형사절차에 부합하는 형사소송법 체계 개편 방안 - 구속관련 규정을 중심으로 -

하태인 중앙법학회 2024 중앙법학 Vol.26 No.2

In order for the rights and interests of the people to be properly enjoyed, the people who must follow the Criminal Procedure Act must be able to easily understand what rights are guaranteed and what procedures the rights are specifically implemented through. This is why the Criminal Procedure Act should be a systematic and easy-to-understand law. However, it is difficult to say that the current criminal procedure law is faithfully performing its role. Because, the current criminal procedure law system is different from the order of criminal proceedings. In addition, procedural regulations focusing on the collection of evidence and investigation of evidence in the trial proceedings are in the general rules of Part 1, and the ‘investigation’ procedure in Chapter 1 of Part 2 is described in a way that applies mutatis mutandis to the trial procedures that follow in time. The core contents of the ‘trial’ procedure in Chapter 3 of Part 2 are stipulated in the general rules. In addition, the fact that regulations on criminal procedures are scattered in a number of special laws in addition to the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the basic law, is a problem. It is difficult to know the contents due to such a criminal procedure law system or applicable regulations. Therefore, even legal experts such as practitioners and scholars are difficult to clearly grasp the meaning, despite the fact that it is a ‘procedure law’ that informs the procedure of a criminal case. In order to solve this problem, it is required to completely revise the system and arrangement of provisions of the criminal procedure law in Korea. Small-scale revision measures such as the abolition of applicable regulations can be considered as an alternative, but it is necessary to consider fundamental measures in terms of systematic compilation of laws and enhancing understanding of criminal procedures. For a comprehensive and systematic study of the revision of the organization system of the criminal procedure law in Korea, it will be necessary to conduct a comparative study on foreign criminal procedure laws.

