범죄피해자 보호정책의 쟁점과 과제 -범죄피해자 구조제도를 중심으로-

김은경 ( Eun Kyeong Kim ) 한국범죄비행학회 2012 범죄와 비행 Vol.2 No.-

2010년 4월 기존 범죄피해자구조법과 범죄피해자보호법을 통합, 전면 개정한 [범죄피해자보호법]과 새롭게 제정된 [범죄피해자보호기금법]이 법제사법위원회를 통과하여, 새로운 범죄피해자 구조지원 정책의 개막을 예고하고 있다. 하지만, 새로이 개정된 [범죄피해자보호법] 역시 구조제도의 법적 성격, 다른 보호지원대상자와의 형평성 등 다양한 쟁점들이 충분히 검토되지 못한 채, 그 정치적·현실적 필요성에 치우쳐 입안됨으로써 향후 많은 문제점을 야기할 가능성이 있다. 이 글은 [범죄피해자보호법]에 내재한 인식론적 및 방법론적 한계를 비판적으로 재검토하기 위하여 기획되었다. 여기에서는 무엇보다도 현행 범죄피해자 구조제도가 어떤 문제점을 가지고 있는지 검토함으로써, 바람직한 피해자보호 지원의 정책방향과 향후 과제들을 제시해 보고자 한다. In April 2010, the fully amended [Crime Victims Protection Act] and the newly enacted [Crime Victims Protection Fund Act] passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, heralding a new support policy of crime victims. But Korea`s policy of protecting crime victims cannot move into a genuinely new epoch until the following present problems and tasks are addressed. First, the current programs to protect and support crime victims in Korea are governed by numerous laws including the Crime Victim Protection Act(also covering the Crime Victim Aid Act), the Criminal Procedure Act, the system of order for compensation, the Legal Aid Act, the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes(Measures for personal safety on witness), the Act on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection etc. of Victims, the Act on the Prevention of Sexual Traffic and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof, the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof, the Child Welfare Act, the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools, the Act on the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officials and the Scope of their Duties. Given the presence of dispersed norms, maintaining the unity in policy to support and aid crime victims faces difficulties in reality, as well as problems of overlapping scopes of protection which also goes against equity and uneven, inefficient resource allocation. Second, it is more problematic that even though Korea is equipped with crime victims` claim for aid which is stipulated in the Constitution as fundamental rights, effective restitution for crime victims is not satisfactory compared to that of other countries where compensation is governed by the law. This largely originates from the constraint of the government finance in terms of financing and tax burdens, but in essence, has something to do with the unclear legal nature of Korea`s crime victims aid system. Indeed, such nature led to the criticism that the claim was provided under the Constitution despite its lack of logical defensibility, disproportionately driven by political necessity when the Crime Victim Aid Act was enacted. Likewise, while various issues such as the legal nature of aid system and equity with the others eligible for protection support had been left without sufficient review, the political· realistic necessity was mainly behind the designation of the newly revised [Crime Victim Protection Act]. Therefore, there is a good chance that this Act will cause numerous problems. This essay intends to critically review the epistemological and methodological limit inherent in the [Crime Victim Protection Act]. Here, above all things, priority is given to examination of the problems which the current crime victim aid system has, so that desirable policy directions of victim protection & support and future tasks can be suggested.

