hall 1994

36 Homer,Charles T, "Group Procedures in Sentencing:A Decade of Practice"

37 Koh,Steve Y, "Establishing the Federal Judge's Role in Sentencing"

38 Baur,F, "Einfuhrung in das Recht Bundesrepublik Deutschland" Munchen 1982

39 Carmen,Rolando V, "Criminal Procedure-Law and Practice-" Wadsworth Publishing 1995

40 McCarthy,Belinda R, "Community-Based Corrections" Wadsworth Publishing 1997

41 Seebald, "Ausgeglichene Strafzumessung durch tatrichterliche Selbstkontrolle"