법과 문화 : 유기천 교수의 형법철학을 예로 하여

양천수 법과사회이론학회 2019 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.60

The issue of how law and culture are related has been an important topic in legal philosophy and sociology etc. However, researches on how the two are related to each other have not been actively carried out in the meantime. In this situation, it is worth noting that Professor Paul K. Ryu, who laid the foundation of Korean criminal law, analyzed the interaction between Korean culture and criminal law in the doctoral dissertation of Yale University Law School in 1958. For this reason, this article deals with how law and culture interact using Professor Paul K. Ryu’s philosophy of criminal law as an example. First, this article reviews the researches that have been done on the topic of the correlation between law and culture (II). In this section, this article examines what culture is, and where the relationship between law and culture matters. Next, this article examines the philosophy of criminal law proposed by Professor Paul K. Ryu (III). In particular, the discussion focuses on the ‘depth psychological human image’ and the ‘symbolische Strafrechtslehre’ emphasized by Professor Paul K. Ryu. The depth psychological human image was quite noted at that time. However, it is a pith that the ‘symbolische Strafrechtslehre’ has not been properly illuminated by Korean criminal law since then. For that reason, this article deals with the ‘symbolische Strafrechtslehre’ and its philosophical basis in particular. In addition, this article briefly examines what kind of criminal law methodology was used by Professor Paul K. Ryu. Based upon those discussions, this article analyzes how Professor Paul K. Ryu argues the interaction between Korean culture and criminal law (IV). First, the author looks at how he understands the concept of culture. According to this article, Professor Paul K. Ryu defines culture as ‘value pattern’ and ‘symbol’. Second, the author examines what characteristics of Korean culture are, according to Professor Paul K. Ryu. According to this, ‘shamanism’ and ‘impersonality’ can be mentioned as characteristics of Korean culture. In addition, it can be said that ‘communal norm’ plays an important role in Korean culture. Third, the author examines how Korean culture and criminal law interact with each other according to Professor Paul K. Ryu. He says that Korean culture and criminal law interact at two points. The first is ‘legislation’. In this process, ‘Rechtsgut’ plays an important role. The second is ‘interpretation’. Culture is involved in interpreting criminal law. Finally, this article comments on Professor Paul K. Ryu’s attempt as the end of the discussion (V). The author gives two meanings to his philosophy of criminal law. First, Professor Paul K. Ryu is a pioneer who accepted modern philosophy of language. Second, he is a criminal law professor who accepted the way of thinking of philosophical-ontological hermeneutics. However, the author evaluates the opinion on the characteristics of Korean culture suggested by Professor Paul K. Ryu as being no longer persuasive today. 법과 문화가 어떤 관계를 맺는가 하는 문제는 법철학과 법사회학 등에서 중요한 주제로 자리매김하고 있다. 그렇지만 양자가 구체적으로 어떻게 서로 관련을 맺는가에 관해서는 그 동안 연구가 활발하게 이루어진 편은 아니다. 이러한 상황에서 한국 형법학의 초석을 놓은 유기천 교수는 이미 1958년에 제출한 예일대학교 로스쿨 박사학위 논문에서 한국 문화와 형법이 어떻게 상호작용을 하는지를 분석했다는 점에서 주목할 필요가 있다. 이러한 이유에서 이 글은 유기천 교수의 형법철학을 예로 하여 법과 문화가 어떻게 상호작용을 하는지를 다룬다. 먼저 법과 문화의 상호연관성에 관해 그 동안 이루어진 연구를 개관한다(II). 여기에서는 문화가 무엇인지를 살펴보고, 어떤 지점에서 법과 문화의 상호연관성이 문제되는지 개관한다. 다음으로 유기천 교수가 제시한 형법철학을 살펴본다(III). 여기서는 특히 유기천 교수가 강조한 ‘심층심리학적 인간상’과 ‘상징주의 형법이론’을 논의의 중심으로 한다. 심층심리학적 인간상은 그 당시에도 꽤 주목을 받았지만, 상징주의 형법이론은 이후 제대로 조명을 받지 못했다는 점은 아쉬운 부분에 해당한다. 이러한 근거에서 이 글은 상징주의 형법이론이 무엇인지, 이것의 철학적 기초가 무엇인지를 다룬다. 이외에도 유기천 교수가 어떤 형법학 방법론을 원용했는지 간략하게 살펴본다. 이러한 논의를 토대로 하여 유기천 교수가 어떻게 한국 문화와 형법의 상호연관성을 규명하였는지 분석한다(IV). 첫째, 유기천 교수가 문화를 어떻게 파악하는지 살펴본다. 이에 따르면, 유기천 교수는 문화를 ‘가치형’(value pattern)으로, ‘상징’(symbol)으로 파악한다. 둘째, 유기천 교수에 따르면 한국 문화의 특징은 무엇인지 살펴본다. 이에 따르면, 한국 문화의 특징으로서 ‘샤머니즘’과 ‘비개별성’(impersonality)을 언급할 수 있다. 이와 더불어 한국 문화에서는 ‘공동체 규범’(communal norm)이 중요한 역할을 한다는 점도 언급할 수 있다. 셋째, 유기천 교수에 따르면 한국 문화와 형법이 어떻게 상호작용을 하는지 살펴본다. 유기천 교수는 한국 문화와 형법은 두 지점에서 상호작용을 한다고 말한다. 첫째는 ‘입법’이다. 이 과정에서는 ‘법익’(Rechtsgut)이 중요한 역할을 한다. 둘째는 ‘해석’이다. 문화가 형법을 해석하는 데 개입한다는 것이다. 논의의 마지막으로서 유기천 교수의 시도를 논평한다(V). 이 글은 유기천 교수의 형법철학에 두 가지 의미를 부여한다. 첫째, 유기천 교수는 현대 언어철학을 수용한 선구적인 형법학자라는 점이다. 둘째, 철학적・존재론적 해석학의 사유방식을 수용한 형법학자라는 점이다. 다만 유기천 교수가 제시한 한국 문화의 특성은 오늘날 더 이상 설득력을 얻을 수 없다고 진단한다.