범죄피해자에 대한 국가의 보호 : 개정된 범죄피해자보호법을 중심으로

김창휘(Kim, Chang-Hwee) 韓國土地公法學會 2010 土地公法硏究 Vol.50 No.-

사람은 국가와 사회생활 등을 통하여 여러 가지 관계를 맺게 된다. 정치적, 경제적, 사회적, 문화적 삶을 통한 다양한 인간관계가 형성된다. 이러한 상호관계 속에서 많은 문제들이 발생하며 그 중에는 범죄행위로 인하여 많은 사람들이 신체적, 정신적, 경제적으로 어려운 문제에 직면하게 된다. 특히 현대사회에 이르러서는 산업의 발전에 따른 경제성장 과 더불어 강력범죄가 증가하고 있는 실정이다.그런데 비교적 최근까지는 범죄행위에 있어서 가해자의 인권에 초점이 맞추어져 왔으며, 그 상대방인 피해자의 인권과 그를 둘러싸고 있는 많은 문제에 대하서는 관심이 부족했다고 볼 수 있다. 하지만 범죄행위에 있어 피해자가 직면하는 문제를 국가가 외면하는 것은 범죄예방ㆍ방지에 책임이 있는 국가의 적절한 모습이 아니라고 할 것이다.이에 우리나라는 범죄피해자의 권익향상을 위하여 1987년 개정 헌법 제30조를 통하여 “타인의 범죄행위로 인하여 생명ㆍ신체에 피해를 받은 국민은 국가로부터 구조를 받을 수 있다”고 규정하므로 인하여 범죄피해자의 보호에 헌법적 근거를 마련하였다. 그리고 이 규정을 근거로 1988년 범죄피해자구조법을, 또한 2005년부터는 범죄피해자보호법을 제정ㆍ시행하고 있었으나 최근 법률개정을 통하여 두 법률을 통합하여 “범죄피해자보호법” 으로 규정하기에 이르렀다.이에 본 연구에서는 범죄피해자보호와 관련된 일반이론을 검토하고 나아가서 범죄피해 자구조청구권의 법적 성격을 검토하였다. 또한 개정된 범죄피해자보호법의 주요내용을 쟁점별로 검토하였다. 나아가서 범죄피해자보호기금법의 제정에 대하여도 언급하였다. 법률의 개정과 함께 범죄피해자의 실질적 회복이 될 수 있는 상황별 매뉴얼의 작성도 필요함을 언급하였다. People base relationships with others based on national and social connections.Also diverse human relationships are formed through political, economic, social and cultural affinities. But many problems arise in mutual relationships, the root cause of which may be difficult physical, mental and financial problems. When we examine modern society, we see the number of violent crimes increasing. This increase may be attributed to economic progress accompanying industrial development.But up until recently, legal authorities were more focused on the offender's rights when accused of criminal behavior. There has been little focus to the victims rights and the problems they face as a result of the criminal acts. It is not a desirable outcome for the nation responsible for enacting law and preventing crime to neglect the problems victims face. As a result, the Republic of Korea established a constitutional basis to address victims rights by Amendment to the onstitution. The Republic of Korea Constitution, Article 30: Citizens who have suffered bodily injury or death due to criminal acts of others may receive aid from the State under the conditions as prescribed by act. The Republic of Korea has established two acts that address this issue: the Crime Victim Protection Act (2005); and the Crime Victim Aid Act (1998). These were recently combined to establish the Crime Victim Protection Act (2010).This review examined the general theory related to crime victim aid, and additionally, crime victims' right of demand for redress. Also the focus reviews the key points of the amended Crime Victim Protection Act according to the issues, including the establishment of the Crime Victim Protection Fund Act and necessity of the Circumstantial Manual Description for the real recovery for crime victims.

