『국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 에 따른 양형자료의 수집 및 조사주체에 관한 연구』

• 영문명: 43)A Study on the Collection of Sentencing Guideline and the Parties of Presentence Investigation according to the Parties of Presentence Investigation according to「ACT ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL TRIALS」
• 발행기관: 한국형사소송법학회
• 저자명: 정응석(Jeong Oung Seok)
• 간행물 정보: 『형사소송 이론과 실무』제8권 제1호, 109~139쪽, 전체 31쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2016.06.30

국문 초록

어떤 사법제도라도 그 나라의 법률제도와 정치 및 사회환경, 문화, 국민들의 법의식 등에 의해서 발생하고 변화하는 것인 만큼 그 제도를 다른 나라에 도입하기 위해서는 많은 연구와 검토가 필요하다. 다만 양형인자의 조사내용은 수사단계, 공판단계, 형집행단계 등 다양한 절차에서 필요하다는 점을 주목할 필요가 있다. 예컨대 수사단계에서는 기소유예를 하는 경우, 공판단계에서는 보호관찰을 하는 경우, 형집행단계에서는 사회 내 처우와 병행하는 보호관찰의 부과 또는 가석방의 참작자료 등으로 활용되기도 한다. 결국 우리나라의 경우에도 국민참여재판상 양형자료의 수집・제출방식과 관련하여 양형기준제도의 도입에 따른 양형조사관 제도의 도입이 절대적으로 필요하며, 이 경우 기존의 법무부 소속인 보호관찰관을 활용하는 것이 타당하며, 양형자료 수집・제출방식과 관련해서는 유죄평결이 나올 가능성이 농후하거나 피고인의 자백 또는 당사자의 동의가 있으면 양형조사관에게 양형조사를 실시한 후, 배심원의 유죄평결이 있는 경우에 곧바로 양형심리에 들어가 검사와 변호인이 제출한 양형자료를 함께 검토하고, 배심원이 양형에 관한 의견을 개진하는 방식을 취하는 것이 가장 무난하다고 본다. 그리고 경찰・검찰에서 시작된 수사단계에서부터 재판을 거쳐 형집행에 이르기까지 전 과정을 전자화된 자료로 유통시켜 불필요한 업무처리 절차를 개선함으로써 정보화를 통한 예산 및 인력의 절감를 도모하며, 나아가 이러한 절감된 예산・인력의 유효적절한 재배치로 형사사법기관의 역량을 제고함으로써 각 형사사법기관으로 하여금 범죄수사와 인권보장이라는 실질적인 고유업무에 더욱 매진할 수 있도록 형사사법절차를 통합・관리하는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 그러나 무엇보다도 양형기준제도의 성패는 이를 준수하고자 하는 법관의 의지에 달려있다는 점은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않을 것이다.

영문 초록

The Sentencing standards in the criminal proceedings have a principal meaning for the condition of the defendant as well as for securing the public’s confidence. Because Sentencing can deprive you of a physical liberty, economic freedom or property. Thus, in light of the importance of appropriate sentencing and reasonable sentencing in the criminal trial, all intended to ensure fairness and reliability are the essential elements. Nevertheless, there has been continuous opposition and criticism on this matter, the debate over who is going to be in charge in regard to the part conflicting with the existing Presentence Investigation System has continued. Therefore, Sentencing scheme as part of an effort to improve the sentencing of the sentencing guidelines to reduce variation and increase transparency by disclosing the trust of the people you want to increase the punishment to the Supreme Court Committee on installing and setting sentencing guidelines for the concrete work was in progress, murder, bribery, sex offense, robbery, embezzlement, breach of trust, perjury, and eight kinds of possible false accusation that some have criminal sentencing guidelines for July 1, 2009 has since been implemented. But, Although the Sentencing Commission of Korea and Sentencing standards have been established through the partial reform of the Court Organization Act, the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law and the revision of the Probation Act etc., which regulates the principle parties, methods and procedures of sentence investigation, have failed to receive reform despite the need and has been abolished after the termination of office of the 17th-19th Members of Parliament. I think that Investigation System and its contents is a major issue. Because sentencing data, all the litigants that appear in the courtroom to review them under the premise that an investigation by the sentencing stage of research to test or inspection required by the probation officer by the sentencing of research investigating the procedures in principle to the sentencing court at the trial as a necessary complement to the sentencing court belonging to the investigator to examine the sentencing data to be the most efficient way. In anyway, a number of conclusions can be made when observing legislation of various countries. Firstly, in most of the countries, sentence investigations were carried out by probation officers from the Department of Justice. Secondly, the monopolizing of sentence investigation by the court via sentence investigators have been found to have lack of legal evidence, limits in practical application and other issues. Thirdly, although all methods of sentence investigation would have its advantages and disadvantages, the current enforcements by the court for sentence investigators to carry out sentence investigations risks violating the court's neutrality, disclosure of privacy of the accused when his/her guilt or innocence has not been established, violating personal rights and pre-exposure of the judge's mind which goes against the presumption of innocence. Since 1995, presentence investigations by probation officers prior to adjudication, through experience and professionalism, has led to successful establishment of sentence investigation on adult criminals. In addition, the utilization of probation officers during sentence investigation would lead to substantial decreases in the use of the national budget and prevent unnecessary expenditure of judicial cost. Therefore, in conclusion, sentence investigations carried out by the probation officers is the most appropriate and least straining method of assessment at this point in time. Namely, I think that the Sentencing standards based on legal regulations of the state sentencing guidelines in the criminal proceedings should fairly and objectively investigated by a probation officers(investigators) which are engaged in the Ministry of Justice at current stage.

목차

Ⅰ. 서설

Ⅱ. 외국의 입법례

Ⅲ. 양형조사관의 조사권한 및 임명주체

Ⅳ. 결론

키워드

양형기준 양형조사 양형조사관 보호관찰관 판결전조사 국민의 형사사재판 참여에 관한 법률 sentencing standard sentence investigation sentence investigator probation officer presentence investigation ACT ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL TRIALS