최근 마약류 범죄 변화 양상에 따른 실태 및 치료처우방안 연구(Ⅱ): 마약류사범 치료재활처우

국문 초록 (Abstract)

1. 연구 개요
2023년 8월 마약류관리법 개정으로 ‘마약류관리기본계획’ 수립이 법제화되고, 2025년 1월, 제1차 기본계획이 발표되며 공급차단과 수요관리 정책의 균형적 접근이 시도되었다. 본 연구는 특히 마약류사범 치료재활처우 정책의 개선안을 도출하는 데 목적을 두었다. 연구는 행정통계와 선행연구 검토, 국제동향 및 이론적 검토, 해외사례(미국, 영국, 호주, 일본) 조사, 교정시설 마약류사범 설문조사 및 심층면담, 지역사회 마약류중독자와 가족, 실무전문가 심층면담, 관련 법률 검토로 구성되었다.

2. 마약류사범 처우 쟁점 문헌검토 및 전문가 의견 수렴
UNODC와 WHO는 약물중독자의 치료재활이 궁극적으로 사회재통합을 목표로 해야 함을 강조한다. 사법재활(criminal rehabilitation)은 범죄자의 변화를 유도하는 개입을 전제로 하며, 단순 구금은 재활의 범주에 포함되지 않는다. 마약류사범에 대한 단순 징역형은 범죄 책임을 묻는 효과는 있으나 중독질환의 특성상 재범 방지에는 한계가 있다. 2024년 기준 약 23,022명의 마약류사범이 단속되었으나, 사법재활적 개입 대상은 약 3분의 1 수준에 불과하며, 그마저도 약물검사를 동반한 보호관찰이나 단기 교육이 대부분이어서 실효성이 제한적이다.
주요 쟁점으로 마약류사범의 치료·재활 참여 노력이 그들의 형선고에 보상체계로 작동할 수 있는 사법체계 구조 전환이 필요하며, 사법재활 사각지대 해소방안 마련, 수사·재판 단계의 사각지대 해소 방안 마련, 단순 투약·소지 사범에 대해 형벌보다 치료·재활체계로의 전환, 공급사범에 대한 사법재활 개입 강화, 인력·예산 확보를 위한 기금화 방안, 사법재활 집행시 중간제재조치 마련, 정부조직 개편에 따른 후속 대응 방안 검토 등이 제기되었다.

3. 마약류사범 처우 패러다임 변화와 국제 동향
마약류 정책의 접근법은 금지, 피해 감소, 의료화, 합법화-규제, 비범죄화 등으로 구분된다. 최근 세계적 동향은 형사처벌 위주에서 의료화, 비범죄화, 치료·재활 기회 확대, 사회적 연계지원 강화로 다변화되고 있다. 미국, 캐나다, 호주는 약물법원 제도를 확대 운영 중이며, 포르투갈은 약물중독근절위원회(CDT)를 통한 전향적 비범죄화 정책으로 주목받고 있다. 스위스의 헤로인 보조치료 프로그램, 네덜란드의 게오독벨리드 관용 정책, 독일의 ‘처벌 대신 치료’ 원칙, 영국의 단계별 치료서비스 체계 등이 공중보건적 관점의 치료·재활로 전환되고 있음을 보여준다.
한국은 처벌위주 정책이 우선하나 최근 치료·재활적 접근이 조금씩 확대되고 있다. 정책 실효성 제고를 위해 약물법원 근거 법률 마련, 재활치료를 위한 양형 완화, 자발적 치료에 대한 법적 보장 등 법률적 개선과 함께 치료 연속성 강화, 증거 기반 치료 확대, 치료 거버넌스 구축 및 투자 확보, 사후관리 및 모니터링 충실도 보장의 대안 마련이 필요하다.