범죄피해자 보호 및 지원 확대를 위한 헌법적 관점에서의 입법 개선 연구

이우영 한국입법학회 2024 입법학연구 Vol.21 No.2

「대한민국헌법」은 제30조에서 “타인의 범죄행위로 인하여 생명·신체에 대한 피해를 받은 국민은 법률이 정하는 바에 의하여 국가로부터 구조를 받을 수 있다.”고규정하고 있다. 「헌법」의 범죄피해자구조청구권 규정은 국가의 기본권 보장 의무의 범죄피해자 관점에서의 구현을 규정하는 동시에 범죄피해자 보호 및 지원 법률의 입법과 운영의 근거가 된다. 이를 구현하기 위한 법률의 하나로 「범죄피해자 보호법」이 2005년 12월 제정되어 2006년 3월 시행된 후 가장 최근의 2017년 3월 개정을 거쳐 현재에 이르고 있다. 「범죄피해자 보호법」 제정법률안 의안원문은 그 제안이유를 “헌법 제30조에서 범죄행위로 인하여 생명·신체에 대한 피해를 받은 국민에 대하여 국가의 구조의무를 명시하고 있음에도 불구하고, 가해자에 대한 수사·재판·행형상의 인권 개선폭과 비교하여 범죄피해자의 인권개선은 여전히 부진한실정이므로, 범죄피해자에 대한 국가 차원의 보호·지원체계를 구축하고 민간 활동을 촉진하는 등 종합적이고 효과적인 대책을 마련하려는 것임.”이라고 적시하였다. 관련하여, 피해자의 보호·지원과 핵심적 상관성을 갖는 사항을 규정한 주요 법률인「형사소송법」은 형사절차 전반에 관해 규정하는 과정에서 피해자신문시 신뢰관계인의 동석, 피해자조사 관련 출석 요구, 피해자의 고소권, 피해자에의 통지, 피해자의 진술권 및 피해자 진술의 비공개 가능성, 피해자의 공판기록 열람·등사 등 피해자의 형사절차상의 지위와 권한에 관한 주요 사항을 규정하여 피해자의 보호·지원법제의 쟁점 및 입법적 개선 과제 논의에 있어 「범죄피해자 보호법」과 함께 체계정합성 하에서 주요 검토 대상이 된다. 이외 다수의 법률 그리고 행정규칙 등 하위법이 관련 사항을 규정하고 있다. 범죄피해자는, 범죄피해 상황과 그로 인한 고통에서 조속히 벗어나 회복할 수 있도록, 그 전 과정에서 인간의 존엄성을 보장받고명예와 사생활의 평온을 보호받아야 하고, 관련 형사소송절차의 당사자이지 않으나 사건의 당사자로서 해당 사건 관련 각종 법적 절차에 참여할 권리를 가지고(「범죄피해자 보호법」 제2조), 손실 복구 및 정당한 권리 행사와 복지 증진을 위한 법적 보호와 지원의 대상이며(「범죄피해자 보호법」 제3조 제1항 제2호), 헌법상 구조청구권의 기본권주체(「헌법」 제30조)이다. 그러나 수사 및 공판의 형사절차에서 소송의 당사자가 아닌 법적 지위로 인해 관련 정보에의 접근과 형사절차에서의 진술및 참여 등이 제한되는 점에서, 헌법과 법체계 전체의 체계정합성 하에서 관련 권리의 내용과 범위 및 불복가능성을 포함한 구현 절차에 대한 체계적이고 면밀한검토와 분석이 이루어져야 하며, 헌법과 체계정합성 하에서 입법적 개선이 이루어져야 한다. 이 연구에서는 형사사법절차에서 범죄피해자의 권리를 실질적이고 실효적으로 보장하고 구현하는 노력의 일환으로 범죄피해자 보호·지원 관련 헌법적관점에서의 이론과 실무상 쟁점을 분석하고 범죄피해자 보호·지원을 실질화하고확대하기 위한 입법적 개선안을 제시한다. 관련 분석과 논의의 기초로서, 헌법상의기본권으로서의 범죄피해자구조청구권의 기본권 주체와 국가의 기본권보장 의무를「헌법」 제30조의 취지와 전체 법체계에서의 기능 면에서의 기본권보장 범위 및 관련 헌법재판소 결정에 비추어 분석하고... Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that “[c]itizens who have suffered bodily injury or death due to criminal acts of others may receive aid from the State under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Such constitutional provision of the right to claim relief and aid of victims of crime serves to stipulate the implementation of the state's obligation to guarantee fundamental rights from the crime victims’ perspective, and at the same time serves as the basis for the enactment and implementation of the statute of the Crime Victim Protection Act of Korea. The Crime Victim Protection Act was enacted in December 2005 and has been implemented since March 2006, with the most recent revision in March 2017. The draft bill of the Act indicated that the proposed statute was to improve human rights of the crime victims by taking comprehensive and effective measures establishing protection and support system for crime victims on the part of the national and local governments and also promoting and encouraging private actions. Also, the Criminal Procedure Act contains core provisions pertaining to the right protection and support of crime victims throughout administration of criminal justice system, such as access to relevant information and trial records in criminal proceedings, notice to crime victims, presence of attorney or trustee of and for crime victims during investigation stage in which crime victims may testify and participate, etc. In discussing issues for legislative reform measures for more substantial and effective protection and support for crime victims, both statutes along with various other relevant statutes and administrative orders and rules should be closely reviewed and analyzed in light of the constitutional mandate of the right protection and aid for crime victims and also the system of law of Korea in its entirety, for consistency and integrity. A crime victim in the Korean legal system is not a party to the criminal proceeding including trial, and, as such, has limited access to information and trial records, limited right to testify or participate, and limited right for assistance of counsel and particularly for assistance of state-appointed counsel, during investigation of crime through ensuing trial and appeal. As part of effort to substantially and effectively guarantee and implement the rights of crime victims in criminal justice procedures, this paper analyzes the core issues in theory and practice from constitutional perspective pertaining to the protection and support of crime victims under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and relevant statutes and administrative orders and rules, and suggests legislative reform measures to substantiate and expand the protection and support of crime victims. Such legislative reform measures include, inter alia, the proposal to provide the grounds for crime victims’ request for access to information and trial records and also for the provision of assistance of state-appointed counsel for crime victims in statute as opposed to administrative orders or rules, in the form of permission as a matter of principle with clearly stipulated standards for exceptions under which the investigatory authority may deny such request and also with the relief measures; and the proposal for mandatory provision of notice to crime victims on certain core information bearing relevance to major facts pertaining to evidence, proof or sentencing, at the statutory level.