일본의 형사법 학술지의 현황 및 역할

이동희 한국형사법학회 2018 형사법연구 Vol.30 No.4

The year 2018 is the 30th anniversary of the publication of the 「Journal of Criminal Law」, published by the Korean Criminal Law Association (KCLA). I think it is very meaningful to held an academic conference to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the publication of the journal of Criminal Law, on the subject of the current status and roles of the criminal law journals in each country. The purpose of this paper is to establish Japan as a comparative object based on this background and to grasp the current status and role of the criminal law journals in the relevant countries. In addition, I would like to get some implications for the publication of our journal through comparison with the case of Japan.  As we all know, Korea and Japan are very similar and closely related in the historical aspect of criminal law. However, the details of the operation such as publication of academic journals, it can be confirmed that there are much difference between them.  Based on the above purpose and awareness, I will first examine the organization, main activities and roles of the Criminal Law Society of Japan (CLSJ), and then show how the journals published in this society and the academic conferences supporting them. I have also studied the Journal of Criminal Law, which are the core of the journals dealing with criminal law in Japan. In the case of Japan, the journals in the criminal law are divided into three categories: (1) academic journal by CLSJ, (2) commercial academic journals, and (3) university journals. It also has a sales network of academic journals and a textbook payment system based on it. In the case of Korean journals, in contrast to the case where the article author pays the publication fee even when the article is submitted to the journals. In Korea, we must find ways to promote the contribution of the academy's senior-level scholars. And Korea has an academic book entry system managed by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF). In Japan, there is no certification system or classification system for these journals. In order to ensure sufficient academic autonomy and diversity, it is necessary to transform the journal into a purpose-oriented journal reflecting the characteristics of the Criminal Justice Society, rather than a journal adhering to government standards. 금년 2018년은 한국형사법학회의 학회지인 『형사법연구』가 발간 30주년을 맞이한 해이다. 학회 학술지 발간 30주년을 기념하고, 보다 발전적인 방안을 모색해보자는 의도에서 한국형사법학회에서 각 국에서의 형사법 학술지의 현황과 역할이라는 주제로 학술대회를 개최하게 된 점을 뜻깊게 생각한다. 본고는 이러한 배경을 바탕으로 비교대상으로 일본을 설정하여 해당국에서의 형사법 학술지의 현황과 역할을 파악해보는데 그 일차적 목적이 있다. 나아가 일본사례와의 비교를 통해 우리 학술지의 발간에 있어 참고가 되는 시사점을 얻어 보고자 한다. 주지하다시피 우리나라와 일본은 법계수사나 법해석학의 연혁적 측면에서 밀접한 관련성이 있다. 동일한 동아시아권이라는 지리적 인접성과 교류 가능성 등을 고려하면 비교연구의 필요성이나 연구결과의 실효성은 상대적으로 더 높을 수 있다. ‘일본형법학회’는 형사실체법, 형사절차법, 형사정책을 아우르는 종합학회로서 우리의 형사법학회에 상응하는 학회 조직이지만, 학회 학술지의 발간이나 이를 위한 학술행사의 개최방식 등의 세부 운영의 측면을 보면, 서로 적지 않은 차이가 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 위와 같은 목적과 인식을 바탕으로 본고는 이하에서 우선 일본형법학회의 조직, 주요활동과 역할을 살펴보고, 이어서 동 학회에서 발간하는 학술지와 이를 뒷받침하고 있는 학술대회가 구체적으로 어떻게 개최, 운영되고 있는지를 살펴보았다. 그리고 일본의 형사법학 분야를 다루는 학술지의 중핵을 차지하고 있는 법학분야 일반학술지와 형사법분야의 전문학술지 등에 대해 살펴보았다. 일본의 경우 형사법분야 학술지는 대별하여 ①학회기관지, ②일반학술지, ③대학별 학술지의 3가지로 구분되고, 각각 그 역할에 일정한 차이가 있다는 특징이 있다. 또한 학술지의 판매망과 이를 기반으로 한 원고료 지급 체계를 갖추고 있다. 상업출판사가 발행하는 유가의 법학분야 일반학술지는 물론 학회기관지에 투고한 때에도 논문저자가 원고료를 지급받는다. 이에 비해 우리나라는 학회지의 경우에는 반대로 통상 투고자가 게재료를 납부하는 방식을 취하고 있다는 점에서 대비된다. 학계의 원로급이나 중견학자들의 투고를 촉진시킬 수 있는 방안을 모색해야 필요가 있다. 그리고 우리나라는 한국연구재단에서 관장하는 학술등재지 및 등재후보지 제도가 있는 반면, 일본의 경우에는 이러한 학술지에 대한 별도의 인증제도나 등급분류제도가 없다. 학문적 자율성과 다양성을 충분히 보장하기 위해 당국의 기준이나 틀에 끼워 맞추는 학술지가 아니라 형사법 학회 나름의 특성이 반영되고 목적지향적인 학술지로 변화시켜나가야 할 것이다.