4. 미국 사례 검토와 시사점
미국은 마약류 문제를 공중보건 위기로 규정하고 치료·재활 및 예방 정책을 추진하고 있다. 「Second Chance Act 2007」은 출소자 사회복귀 지원을, 「Fair Sentencing Act 2010」은 양형 완화와 판사 재량권 강화를, 「First Step Act 2018」은 비폭력 마약류사범에 대한 형량 완화와 재활 프로그램 확대, 조기석방을 규정한다.
주정부 차원에서도 캘리포니아의 「주민발의안 36호(Proposition 36)」, 켄터키주의 「케이시 법」, 텍사스주의 사법부 중심 치료 전환 등 다양한 개혁이 시도되고 있다. 형사사법체계 단계별로 경찰단계의 LEAD와 PAARI, 검찰·법원 단계의 치료조건부 기소유예와 약물법원, 교정단계의 RDAP, 치료공동체 프로그램 등이 운영된다. 미국 사례는 “흑색 가운 효과”에 기반한 적극적 사법 개입, 선제적 법규정 마련, 사람 중심 정책 추진의 필요성을 시사한다.
5. 영국 사례 검토와 시사점
영국은 ‘From harm to hope’ 10년 중장기 전략을 통해 마약류 문제에 종합적으로 대응하고 있다. 「형사사법법(Criminal Justice Act 2003)」에 근거하여 중범죄자는 엄격히 처벌하되, 저위험·비중대 범죄자에게는 재활중심 처분을 적용한다. 지역사회명령(Community Order), 집행유예명령(Suspended Sentence Order)에 약물재활조건(Drug Rehabilitation Requirement, DRR)을 부과하여 사법재활을 실현한다.
형사사법통합지원팀(Criminal Justice Integrated Team, CJIT)이 다학제간 지원을 제공하며, 형사사법약물전문가(Criminal Justice Drug Workers)가 지원한다. 경찰은 약물검사(DToA)를 통해 CJIT로 연계하고, 법원은 DRR을 부과하며, 교정시설은 약물회복강화 생활동 ‘ISFLs’를 운영하고, 출소전후 ‘Through-the-Gate’ 등의 프로그램을 통해 사회복귀를 지원한다. 영국의 집중 감독 법원(Intensive Supervision Courts, ISCs)은 단순한 법원 기능을 넘어 대상자의 회복과 사회복귀를 적극 지원한다. 영국 사례는 사법 전 단계에서의 치료개입, 치료형 처분제도 활용, 출소 및 지역사회 복귀 단계에서의 연속적 개입, 연령별 맞춤형 처우 체계 마련의 필요성을 시사한다.

6. 호주 사례 검토와 시사점
호주는 ‘국가 약물 전략 2017-2026’을 통해 수요, 공급, 피해 감소의 균형적 전략을 추진하며 형사사법시스템의 치료서비스 전환을 지향한다. 약물 및 알코올 포럼 장관부(Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum, MDAF) 중심의 보건, 사법, 법집행 부문 공동 거버넌스를 강조하며, 연방·주·지방정부가 협력한다.
NSW 주의 사례를 보면, 경찰 단계의 조기약물전환프로그램(Early Drug Diversion Initiative, EDDI)과 대마 주의 처분(Cannabis Cautioning Scheme, CSS), 기소·재판단계의 MERIT(Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment) 프로그램, 약물법원의 강제약물치료구금(Compulsory drug treatment detention) 명령 등이 운영된다. 약물법원의 다학제팀이 프로그램 참여 적합성을 평가하고, 법원이 이를 고려하여 강제치료명령구금을 선고할 수 있다. 호주 사례는 형사사법체계 전단계에 걸친 전환지원과 유인책 마련, 지역사회 기반 협력체계 구축, 체계화된 지역사회 연계 프로그램, 청소년 우선지원, 증거기반 접근의 필요성을 시사한다.
7. 일본 사례 검토와 시사점
일본은 최근 대마단속법을 개정하여 의료목적 활용 가능성을 확보하고 산업용 대마 재배 제도를 정비하는 한편, 대마초 사용행위를 처벌의 대상으로 하여 단순 호기심으로 대마를 투약하는 행위도 강력히 규제하는 정책을 명확히 하였다.
주요 제도로 ‘형의 일부 집행유예제도’가 있으며, 이는 약물법상 대상자가 누범자일 경우에도 적용 가능하여 중독 범죄의 특성을 반영한다. 교정시설에서는 ‘약물의존 이탈지도’를 통해 재사용 방지 지식을 습득하도록 지도하며, 여성 의존증 수형자를 위한 전문센터를 운영한다.
출소 전후에 보호관찰소, 지방갱생보호위원회, 형사시설, 의료기관, 민간지원단체(DARC, NA 등)가 연계하여 단절 없는(seamless) 지원을 제공한다. 보호관찰소는 ‘약물재남용방지프로그램’을 실시하며, 민간 약물의존증재활시설에 대상자를 위탁한다.
일본 사례는 시설내처우와 사회내처우의 연속성, 다기관 협력체계 구축, 회복자중심 민간기관의 역할에 대한 함의를 제공한다.