형사소송법상 범죄피해자 정보보호관련 규정의 개선방안

이성대 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.3

These days, the crime victim’s active participation in criminal procedure largely had affirmative functions, and it produced problems. An example was retaliatory crime against the crime victim and witness. With reference to retaliatory crime, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Act on Protection of the Reporter of Specific Crimes had various kinds of means that could protect safety of crime victim, and possible additional damage still existed, and retaliatory crime actually increased. To keep safety of the crime victim, possible exposure of the crime victim should be lessened as much as possible. In other words, information protection of the crime victim could actually protect crime victim to require needs and appropriateness of the crime victim. However, current regulations of information protection of the crime victim had some of special laws at limited areas, and the Criminal Procedure Act had some of regulations that had a little relation with information of the crime victim. This paper examined improvement of current legal system of information protection of the crime victim, and suggested reformation and improvement of regulations of the Criminal Procedure Act. The paper examined values of information protection of the crime victim (Ⅱ), legal improvement of not only special law and the Criminal Procedure Act of information protection of the crime victim (Ⅲ), and improvement of the Criminal Procedure Act for information protection of the crime victim (Ⅳ). Current legal system of information protection of the crime victim was focused on passive information protection. The criminal procedure should have right to informational self-determination to control flow of his or her information, for which system should be reformed to give claim right that could be active to control flow of his or her information.