형법과 민법의 관계에 대한 소고(小考) - 개념, 규범 면에서의 비교를 중심으로 -

최제환 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2022 江原法學 Vol.68 No.-

This article examines the relationship between criminal law and civil law. It is impossible to draw consistent conclusions on the relationship between two distinct legal domains. In other words, it is not possible to insist only on the unity of legal order, or to maintain only the identity of criminal law. Nevertheless, the minimum standard for interpreting and evaluating cases that reveal the relationship between criminal law and civil law is necessary. The cases in which the relationship between criminal law and civil law is problematic are largely classified into two types. As a first type, the relationship between the concept used in the criminal law and the concept used in the civil law is examined. As a second type, the relationship between the ‘norm’ of the criminal law and the ‘norm' of the civil law is examined. It is confirmed that cases in which the relationship of norms is problematic are subdivided into cases that reveal differences in effect, which are the premise of judgment, and cases that reveal differences in judgment in terms of illegality. Thus, the relationship between criminal law and civil law is largely a problem in three types of compositions. On the premise of this typology, I analyze the actual cases of the Supreme Court, especially focusing on the difference in judgment in terms of norms, and examine the tendency of judgment. In addition, the ways to establish the relationship between criminal law and civil law are discussed from the perspective of unity of legal order and identity of criminal law. There is no absolutely prioritized value, and there will inevitably be differences in judgment while seeking specific validity for each individual case. However, general standard can be established. Differences in judgment on concepts should be accepted. In terms of norms, it is reasonable that criminal case follow the effect recognized in civil law. On the other hand, it is reasonable that criminal case shows a difference in judgment on illegality. This is in line with the attitude that the Supreme Court has recently shown in the case of embezzlement and breach of trust. Questions may arise on whether the typology set by the author is appropriate and on whether the analysis of the precedents is appropriate. Criticism of excessive simplification can also be raised. Despite all these limitations, this article is meaningful in presenting a framework for analysis, which could help more systematically understand the relationship between the two legal domains. 이 글은 형법과 민법의 관계를 검토한다. 상이한 두 법 영역의 관계에 대해 일관된 결론을 내리는 것은 불가능하다. 법질서의 통일성만을 내세울 수도, 형법의 독자성만을 관철할 수도 없다. 그럼에도 형법과 민법의 관계가 드러나는 사안을 해석하고 평가하는 최소한의 준거가 필요하다. 형법과 민법의 관계가 문제되는 사안은 크게 두 유형으로 분류할 수 있다. 제1유형으로 형법에서 사용하는 개념과 민법에서 사용하는 개념의 관계가 문제되는 사안을 검토한다. 제2유형으로 형법의 ‘규범’과 민법의 ‘규범’ 간의 관계가 문제되는 사안을 검토한다. 그 과정에서 규범의 관계가 문제가 되는 사안이 세부적으로는 판단의 전제가 되는 효력 면에서의 차이가 드러나는 사안과 위법성 면에서의 판단 차이가 드러나는 사안으로 세분됨을 확인한다. 결국 형법과 민법의 관계는 크게 세 가지 유형의 구도에서 문제가 되는데, 이러한 유형론을 전제로 하여 필자는 특히 규범 면에서의 판단 차이를 중심으로 실제 판례 사안을 분석하고 그 흐름에 대해 고찰해본다. 그리고 법질서의 통일성과 형법의 독자성이라는 두 가지 가치를 중심으로 형법과 민법 간의 관계 설정 방안을 고민해본다. 절대적으로 우선시되는 가치는 없으며, 개별 사안별로 구체적 타당성을 모색하는 과정에서 판단의 차이가 생길 수밖에 없다. 그러나 일응의 기준은 설정할 수 있다. 개념에서의 판단 차이는 긍정되어야 한다. 규범 면에서, 형사 판결은 민사 법리에서 인정되는 효력을 따르는 것이 타당하지만 위법성 판단은 민사 판결과 차이를 보이는 것이 타당하다. 이는 횡령죄와 배임죄에 있어서 최근 대법원이 취하는 태도이기도 하다. 필자가 설정한 유형론이 적절한지, 그리고 검토한 판례들에 대한 분석이 적합한지에 대해서 이론이 있을 수 있다. 유형론이 지나친 단순화라는 비판도 가해질 수 있다. 이러한 모든 한계에도 불구하고 두 법 영역의 관계를 보다 체계적으로 이해할 수 있는 최소한의 분석의 틀을 제시하는데 이 글의 의미가 있다고 생각한다.