8. 교정시설 마약류사범 설문조사
교정시설 마약류사범 541명을 대상으로 한 설문조사 결과, 응답자의 85.1%가 마약류 사용 경험이 있었으며, 주종 약물 1순위는 필로폰(60.5%)이었다. 최초 사용 연령은 평균 27.6세였고, 사용 이유는 쾌락·기분전환, 주변 권유, 불안·우울·외로움 등이었다. 약물폐해인식(SAS) 점수는 평균 6.84점으로 병식과 치료 필요성 인식이 뚜렷했으며, 79.9%가 단약을 시도했으나 단약 기간은 6개월 이하가 가장 많았다.
대상자들은 형사사법 경험에서 처벌보다 치료·회복 중심 접근을 선호했으며, 조건부 기소유예 확대에 높은 동의를 보였다. 중독·치료를 위한 평가시스템 도입, 마약류 전문 판사 배치, 재판 대기 중 치료·상담 제공, 가석방 심사 시 프로그램 참여 반영, 형기 감경 대신 사회내 치료 의무화 등에 높은 동의를 보였다. 출소 후에는 주거 지원, 일자리·직업훈련 연계, 지역 회복기관 연결 요구가 높았다.
정책 제언으로 교정시설 내 체계적 사법재활 개입 강화, 형사사법 절차 내 마약류사범 치료·재활 환경 전방위 배치, 약물법원 및 마약전문판사 제도 도입 논의, 출소후 사회적자본 연계 활용 방안이 제안되었다.
9. 교정시설 마약류사범 심층면담
교정시설 수용 중인 마약류사범 12명을 대상으로 심층면담을 실시하였다. 형사사법 단계별 경험에서 경찰 수사는 검거 실적 확보에 치중하여 치료·재활 정보 제공이 부족하며, 검찰·법원 단계에서는 인간적 대화가 재활 의지를 고취하는 긍정적 사례도 있었으나 치료·재활에 관심 있는 판사를 만나지 못한 부정적 경험도 보고되었다.
보호관찰은 형식적 관리로 인식되며, 교정시설 내에서 마약 관련 정보가 오히려 확산될 수 있어 범죄력과 유형별 분리 수용의 필요성이 제기되었다. 출소 후 재사회화 과정에서 생활고와 주거 불안정, 사회적 지지체계 부재, 고용 제한 등이 재범을 유발하는 요인으로 언급되었다.
면담참여자들은 처벌 중심 접근의 한계를 지적하고 치료적 개입을 요구했으며, 일부는 징역형보다 장기간 의무 치료를 감내할 수 있다고 응답했다. 시사점으로 형사사법 단계 치료·재활 정보연계 시스템 제도화, 형사처분의 일관성 확보, 교정시설 분리 수용 방안 마련, 프로그램 다양화와 전담시설 확대, 중간처우체계 마련, 사회적 인식개선과 예방을 위한 언론 역할 강조가 도출되었다.

10. 지역사회 마약류중독자, 가족, 실무전문가 심층면담
지역사회 마약류중독자 10명, 가족 5명, 실무전문가 4명을 대상으로 심층면담을 실시하였다. 마약류중독자들은 형사사법체계 경험에서 경찰 단계에서 자수를 하는 경우 경찰 배려를 경험하기는 하였으나, 그것이 치료동기로 이어지지는 않는 것으로 보였다. 수사과정 중 다양한 변수로 수사결과가 달라지는 구조적 한계도 발견되었다.
경찰단계에서 법적 절차의 비일관성과 불평등 경험이 조사 회피를 강화하는 것으로 보였다. 검찰 조사 단계에서는 범죄 행위를 과소평가하는 태도를 보였으며, 기소유예를 이득으로 여기거나 당연한 결과로 인식하였다. 재판 과정도 대부분 단순 처벌 과정으로 인식했고, 1심과 2심 사이, 형 확정과 보호관찰 개시 사이의 공백기에 재범이 빈번했다. 교정시설 수용 경험자는 단순 격리나 처벌이 아닌 회복을 지원하는 수용환경 변화와 조건부 가석방 제도 확대를 필요로 했다. 보호관찰의 경우, 관리기능은 있으나 실효성에 한계가 있었고, 수강명령 교육은 전반적으로 부정적 평가를 받았다. 치료보호기관은 특정 병원 쏠림 현상과 의료진 전문성 부족이 지적되었고, 교정시설과 지역사회 치료연계 공백이 발견되었다.
지역사회 전문가들은 사법체계와 지역사회치료체계의 연계가 행정절차적 통보에 머물러 있다고 지적하였다. 치료진은 재판과정에서 회복지원보다 양형자료 준비에 치중하게 되고, 교정시설에 수용 중인 대상자에 대해서는 정보접근의 제약으로 치료재활 지원이 어렵다고 보고하였다. 보호관찰, 수강명령, 치료명령의 실효성은 미약하며, 치료보호기관은 특정 병원으로 마약류중독자가 집중되는 현상을 지적하며 일반 정신과 병의원으로의 확대, 환자 분리가 필요하다고 지적하였다. 마약퇴치운동본부와 중독관리통합지원센터는 업무 차별성이 없고, 직업재활·주거지원 등이 부족하며, 민간단체는 편향성, 윤리문제, 불투명한 예산운영 등의 한계를 보인다고 분석하였다.
시사점으로 수사 초기 사법재활 개입 근거 지침 마련, 선고전 개입 방안 검토, 효과적 교정시설 프로그램의 비용편익 검증과 재원 확보, 마약류사범 특성별 분리수용 및 환경위해 요인 관리, 교육 프로그램 품질관리, 치료보호제도 접근성 강화, 사법-지역사회 간 보건의료체계 정보 연계, 지역사회 인프라 확대와 민간단체 역량 강화가 도출되었다.

