소년법상 화해권고제도의 운영방안과 문제점 = A Practical Plan of Reconciliation Recommendation System and its Problems under the Juvenile Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korean Juvenile Act 2007 introduced reconciliation recommendation system, thus it is possible for Juvenile court judges to take means for recommending reconciliation between juvenile offender and victim. Starting with the reconciliation recommendation system in the revised Juvenile Act,the necessity and importance of restorative justice ins on the increase.
The way of operating restorative justice in this system is under discussion.
Even though that system is started whit many critics and limitations,Article 25-3 of Korean Juvenile Act is meaningful to korean juvenile justice system because it laid practical groundwork for autonomous problem-solving to both parties.
This essay focuses on the characteristics of reconciliation recommendation system, its significance and operation plan of Seoul Family Court. In addition, problems with the current system is also briefly be discussed.
Deviated from retributive justice which is concentrated on offenders’punishment, restorative justice considers healing the harms of victims and a local community. The purpose of this is to recover the social solidarity and the safety of a community by voluntary participation of a communty and its members. It is difficult for current reconciliation recommendation not only to be said a true restorative justice, but also to do well in practice. Despite the debate on the concept, reconciliation recommendation system of korean juvenile Act may belong to the restorative Justice.
Regardless of the debate about the characteristics of system, current system has some problems as follows:Firstly, since conflict mediation can be conducted in court stage, it is hard to select the samples to apply restorative justice. Secondly, it is the judge who decides whether a party participates in communication for reconciliation. Moreover, problems are revealed such as imperfection of specific guidelines for concrete practice(preparing guideline is underway),how to keep mediation subjects and so on. Also there is no regulator to observe whether both parties perform mutual agreement or not.
To overcome some problems in this situation, several efforts are needed.
To revitalize this system, We have to try to operate restorative justice in the early stage and if possible, at each stage during the procedure.
Moreover, it is necessary to set up a regulator to check whether both parties perform mutual agreement or not. Above all, it is very strongly needed that adequate and appropriate material and human resources should be provided to this system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김은경, "회복적 소년사법 실천모델의 효과성 연구, In: 21세기 소년사법개혁의 방항과 과제(II)" 한국형사정책연구원 2008

2 김용세, "형사제재시스템과 회복적 사법" 한국형사법학회 (23) : 224-253, 2005

3 김성돈, "형사법상 회복적 사법의 가능성과 과제, In:21세기 형사사법개혁의 방향과 대국민 법률서비스 개선방안(ii)" 한국형사정책연구원 2004

4 이호중, "헌법재판소 판례로 본 행형과 수용자의 인권- 행형에 대한 헌법적 이해 -" 한국형사법학회 (22) : 343-373, 2004

5 천진호, "한국의 소년심판제도에 관한 연구" 한국비교형사법학회 10 (10): 555-580, 2008

6 이승현, "한국 소년사법에서 피해자배려의 문제 - 하해권고제도를 중심으로" 한국소년정책학회 13 : 131-157, 2009

7 김성언, "청소년 범죄 추세(1998-2008)의 분석과 대응 방안의 탐색" 한국소년정책학회 13 : 1-50, 2009

8 이영훈, "재판에서의 회복적 사법의 현재와 미래" 법학연구소 14 (14): 69-86, 2009

9 원혜욱, "외국의 회복적 사법제도의 고찰을 통한 우리나라 소년사법정책의 방향" 한국피해자학회 14 (14): 307-324, 2006

10 최오수, "소년보호정책의 회복적 사법도입에 관한 연구" 8 : 2008

11 이영호, "소년보호기관에서의 회복적 사법 실천 방안" 법학연구소 14 (14): 87-110, 2009

12 천진호, "소년보호관찰대상자 처우의 개선방안" 법학연구소 (48) : 421-456, 2010

13 김은경, "소년법상 화해제도의 문제점과 개선방안 - 경찰단계 및 법원단계 회복적 사법 실험연구 결과를 중심으로" 한국소년정책학회 13 : 51-95, 2009

14 선의종, "소년법상 화해권고제도의 실질적 운영방안, In:가사재판연구 II" 서울가정법원 가사재판연구회 2011

15 선의종, "소년법상 화해권고제도의 실질적 운영방안" 법학연구소 15 (15): 35-49, 2010

16 차경환, "소년법상 피해자의 지위" 대구지방변호사회 24 : 2009

17 원혜욱, "소년법 개정안 개요"

18 유진식, "소년법" 육법사 1982

19 김동림, "소년법" 화성사 2000

20 김성돈, "새로운 범죄대응전략으로서 화해조정체계구축(I)" 한국형사정책연구원 2008

21 김일수, "사회내 처우를 통한 형벌의 다양화방안, In:형사법 개정연구자료집 III-1" 법무부 2010

22 이진국, "사회내 제재수단의 도입 및 활성화방안" 한국형사정책연구원 2004

23 오영근, "개정소년법의 과제와 전망" 한국형사정책연구원 19 (19): 5-24, 2008

24 이진국, "개정 소년법상 회복적 사법제도에 관한 비판적 검토" 한국피해자학회 17 (17): 355-375, 2009