특정범죄가중법 제5조의4의 성격 및 해석에 관한 판례 법리

• 영문명: A Court Case Study on Art. 5-4 of the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act
• 발행기관: 한국형사판례연구회
• 저자명: 이경렬(Lee, Kyung– Lyul)
• 간행물 정보: 『형사판례연구』형사판례연구 제29권, 409~447쪽, 전체 39쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2021.06.30

영문 초록

Under the Art. 5-4 (5) of the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act, in relation to the Supreme Court s decision in 2019 Do 18947,([subject judgment]) those with a history of being imprisoned for three or more times for each of these following subparagraphs gets their punishemnt weighted when they commit those crimes again: Art. 329 to 331 of the Criminal Code, Art. 333 to 336 In the case of a crime under Art. 340 (1) (including an attempted offender) and a crime under Art. 362, It is a regulation that gives a weighted punishment according to the classification. The above [subject judgment] discusses the nature of Art. 5-4 (Aggravated Punishment for Frequent Robbery and Theft), which was amended to Act No. 13317 on January 6, 2016, in terms of its relatins to violations and habitual theft under the Criminal Law. Here, the Supreme Court understands the nature of the same article as “creating requirements for the composition of new content,” and judges that the punishment should be determined by applying the criminal offense regulations (Art. 35) of the General Criminal Law. In response, the judgment of the court below recognized this as a “special provision on the weighting of offenders” in the general rules, and judged that there was a violation of the application of the law in the judgment of the first trial that weighted off offenses in this case. The establishment of the new components in the Special Criminal Act will not necessarily be a special provision under the Criminal Law, but the introduction, establishment and amendment of Art. 5-4 of the Special Offer Act, which includes the legal provisions of this case, has been dealt with on several occasions with the issue of constitutionality. Thus, caution is needed in terms of its legal nature and interpretation. And therefore, it is necessary to assess the degree of punishment by comparing the punishment for each subparagraph of Art. 5-4 (5) of the current Special Act and the legal punishment for each criminal law for theft. Through a comparison of these punishments, it should be examined whether or not the statutory punishment in each subparagraph of Art. 5-4 (5) of the Special Act still implies reinforcement of severe punishment despite the intention of the Constitutional Court to decide on unconstitutionality. In other words, whether the fact that you were sentenced to three or more imprisonment sentences due to a criminal record of similar crimes is a legitimate reason for reapproving the application of the punishment provisions for similar crimes again under a statutory sentence that aggravates punishment for similar crimes committed within the crime period. The aggravated punishment under the law and the weighting of criminal offenses against it, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below, do not obscure the purpose of the Constitutional Court s decision to make unconstitutional of the old law, or function as a special reason to justify adding the statutory punishment to the general provisions as a special provision. They analyzed [subject judgment] to see if it could be done, and said that the jurisdiction of the case law of the old law era needs to be changed with the creation of new constitutional requirements.

목차

[대상판결] 대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2019도18947 판결

[평석]

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말

Ⅱ. 특가법 제5조의4 신설 및 개정 경과

Ⅲ. 관련 판례의 법리 검토

Ⅳ. 대상판결에 대한 분석

Ⅴ. 나가는 말

키워드

대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2019도18947 판결 특정범죄가중법 제5조의4 반복범행 누범 가중 상습절도범 상습절도와 주거침입의 죄수 관계 Supreme Court sentenced on May 14 2020 2019 Do 18947 Art. 5-4 of the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act Aggravated punishment by criminals with repeated offenses Repeated Theft The relationship between habitual theft and residential invasion