11. 법률적 쟁점과 개선안
마약류사범 처우 관련 현행 법령은 「마약류관리법」, 「치료감호법」, 「보호관찰법」 등이 있다. 한국은 엄중한 처벌을 원칙으로 하나 단순 투약사범에게는 치료·재활 기회를 부여하고 있다. 그러나 최근 온라인 마약 유인·권유 행위 처벌, 미성년자 대상 가중처벌 등 처벌 수위는 높아지는 반면 치료·재활 접근 개선은 미흡하다.
「마약류관리법」의 주요 쟁점은 금지 처벌규정의 과도한 세분화, 의료용마약류 규제의 합법·불법 경계 모호성, 대마규제의 폐쇄성, 마약 종류별 처벌 수위의 불합리성이다.
처우 문제점으로는 처벌 위주 접근의 한계, 치료체계 미흡과 기관간 단절, 수강·이수명령의 투약사범 한정, 치료명령·치료감호 제도의 저조한 활용, 치료감호 청구권자의 검사 한정, 보석제도의 치료·재활 접근 부족, 재범자의 사회내 치료 기회 박탈, 가석방제도의 치료프로그램 연계성 저하 등이 지적된다.
개선방안으로 마약전담재판부 도입, 치료기회제공 보석제도, 형의 일부집행유예제도, 수강명령 대상 확대, 치료명령 집행 확대, 치료조건부 가석방 제도 법제화, 치료감호 청구권자 확대, 경찰관 신청에 의한 치료보호 임시조치, 마약류중독자 회복지원 법률 입법 등이 제안되며, 이를 위해 관련 법개정이 요구된다.

12. 마약류사범 처우 개선과제
유엔마약범죄사무소(UNODC)와 세계보건기구(WHO)는 마약류 문제 대응에 치료·재활 개입의 중요성을 강조한다. 형사사법체계의 궁극적 목적인 재범방지를 위해서는 징벌적 형벌만으로 부족하며 치료와 재활 프로그램을 통한 사법재활 개입이 필요하다. 투약-공급 범죄의 상호 교차 가능성을 고려하면 투약사범뿐 아니라 공급사범도 사법재활 대상에 포괄해야 한다. 2024년 기준 연간 약 2~3만명이 마약류사범으로 단속되지만, 형사사법 각 단계에서 치료·재활적 개입 없이 방치되는 사각지대가 존재한다. 이러한 사각지대는 법·제도 부재, 기관 간 연계 실패, 성과지표 왜곡이라는 구조적 요인에서 비롯되며, 재범·재발의 악순환을 재생산한다.
형사사법체계 사각지대를 해소하고 경찰-검찰·법원-교정·보호-지역사회로 이어지는 사법재활 연속체(continuum on criminal rehabilitation) 구축을 위해 각 단계별로 부여된 정책과제를 해결해야 한다. 경찰 단계는 범죄예방의 ‘골든타임’이므로 치료기관 연계 지침 개발 및 교육, 치료보호 의뢰 및 임시조치 권한 부여가 필요하다. 기소 및 재판 단계에서, 처분/선고 전 치료·재활 참여를 동기화하고, 마약전담검사·전담판사 지정, 사법재활감독관 배치, 약물법원 설치를 준비해야 한다. 일본의 형의 일부집행유예제도 도입을 검토해 볼 수도 있다. 시설 내 법집행 단계에서는 회복동기수준에 따른 분리수용, 단계별 프로그램 개발, 국립법무병원-교정시설 간 이송 유연화, 조건부 가석방 활성화가 필요하다. 사회 내 법집행 및 사후관리 단계는 교육프로그램 메트릭스 체계 재편, 중간처우시설 확충, 법무보호복지공단 활용, 민간기관 육성, 함께한걸음센터의 코디네이터 기능 강화가 요구된다. 실효성 있는 정책 추진을 위해 「마약류관리법」 등 법 개정이 요구된다. 재원 마련을 위해 범죄수익금(추징금·벌금)으로 치료·재활 기금을 조성하는 방안을 고려해 볼 수 있다. 마지막으로 국가 마약류대응 전략 추진을 위한 거버너스 재편과 정보공유 시스템 구축이 요구된다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Study on the Current Status and Correctional Approaches in Response to Recent Changes in Drug-related Crime (Ⅱ): Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug offenders