예술과 형법의 상호형성관계 -예술비평으로서 형법의 역할과 과제-

이상돈 ( Sang Don Yi ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.68

Criminal law when regulating art becomes inherent component of art rather than power extrinsic to it. When the artist`s aesthetic desire risks criminal penalties while engaging in his art work, such desire becomes pure art as in Jacques Lacan`s philosophy and such art has bigger possibility of achieving sublime beauty. In other words, criminal law becomes internal component of art which creates pure desire that pursues sublime beauty. Such sublime beauty is realized in art works itself structurally, or in artist`s personal life. On the other hand, artistry becomes a constituent of criminal law. Criminal law which judges the legality of artistry by weighing it against obscenity or enemy-benefiting characteristics, is prone to realizing power rather than justice. That is because artistry can always be overturned, and artistry can only be described in myriad steps of height, not in terms of whether it exists or not. However, criminal law decides whether artistry exists or not, and constrainedly links the decision to the dual code of legal, and illegal. This being so, ``balancing of interest`` way of thinking which is dominant in criminal regulation on works of art should be discarded and attentive listening to the criticism of artistry should be adopted instead. When criminal law listens attentively to criticism of art and decides legality according to it, aesthetic justice can be more fully realized. In this sense, art criticism becomes constituent of art regulating criminal law. Criminal law that takes in art criticism should take introspective manner in cases where decision of aesthetic is unclear. Such introspective manner is expressed by application of ``in dubio pro libertate`` principle. This principle`s proportional element, in being geometric formative beauty which is an aesthetic value, realizes aesthetic values as introvert values of criminal law. In addition, in order for the obscenity or enemy benefiting elements of an art work to be the subject of criminal regulation, the subject art work should satisfy the conditions that is needed to stigmatize an art work as a social hazard (eg. open to public on Internet, viewing allowance to minors, etc.). Also, criminal law should make open decisions on height of aesthetics and alleviate the regulation on art works through various procedural instruments such as stay of prosecution, suspended sentence, and probation. However the legitimacy of the criminal regulation of art lays not in the social ethics which is symbolically endangered by art works, but in the uplift of art work`s artistry that come about via criminal regulation of art. Criminal law should continuously introspect on the point where art work`s artistry and criminal law`s legitimacy can both be heightened through open consideration of the effect criminal regulation over art work has on artistry.

