RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    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
    KCI등재

    소년법상 ‘보호처분에 해당할 사유’의 판단기준- 대법원 2024. 3. 13.자 2024모398 결정을 중심으로 - = Standards for Determining “Grounds for Protective Disposition” under the Juvenile Act

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A110121498

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This paper examines the standards for determining “grounds for protective disposition” under Article 50 of the Juvenile Act, focusing on the Supreme Court ruling delivered on March 13, 2024 (2024모398). The ruling is significant in that it comprehensively addressed the question of whether a protective or criminal disposition is appropriate within the dual-track juvenile justice system, which separates protective and criminal procedures.
    First, the Supreme Court clarified that although the determination of “grounds for protective disposition” lies within judicial discretion, such discretion is limited by the guiding principles of the Juvenile Act and the purpose of protective measures. Notably, the Court laid out specific considerations for cases involving co-offenders, emphasizing that the determination should not be based solely on whether the juvenile is unfit for protection. Instead, it should be based on a comprehensive evaluation, including the gravity of the offense, the victim’s sentiment, and social acceptability.
    Second, the ruling recognized the illegality of transferring a case to the juvenile division without proper investigation or hearing. It rightly observed that decisions on sentencing or disposition made without sufficient inquiry or without affording all parties involved an opportunity to express their views cannot contribute to the realization of the principles of juvenile protection.
    However, the ruling also raises serious challenges for juvenile justice practice. Under the current system, professional assessments regarding the necessity of protection are not being adequately conducted. Without such investigation or hearing, the core ideals of the Juvenile Act cannot be fulfilled. The introduction of a mandatory investigation order through legislative reform deserves serious consideration to improve the effectiveness of the current system.
    번역하기

    This paper examines the standards for determining “grounds for protective disposition” under Article 50 of the Juvenile Act, focusing on the Supreme Court ruling delivered on March 13, 2024 (2024모398). The ruling is significant in that it compre...

    This paper examines the standards for determining “grounds for protective disposition” under Article 50 of the Juvenile Act, focusing on the Supreme Court ruling delivered on March 13, 2024 (2024모398). The ruling is significant in that it comprehensively addressed the question of whether a protective or criminal disposition is appropriate within the dual-track juvenile justice system, which separates protective and criminal procedures.
    First, the Supreme Court clarified that although the determination of “grounds for protective disposition” lies within judicial discretion, such discretion is limited by the guiding principles of the Juvenile Act and the purpose of protective measures. Notably, the Court laid out specific considerations for cases involving co-offenders, emphasizing that the determination should not be based solely on whether the juvenile is unfit for protection. Instead, it should be based on a comprehensive evaluation, including the gravity of the offense, the victim’s sentiment, and social acceptability.
    Second, the ruling recognized the illegality of transferring a case to the juvenile division without proper investigation or hearing. It rightly observed that decisions on sentencing or disposition made without sufficient inquiry or without affording all parties involved an opportunity to express their views cannot contribute to the realization of the principles of juvenile protection.
    However, the ruling also raises serious challenges for juvenile justice practice. Under the current system, professional assessments regarding the necessity of protection are not being adequately conducted. Without such investigation or hearing, the core ideals of the Juvenile Act cannot be fulfilled. The introduction of a mandatory investigation order through legislative reform deserves serious consideration to improve the effectiveness of the current system.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