Kim, Nang-hee·Ahn, Jae-kyung·Park, Seong-su·Park, Jong-eun
Park, Jin-sil·Son, Yeo-ok·Lee, Jae-seung·Lee, Jung-min· Jung, Eun-hee
Choi, Kyeong-chan·Kim, Na-yeon·Lee, Seung-uk


1. Overview of the Study
Following the August 2023 amendment to the Narcotics Control Act, the establishment of a “National Master Plan for Drug Control” was codified, and the first plan — announced in January 2025 — introduced a more balanced framework between supply reduction and demand management. The present study sets out formulate policy recommendations for improving treatment and rehabilitation interventions for drug offenders. The research design incorporates administrative data analysis, literature review, international trend assessment, case studies from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan, surveys and in-depth interviews with incarcerated drug offenders, interviews with community-based drug-dependent individuals and their families, consultations with practitioners, and review of relevant legislative frameworks.

2. Literature Review and Expert Consultations
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have emphasised that treatment and rehabilitation for individuals with substance use disorders must ultimately aim at social reintegration. The concept of criminal rehabilitation is predicated on the implementation of interventions that are designed to effect behavioural change. It is important to note that mere incarceration does not constitute rehabilitation. Custodial sentences are designed to serve a punitive function, but their preventive effectiveness is limited due to the chronic and relapsing nature of addiction. In 2024, the total number of individuals apprehended for drug-related offences was 23,022. Nevertheless, only a third of subjects received some form of criminal rehabilitative intervention. The majority of these interventions were probation with drug testing or short-term educational programmes, which were found to have limited efficacy.
The following key issues have been identified: the need for a judicial structure that rewards treatment engagement through sentencing incentives; the elimination of rehabilitative “blind spots” across investigative and adjudicatory stages; the diversion of first-time simple use/possession cases to treatment rather than criminal punishment; the strengthening of rehabilitative interventions for supply-related offenders; the securing of workforce and budgetary resources through fund-based mechanisms; the developing of intermediate sanctions to support rehabilitative supervision; and the preparation of institutional responses to ongoing governmental restructuring.

3. Paradigm Shifts and International Trends in Drug Policy
The range of drug policy approaches encompasses prohibition, harm reduction, medicalisation, legalisation-regulation, and decriminalisation. A global trend towards medicalisation, decriminalisation, expanded treatment and rehabilitation opportunities, and strengthened social support systems is reflected. The United States, Canada, and Australia have expanded drug court systems, while Portugal's Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDT) exemplify a forward-looking decriminalization model. The public health orientation evidenced in the following countries is demonstrated by the following examples: Switzerland's heroin-assisted treatment, the Netherlands' gedoogbeleid tolerance framework, Germany's “treatment instead of punishment” principle, and the United Kingdom's tiered treatment architecture.
Although South Korea continues to prioritise punitive policies, there has been a gradual expansion of treatment and rehabilitation approaches. In order to enhance the effectiveness of policy, there is a necessity for legal improvements to be implemented. Such improvements should include the establishment of a legal basis for drug courts, the mitigation of sentences for rehabilitation treatment, and the provision of legal guarantees for voluntary treatment. Furthermore, there is a necessity to develop alternatives to ensure treatment continuity, expand the provision of evidence-based treatment, establish treatment governance and secure investment, and ensure thorough aftercare and monitoring.

4. Review of International Cases and Policy Implications : U.S.
The United States has defined drug-related problems as a public health crisis and has pursued policies centered on treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention. The Second Chance Act of 2007 focuses on supporting the social reintegration of individuals released from incarceration, while the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 aims to reduce sentencing disparities and expand judicial discretion. Building on these reforms, the First Step Act of 2018 provides sentence reductions for nonviolent drug offenders, expands access to rehabilitation programs, and establishes mechanisms for early release.
At the state level, a range of reform initiatives have also been implemented, including California’s Proposition 36, Kentucky’s Casey’s Law, and Texas’s judiciary-centered diversion to treatment programs. Across the stages of the criminal justice system, various interventions are in operation: Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) and Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative (PAARI) at the policing stage; treatment-conditioned deferred prosecution and drug courts at the prosecutorial and judicial stages; and the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and therapeutic community programs at the correctional stage. Collectively, the U.S. experience highlights the importance of proactive judicial engagement grounded in the “black robe effect,” the advance establishment of legal frameworks, and the implementation of people-centered policy approaches.