부산신항 도선사고에 대한 도선사의 형사책임

최석윤 한국비교형사법학회 2020 비교형사법연구 Vol.22 No.2

This study addresses "the relationship between Criminal Procedure Law and Analogy Prohibition", and a precedent of the Supreme Court which is related to "Settlement of Guilty Decision and Forfeiture of Bail Money"(Criminal Procedure Law § 103). The core ideas of this study are that the interpretation of criminal law has to conform to "ordinary words common use" of the words in the law due to the principle of "nulla poena[nullum, crimen] sine lege", and that "the principle of analogy prohibition" has to apply not only to Criminal Law but also to Criminal Procedure Law in order to agree with the idea of human rights guarantee of constitutionalism. The results of this study are as follow. First, The determinations on Annulment of Bail and Forfeiture of Bail Money need not to be simultaneously fixed. The reasons of this conclusion are that Criminal Procedure Law § 102 ② following the interpretation to conform to "ordinary words common use" of the words in the law doesn't prohibit to seize bail money after the annulment of bail, and that the bail money has to cover the custody after the annulment of bail from the viewpoint of the functions of bail money. Second, The interpretation of Criminal Procedure Law § 103 conforming to the intent of Criminal Procedure Law § 102 ② comes under prohibited analogy. Because in order to agree with the idea of human rights guarantee of constitutionalism, the principle of analogy prohibition has to apply not only to Criminal Law but also to Criminal Procedure Law. In conclusion, there are some weak points in the precedent of the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court doesn't properly prove the decision, and maintains undesirable authoritative attitude about the relationship between criminal procedure law and analogy prohibition. Consequently, it is desirable that the Supreme Court has a progressive and developmental point of view about the relationship between criminal procedure law and analogy prohibition. 밀라노 브리지호의 부산신항부두 접촉사고와 관련하여 도선사의 업무상 과실치상죄 성립여부에 대해 살펴보았다. 그 내용을 간략히 정리하면서 결론을 맺자면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 업무상 과실치상죄의 구성요건해당성 차원에서 도선사의 경우 과실이 인정될 수 있는지조차 의문스럽지만, 과실이 인정된다고 하더라도 과실행위와 결과 사이의 인과관계 내지 객관적 귀속이 인정될 수 없다. 왜냐하면 더 큰 위험을 피하기 위해 작은 위험을 감수한 것이기 때문이다. 둘째, 업무상 과실치상죄의 구성요건해당성이 인정된다고 손치더라도 더 큰 위험을 피하기 위해 작은 위험을 감수한 도선사의 행위는 정당화적 긴급피난에 해당하기 때문에 위법성이 조각되어 범죄가 성립하지 않는다. 셋째, 백보를 양보하여 업무상 과실치상죄의 구성요건해당성과 위법성인 인정된다고 가정하더라도 더 큰 위험을 피하기 위해 작은 위험을 감수한 도선사의 행위는 다른 적법한 행위에 대한 기대가능성이 없기 때문에 책임이 조각되어 범죄가 성립하지 않는다. 결론적으로 도선사는 무죄이다. 죄 없는 국민을 범죄 혐의자로 만들어 정신적 고통과 육체적 고통을 가하고 경제적 피해를 강요하는 것은 민주국가의 형사사법기관이 할 짓이 아니다. 그것은 국가권력에 의한 범죄다.

한국형법 개정의 올바른 방향 -형법총칙을 중심으로-

허일태 ( Il Tae Hoh ) 한국비교형사법학회 2012 비교형사법연구 Vol.14 No.2

Criminal law that was enacted in 1953, the middle of the war, has been amended about the small part. But the essential revision isn`t still accomplished. Criminal law in 1953 gave top priority the stability of nation and society order maintenance which are not suitable for the today`s society. Korea in 1950 was based on the agricultural economy and the rural community was majority. But today, korea turns to information and communication society, national life and cultural level developed to the high level which is essentially different in 1950. According to the social change, there was a request about the basic revision of criminal law in 1980`s already and the revision work has been performed for 7 years under Ministry of Justice`s support and Criminal law amendment was submitted to National Assembly in 1992. But the passage of National Assembly about criminal law amendment didn`t accomplished because people opposed strongly the abolition of adultery that is a part of criminal law amendment in 1992. The strong request about the revision of criminal law in 2005 makes ministry of justice to comprise law advisory committee about revision of criminal law. The committee, which consists of 24 members, promoted revision of criminal law from June 2007. The partial criminal law amendment including the criminal law general rules and etc. was submitted to National Assembly at April 15th, in 2010. But as the session of the 18 national assembly ended May 1992, criminal law amendment fell into disuse by the automatic. Nevertheless, the revision work was still going on and it came to a finish not only criminal law general rules but also criminal law particulars rules. Through these process, the committee tried to make criminal law amendment to the ideal criminal law that is matched for the constitutional principles such as rule of law and responsibility principles and meet the demand of modern criminal theory and criminal policy. but it is not easy to find out big change in the criminal law amendment excluding the actualization of fine, severity of some crime such as robbery resulting in injury which is not inappropriate. There is still problems as follows, the retention of the death penalty and detention, the change of terms about probation, the partial restriction of discretionary mitigation by judge, the aggravation for sexual offence, the abolition of crime subject to complaint and some special criminal law`s inclusion in the criminal law general rules. The retention of the death penalty is contradictory to the ethics of nation. Discretionary mitigation by judge has to be restrictive admitted. The limit of imprisonment has to be 20 years as a rule. Total fine system has to be turned to day fine system. The accommodation for probation has to be abolished. The abolition of criminal law general rules about preparation and plot has to be abolished and preparation and plot is admitted restrictedly on serious crime. All regulations about offense aggravated by consequence has to be abolished.