범죄피해자에 대한 경제적 지원제도의 효율적 운영을 위한 법제 검토 : 범죄피해자보호법을 중심

임예윤(Lim, ye yun) 한국피해자학회 2021 被害者學硏究 Vol.29 No.1

범죄피해자보호법의 제정으로 강력범죄피해자에 대한 다양한 보호・지원제도가 운영됨에 따라 강력범죄피해자와 그 가족은 신체적・정신적 피해에 대한 지원을 받을 수 있게 되었다. 범죄피해자가 피해 이전의 삶으로 돌아가기 위해서는 피해자의 욕구를 반영한 보호와 지원이 필요하다. 따라서 국가차원의 구조와 더불어 민간영역의 복지적, 보호 차원의 활동이 매우 중요하다. 범죄피해자지원센터는 범죄피해자보호법에서 명시하는 범죄피해자지원법인으로, 2003년부터 현재까지 범죄피해자 보호・지원 분야에서 활동 범위를 확대해가며, 민간단체로써 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 특히 범죄피해자에게 경제적 지원을 제공함으로써 원상회복을 돕고, 피해자 보호를 위한 다양한 사업을 전개해 나가고 있다. 그러나 범죄피해자보호법은 국가의 책무를 중심으로 정책적 성격을 띄고 있으며, 보호와 지원에 관해서는 구체적인 절차와 내용은 미흡한 실정이다. 제도적인 측면에서도 범죄피해자 보호・지원의 중요한 영역인 경제적 지원이 검찰과 센터, 두 개의 창구로 이원화되어 있어 운영과 예산 측면에서도 효율적 집행에 어려움이 있다. 이에 본 고에서는 범죄피해자에 대한 보호와 지원으로서 경제적 지원제도의 효율적 운영을 위해 범죄피해자보호법을 중심으로 법제의 정비를 검토하고자 한다. 범죄피해자의 구조(救助)를 넘어서 원상복구를 위한 보호・지원이 보다 체계적으로 이루어질 수 있도록 보호・지원의 대상범위에 대해 살펴보고, 경제적 지원은 민간으로의 사무 위임 등을 제안하였다. 그리고 범죄피해자보호・지원 활성화를 위하여 법률상 지원법인의 구체적인 운영규정 마련을 제안하였다. 본 고를 통해 범죄피해자에 대한 경제적 지원제도의 체계화 및 전문성을 확대하여 범죄피해자의 회복과 성장에 실질적인 도움을 제공할 수 있게 되기를 기대한다. With the enactment of the Crime Victims Protection Act, various protection and support systems for violent crime victims are in operation, allowing violent crime victims and their families became able to receive support for physical and mental damage. In order for the victims of crime to return to their lives before they were damaged, it is necessary to reflect the victims desires and continue to protect them in the local community. Therefore, in addition to the structure at the national level, the welfare and protection activities of the private sector are very important. The Crime Victim Support Center is a crime victim support corporation specified in the Crime Victim Protection Act. From 2003 to the present, it has expanded its scope of activities in the field of protection and support for victims of crime, and has played an important role as a private organization. In particular, by providing economic support to victims of crime, they help recovery and carry out various projects to protect victims. However, the Act on the Protection of Victims of Crime has a policy characteristic centered on the responsibilities of the state, and regarding protection and support, specific procedures and contents are insufficient. In the institutional aspect, economic support, an important area of protection and support for crime victims, is divided into the prosecution and center, making it difficult to operate and to efficiently execute the budget. Therefore, in this study, in order to increase the efficiency of the crime victim support center s economic support system, the purpose of this study is to review the reform of the legal system, focusing on the Crime Victim Protection Act. I will examine the scope of protection and support so that protection and support for restoration to the original state beyond the compensation of crime victims can be made more systematically, and it was proposed to delegate economic support to the center. In addition, In order to revitalize the protection and support for victims of crime, it was proposed to prepare specific operating regulations for support corporations under the law. It is hoped that this study will provide practical help to the recovery and growth of crime victims by expanding the systematization and expertise of the crime victim support center s economic support system.