5. Review of International Cases and Policy Implications : U.K.
The United Kingdom's 10-year national strategy, entitled “From Harm to Hope”, provides a comprehensive response to drug-related harms. In accordance with the provisions stipulated within the Criminal Justice Act 2003, individuals deemed to be serious offenders are subject to stringent penalties. Conversely, those considered to be low-risk or minor offenders are directed towards rehabilitative dispositions. Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders incorporate Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRR), thereby enabling structured criminal rehabilitation.
Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) are responsible for the delivery of multidisciplinary support, with assistance from Criminal Justice Drug Workers. Individuals are referred to CJITs through the medium of Drug Testing on Arrest (DToA); courts impose DRR; prisons operate drug recovery wings (ISFLs); and “Through-the-Gate” programs support reintegration. The Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) have been found to play an instrumental role in facilitating the recovery and reintegration of participants. The U.K. model emphasises the significance of treatment interventions across all justice stages, structured therapeutic sentencing, continuous post-release support, and age-responsive service frameworks.
6. Review of International Cases and Policy Implications : Australia
Australia pursues a balanced approach to drug policy through its “National Drug Strategy 2017–2026”, which integrates demand reduction, supply reduction, and harm minimization, while explicitly promoting a transition toward treatment-oriented services within the criminal justice system. The strategy emphasizes joint governance across the health, justice, and law enforcement sectors, coordinated through the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum (MDAF), with collaboration among federal, state, and local governments.
The experience of New South Wales (NSW) illustrates this framework in practice. At the policing stage, early diversion measures such as the Early Drug Diversion Initiative (EDDI) and the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme (CSS) are implemented. At the prosecution and adjudication stages, programs including Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) and compulsory drug treatment detention orders issued by drug courts are employed. Multidisciplinary drug court teams assess individuals' eligibility for program participation, and courts may impose compulsory treatment detention orders based on these assessments. Overall, the Australian case underscores the importance of diversion support and incentive structures across all stages of the criminal justice system, the development of community-based collaborative governance frameworks, institutionalized community linkage programs, the prioritization of youth-focused interventions, and the adoption of evidence-based approaches.

7. Review of International Cases and Policy Implications : Japan
Japan has recently revised the Cannabis Control Act to expand the scope for medical use while institutionalizing a regulatory framework for the cultivation of industrial hemp. At the same time, it has clarified a stringent policy stance by criminalizing cannabis use itself, thereby subjecting even experimental or curiosity-driven consumption to strict legal control.
A key institutional mechanism is the partial suspension of sentence system, which is applicable even to repeat offenders under drug-related statutes, reflecting the chronic and relapsing nature of substance use disorders. Within correctional institutions, individuals are required to participate in drug dependence disengagement guidance programs designed to prevent relapse by enhancing knowledge and awareness of substance dependence. Specialized treatment centers are also operated for incarcerated women with substance use disorders.
Before and after release, seamless support is provided through coordinated linkages among probation offices, regional rehabilitation committees, correctional institutions, medical providers, and private support organizations, including DARC (Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Centers) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Probation offices implement drug relapse prevention programs and refer individuals to community-based private rehabilitation facilities.
The Japanese case offers important implications regarding the continuity between institutional and community-based interventions, the construction of multi-agency collaborative systems, and the central role of recovery-oriented private organizations in supporting reintegration.

8. Survey of Drug Offenders in Correctional Facilities
A survey of 541 drug offenders incarcerated in correctional facilities revealed that 85.1% of respondents had prior experience with illicit drug use, with methamphetamine identified as the primary substance of use by 60.5% of respondents. The mean age of first drug use was 27.6 years. Reported reasons for initial use included pleasure-seeking or mood enhancement, peer influence, and psychological distress such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness. The average score on the Substance Use Awareness and Insight Scale (SAS) was 6.84, indicating a clear recognition of substance-related problems and the need for treatment. Although 79.9% of respondents reported attempts at abstinence, the most common duration of abstinence was six months or less.
With regard to their experiences within the criminal justice system, respondents expressed a stronger preference for treatment- and recovery-oriented approaches over punitive measures and showed high levels of agreement with the expansion of conditional deferred prosecution. There was substantial support for the introduction of assessment systems for addiction and treatment needs, the appointment of judges specializing in drug-related cases, the provision of treatment and counseling during pretrial detention, the consideration of program participation in parole decisions, and the replacement of sentence reductions with mandatory community-based treatment requirements. Following release, respondents reported strong needs for housing assistance, linkage to employment and vocational training opportunities, and connections to community-based recovery organizations.
Based on these findings, policy recommendations include strengthening systematic criminal rehabilitation interventions within correctional facilities, embedding treatment and rehabilitation infrastructures throughout criminal justice procedures, advancing discussions on the introduction of drug courts and specialized drug judges, and developing strategies to leverage social capital linkages in the post-release reintegration process.