한국 형법의 제,개정 경과와 발전과제

이기수 ( Ki Soo Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

The criminal law of Korea was proclaimed on September 18th 1953 and enforced on October 3rd 1953. This study, after 60 years since the revision of criminal law was made, will examine the progress and contents of enactment and revision of criminal law revised over 11 times and propose the development challenges to be pursued by the criminal law of Korea. At the time of enactment of the criminal law, although it was enacted during difficult conditions such as extreme confusion after liberation and the Korean War, it has tried to reflect the global legislative trend and overall review of legislation throughout the world, and to be faithful on the ideals of constitutionalism and human rights to be held by the criminal law. Since the enactment, there were a total of 11 criminal law revisions made but unfortunately, although it needed a total revision only a handful of revisions were made and there remains an insufficient aspect to the revisions. In this article, 5 types of development challenges were proposed based on the revision process of criminal law up to now and its contents. That is ① include the multiple criminal special law into the criminal law and establish the status of basic criminal law of all criminal law, ② reconsider the trend of sever penalization having many problems and reasonably readjust the extremely high sentence, ③ improve various problems held by pecuniary punishment system to review the introduction of daily fines, and derive with unified regulations related to forfeiture and collection, ④ reexamine the policy of zero tolerance and hostile attention related to sexual offenses, promote the balanced criminal politic legislation such as rehabilitation through the treatment of offenders, ⑤ and the improvement methods related to patricide having the debate of violation of the equal rights, the abolition of infanticide sin and concurrent offenders based on the particulars of criminal law. At any age and for any criminal law, it is requested that the principles of criminal law such as the principle of legality, protection of human rights and the principle of responsibility should be respected reflecting the conditions obtained at the time, and the effectiveness or functionality required by the criminal law should be maintained. The awareness of law of the citizens, reflection of judicial environment, new criminal provisions and decriminalization work will all be such contents. Therefore, the future criminal law shall reflect the aforementioned challenges in a timely manner and afterwards, it should continually revise and develop the necessary contents. And that can be called the permanent improvement challenge to be bear by the criminal law.

이재상의 생애와 형법학

안경옥 한국형사법학회 2019 형사법연구 Vol.31 No.3

Since this paper is the first work to remember Prof. Lee's academic achievements and the impact on criminal law academic community, I tried to faithfully organize and provide his academic achievements and to start point for future research. Therefore, this paper first reviews his life and academic research and writing activities of Professor Lee. Therefore, in this paper, Lee's life and academic research and writing activities are first reviewed, and the criminal law theory and academic interests of his are reviewed too. And this paper attempted to consider the criminal justice, penal justice and think the issue which impact on the criminal scholar to improve criminal law. Professor Lee's criminal law theory was examined in order of physical act theory, criminal theory, illegality theory and liability theory, and attempted criminal and accomplice theory. Professor Lee's criminal theory can be organized as a harmonious, practicalist criminal perspective rather than a confrontation between subjectivism and objectivism. Professor Lee who was a practitioner and scholar, insisted on criminal ideas to interpret the law for fitting Korean situation, rather than theoretical debate. In addition to the theoretical interest in the general theory of criminal law, he also showed his affection for the study of penal theory such as probation and rehabilitative theory and Penal law. He also demonstrated his practical criminal theory through the formation of case study groups, study activities where he studied legal systems in other countries to compare law. It was a difficult but rewarding time to find, read, and organize Professor Lee's life, academic activities, and the results of his writings for writing this article. I had no choice but to have a respectful heart. Prof. Jae Sang Lee presented the challenges of criminal law to be solved over the long term in the 21st century. First, the establishment and development of our own unique criminal law; Second, strengthening case studies; Third, secure of case textbooks and sufficient criminal law scholars. we will need to check whether the succeeding scholars are doing their job. 이 글이 이재상 교수의 학문적 업적과 우리 학계에 끼친 영향을 살펴보는 첫 작업이므로, 가능한 한 충실하게 관련 자료를 빠짐없이 정리하고 정보를 제공하여 향후 연구를 위한 논의의 출발점이 되고자 하였다. 이재상 교수의 형법이론은 형법총론의 행위론, 범죄론, 위법성과 책임론, 미수론 및 공범론 순으로 살펴보았으며, 이재상 교수의 형법관은 1. 주관주의와 객관주의의 대립이 아닌 조화, 2. 실천주의적 형법관으로 정리할 수 있겠다. 그것은 실무가이면서 학자였던 이재상 교수가 이론적인 논쟁이 아니라 우리 법 제도에 맞는 법해석을 위한 형법이론을 주장하고, 형법총론에 대한 이론적 관심이외에도 보안처분론을 비롯한 형벌론, 형법각칙 연구에 대한 애정, 판례 연구활동, 다른 나라의 법제도를 연구하고자 했던 비교법적 연구 활동 등을 통해 이러한 ‘실용주의적’ 연구나 활동을 중시하였기 때문이다. 이 글을 쓰기 위해 이재상 교수의 생애와 학문적 활동, 그리고 그 결과물을 다시금 찾아 읽고 정리하는 과정은 힘들지만 보람 있는 시간이었으며, 우리 형법학계에 소중한 자산인 이재상 교수의 저서들을 읽으면서 그의 학문적 탁월함뿐만 아니라 성실함에 존경의 마음을 가질 수밖에 없었다. 이재상 교수가 21세기에 장기적으로 해결해야 할 형사법학의 과제로, 독자적인 우리 형사법학의 정립, 발전과 판례연구의 강화와 판례교재의 확보 및 충분한 형사학자의 확보를 제시하고 있는데, 우리 후속 학자들이 이러한 과제를 충실히 해결해 가고 있는지 점검해봐야 할 것이다.

비교형법학으로서 한·중 형법 학술교류 20년의 회고와 전망

김종구 한국비교형사법학회 2022 비교형사법연구 Vol.24 No.3

The academic exchange between the Korean Association of Comparative Criminal Law and the Criminal Law Research Association of the Chinese Law Association will be held for the 20th year in 2022. The Korea-China Criminal Law Conference is an important academic event in terms of the identity of the Korean Association of Comparative Criminal Law, which stands for the Society for Comparative Law Research. Papers presented at the conference were published in the Journal of Comparative Criminal Law, and contributed greatly to the specialization of the journal. The study of comparative law was essential at the time of the formation of the Korean legal system. The study of comparative law is also important to properly interpret and apply the legal system introduced from foreign countries. The study of comparative law is also important for the preparation of legislative measures to respond to newly emerging legal phenomena. At this point, the Korea-China Criminal Law Conference has great significance as a method of comparative criminal law and as a place for exchange and communication between Korean and Chinese criminal law scholars. Now, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary, it is necessary to look back on the achievements of the academic exchanges between Korea and China and to seek new development plans. The Korea-China Criminal Law Conference should continue to develop as a major event that matches the identity of the Korean Association of Comparative Criminal Law. As a method of comparative criminal law, the Korea-China criminal law academic conference should go beyond the exploration of foreign criminal law in the normative aspect and become practical comparative law. It is also necessary to review the budget issues of the conference, the improvement of the quality of the presented papers, and the enhancement of the interest and participation of the society members. In this paper, the author briefly reviewed the history of criminal law in Korea and China. Next, the author examined the implications of comparative law and comparative criminal law in our legal system. In addition, as a method of comparative criminal law, 20 years of the Korea-China Criminal Law Conference were retrospectively reviewed, and the plan for the development of academic exchanges between Korea and China was reviewed.