9. In-Depth Interviews with Drug Offenders in Correctional Facilities
In-depth interviews were conducted with 12 individuals incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Across the stages of the criminal justice process, participants reported that police investigations tended to prioritize arrest performance, resulting in limited provision of information related to treatment and rehabilitation. At the prosecution and judicial stages, some participants described positive experiences in which human-centered communication with prosecutors or judges enhanced their motivation for rehabilitation; however, others reported negative experiences stemming from the absence of judges who demonstrated interest in treatment or recovery-oriented approaches.
Probation supervision was commonly perceived as a form of formalistic oversight rather than meaningful support. Within correctional facilities, participants noted concerns that drug-related information could circulate among inmates, thereby increasing exposure and risk, which led to calls for differentiated housing based on criminal history and offense type. During the post-release reintegration process, economic hardship, housing instability, lack of social support networks, and employment restrictions were identified as major factors contributing to recidivism.
Interviewees consistently pointed to the limitations of punishment-centered approaches and expressed strong demands for therapeutic interventions. Some participants indicated a willingness to undergo long-term mandatory treatment in lieu of custodial sentences. Based on these findings, key policy implications include the institutionalization of treatment and rehabilitation information linkage systems across criminal justice stages, the enhancement of consistency in criminal dispositions, the development of differentiated housing strategies within correctional facilities, the diversification of treatment programs and expansion of specialized facilities, the establishment of intermediate treatment and supervision frameworks, and an emphasis on the role of media in shaping social awareness and prevention efforts.

10. In-Depth Interviews with Community-Based Drug Users, Family Members, and Practitioners
In-depth interviews were conducted with 10 community-based individuals with substance use disorders, 5 family members, and 4 practitioners. Individuals with substance use disorders reported that, within their experiences of the criminal justice system, voluntary self-reporting at the policing stage was sometimes met with discretionary consideration by police officers; however, such experiences rarely translated into sustained motivation for treatment. Structural limitations were also identified, as investigative outcomes varied substantially depending on multiple contextual factors during the investigation process.
At the policing stage, perceived inconsistency and inequality in legal procedures appeared to reinforce avoidance of formal investigations. During prosecutorial questioning, participants tended to downplay the seriousness of their criminal behavior and often perceived deferred prosecution either as a benefit or as an expected outcome. Court proceedings were largely viewed as processes focused solely on punishment. Recidivism was reported to occur frequently during procedural gaps, particularly between first- and second-instance trials and between sentencing finalization and the commencement of probation supervision. Individuals with incarceration experience emphasized the need for custodial environments that support recovery rather than mere isolation or punishment, as well as the expansion of conditional parole systems. Probation supervision was perceived as having a monitoring function but limited practical effectiveness, while mandatory education programs received predominantly negative evaluations. Treatment and protective institutions were criticized for concentration in a limited number of hospitals, insufficient clinical expertise, and gaps in linkage between correctional facilities and community-based treatment services.
Community-based practitioners pointed out that linkages between the criminal justice system and community treatment systems largely remained at the level of administrative notification. Treatment providers reported that, during court proceedings, their roles were often confined to preparing sentencing-related documentation rather than supporting recovery, and that access to individuals incarcerated in correctional facilities was severely constrained, limiting the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services. The effectiveness of probation, mandatory education orders, and treatment orders was widely viewed as weak. Practitioners further emphasized the overconcentration of treatment-protection services in specific hospitals, calling for expansion into general psychiatric settings and improved patient differentiation. Organizations such as the Korean Association Against Drug Abuse (KAADA) and Integrated Addiction Management Centers were assessed as lacking functional differentiation, with insufficient capacity in vocational rehabilitation and housing support. Private organizations were also noted to face challenges related to ideological bias, ethical concerns, and non-transparent budget management.
Based on these findings, key policy implications include the development of clear guidelines for judicial rehabilitation interventions at the early investigative stage, the examination of pre-sentencing intervention mechanisms, cost-benefit evaluation and sustainable funding of effective correctional programs, differentiated housing strategies based on offender characteristics and management of environmental risk factors, quality control of educational programs, enhanced accessibility of treatment and protective services, integrated health and medical information-sharing systems between the criminal justice system and community services, expansion of community-based infrastructure, and capacity building for private-sector organizations.

11. Legal Issues and Proposed Reforms
The current legal framework governing the treatment and disposition of drug offenders in Korea consists primarily of the Narcotics Control Act, the Act on Medical Treatment and Custody, and the Act on Probation, etc. While Korea maintains a principle of strict punishment, limited opportunities for treatment and rehabilitation are provided to individuals convicted of simple drug use offenses. In recent years, however, punitive measures have been further strengthened—particularly with respect to online drug solicitation and inducement, as well as enhanced penalties for offenses involving minors—whereas corresponding improvements in access to treatment and rehabilitation have remained insufficient.
Key legal issues within the Narcotics Control Act include the excessive fragmentation of prohibitive and punitive provisions, ambiguity surrounding the legal–illegal boundary in the regulation of medical narcotics, the closed and restrictive nature of cannabis regulation, and the irrationality of sentencing severity across different categories of drugs.
From the perspective of offender treatment and disposition, several limitations have been identified: the structural constraints of punishment-centered approaches; underdeveloped treatment systems and institutional fragmentation; the restriction of mandatory education and completion orders to drug use offenders only; the limited utilization of treatment orders and medical custody measures; the exclusive authority of prosecutors to petition for medical custody; the lack of treatment- and rehabilitation-oriented considerations within bail decisions; the deprivation of community-based treatment opportunities for repeat offenders; and weak linkages between parole decisions and participation in treatment programs.
To address these issues, a series of legal and institutional reforms has been proposed. These include the establishment of specialized judicial divisions for drug-related cases; the introduction of bail systems conditioned on treatment participation; the adoption of partial suspension of sentence schemes; the expansion of eligibility for mandatory education orders; increased enforcement of treatment orders; the legislative institutionalization of treatment-conditioned parole; the expansion of eligibility to petition for medical custody beyond prosecutors; the introduction of provisional treatment-protection measures initiated by police officers; and the enactment of a comprehensive law to support recovery among individuals with substance use disorders. Implementation of these reforms would necessitate coordinated amendments to the relevant statutes.
12. Policy Tasks for Improving the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Offenders
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasize the central role of treatment and rehabilitation interventions in addressing drug-related problems. Given that the ultimate objective of the criminal justice system is the prevention of recidivism, punitive sanctions alone are insufficient; criminal rehabilitation interventions grounded in treatment and rehabilitation programs are essential. Considering the frequent overlap between drug use and drug supply offenses, criminal rehabilitation should encompass not only users but also individuals involved in drug supply. As of 2024, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 individuals are apprehended annually for drug-related offenses in Korea; however, significant blind spots remain across criminal justice stages where individuals are left without access to treatment or rehabilitation interventions.
To eliminate blind spots within the criminal justice system and to establish a continuum of criminal rehabilitation spanning the police, prosecution and courts, correctional institutions and probation, and the community, it is necessary to address the policy tasks assigned to each stage. The policing stage constitutes a “golden time” for crime prevention; therefore, the development of guidelines and training for linkage with treatment institutions, as well as the granting of authority to refer individuals to treatment-protection services and to impose provisional measures, is required.
At the prosecution and adjudication stages, it is necessary to incentivize participation in treatment and rehabilitation prior to prosecutorial disposition or sentencing, designate specialized prosecutors and judges for drug-related cases, deploy criminal rehabilitation supervisors, and prepare for the establishment of drug courts. Consideration may also be given to introducing a partial suspension of execution of sentence scheme, as implemented in Japan.
At the institutional law enforcement stage, policy measures should include differentiated housing based on levels of recovery motivation, the development of stage-specific programs, increased flexibility in transfers between the National Forensic Hospital and correctional facilities, and the activation of conditional parole.
At the community-based law enforcement and post-release management stage, reforms are required to restructure the metrics framework for educational programs, expand intermediate treatment and transition facilities, utilize the Korea Rehabilitation Agency, foster private-sector organizations, and strengthen the coordinator function of the Together-Step Center.
To ensure the effective implementation of these policies, amendments to relevant statutes, including the Narcotics Control Act, are required. In terms of financing, consideration may be given to establishing a treatment and rehabilitation fund using proceeds of crime, including confiscated assets and criminal fines. Finally, the reorganization of governance structures and the establishment of an information-sharing system are required to advance the national drug response strategy.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 연구내용과 연구방법 18
• 제2장
• 김낭희·이승욱
• 마약류사범 처우 현황과 쟁점 21
• 제1절