범죄피해자의 헌법상 기본권보호

이효원 서울대학교 법학연구소 2009 서울대학교 法學 Vol.50 No.4

It is prescribed in the constitutional law that victims of crime have rights to make a statement during the proceeding of the trial of the case involved and to ask for assistance to themselves. The Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Indemnity Act give shape to the meanings and limits of these fundamental rights. In order to understand the rights of victims of crime, the concept and protection sphere of these fundamental rights must be preferentially fixed. These fundamental rights can be protected as constitutional rights, even if they are prescribed in the laws. Therefore, the exercise of governmental authority against these rights of victims of crime, including legislation can be reviewed in the constitutional court. On the contrary, the rights of victims of crime protected as rights under law, which are prescribed in the victims of crime act, can not be the object of constitutional complaint. Even though these rights of victims of crime are based on the constitutional law, they belong not to constitutional fundamental right, only but to right under law. The Criminal Procedure Code, The Victims of Crime Act, and the Criminal Indemnity Act provide victims of crime with various means to keep there rights. In this meaning, It can not be said that the government do not fulfill its responsibility for protection of fundamental right. In the modern society, victims of crime are not so much an object of crime or for compensation as a subject of criminal case to realize criminal justice. So it is necessary to extend and increase the rights of victims of crime. 우리 헌법은 국민이 범죄피해자가 된 경우에는 당해 사건의 재판절차에서 진술할 권리와 국가로부터 구조를 받을 권리를 기본권으로 인정하고 있는데, 범죄피해자에 대한 헌법상 기본권은 보호영역의 설정에 따라서 그 규범적 내용과 범위가 달리 평가될 수 있다. 이들 권리의 내용과 한계는 형사소송법과 범죄피해자구조법을 통하여 구체적으로 형성되는데, 헌법에서 규정하는 내용은 법률에 규정되어 있더라도 헌법상 기본권으로 보호되어야 할 것이다. 따라서 이러한 기본권을 침해한 입법작용에 대하여는 위헌법률심판을 통하여 구제될 수 있고, 이를 침해한 모든 공권력의 행사 또는 불행사에 대하여는 헌법소원을 통하여 구제될 수 있다. 한편, 헌법에서 직접 규정하고 있는 범죄피해자의 재판절차진술권과 구조청구권과는 달리 범죄피해자보호법에서 규정하고 있는 권리는 헌법상 기본권이 아니라 법률에 의하여 보장된 권리이다. 따라서 이러한 권리는 비록 헌법상 근거를 두고 제정된 법률에 의하여 보장된 것이라고 하더라도 위헌법률심판의 기준이 될 수가 없고, 그 권리의 침해에 대하여도 위헌법률심판 또는 헌법소원의 대상으로 인정될 수가 없다고 하겠다. 현행 형사소송법, 범죄피해자보호법, 그리고 범죄피해자구조법은 범죄피해자를 보호하고 지원하는 규정을 두고 있는데, 이들 규정이 국가의 범죄피해자에 대한 기본권보호의무를 위반하였다고 할 수는 없다고 하겠다. 현대 국가에서 범죄피해자는 더 이상 범죄의 객체나 시혜적으로 보호되어야 할 대상이 아니라 실체적 진실을 규명하여 적정한 형사처벌을 실현함으로써 형사사법의 정의를 구현하는 적극적인 권리의 주체로서 인식되고 있다. 범죄피해자의 권리를 실질적으로 보장하기 위해서는 범죄피해자보호법 등에 대한 입법과 그 법률해석을 통한 사법을 비롯한 국가작용을 체계정합적으로 정서하는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위해서는 범죄피해자의 헌법상 기본권을 정확하게 이해하는 것이 요구된다고 하겠다.

The Goal of the Terrorism Victim Support System

Woongshin Park(Woongshin Park) J-INSTITUTE 2024 International Journal of Terrorism & National Secu Vol.9 No.-

Purpose: In modern criminal proceedings, human rights guarantees have been discussed mainly for perpetrators who are expected to be punished in the future, but interest in the criminal law status of victims, which has been marginalized since 1980, has increased. Terrorist crimes will also not be free from this trend. No, terrorist crimes are crimes that require more importance in consideration of victims under the Criminal Policy and Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, The purpose of this article is to identify the current status and problems of the support system for victims of terrorist crimes in Korea and find ways to improve them. Method: Terrorism will also not be free from this trend. No, terrorism is a crime in which consideration should be given to victims under the Criminal Policy and Criminal Procedure Act. This is be-cause terrorist crimes, unlike ordinary crimes, have a very high need to repair property, physical and psychological damage to victims directly from criminal acts in that they are used as tools for human life and body, as well as take structures that massproduce such victims. This research begins with the question “Where is the current state of consideration for victims of terrorist crimes under our actual law?” To this end, we will first review the concept and scope of victims of terrorist crimes. This is because the concept of terrorist crimes is value-charged and the victims of terrorism are the same. In addition, the ministry conducted a review of the characteristics of the victims of terrorism. Based on these discussions, we look at the structure of the nation's sup-port system for victims of terrorist crimes and discuss the support of victims of terrorist crimes abroad. In particular, the government took the issue as a reference to the Korean government's plan to improve the support system for victims of terrorist crimes by examining the international community's response philosophy and support system, including the United Nations, in terms of guaranteeing the human rights. Finally, the Act on the Prevention of Terrorism and the Act on the Protection of Victims of Crimes reviewed measures to improve the support system for victims of terrorist crimes. Results: The main improvement measures for the support system for victims of terrorist crimes according to this paper are as follows. First of all, it was argued that the damage of terrorist crimes should be considered not only traditional physical damage but also metaphysical legal interests such as the right to self-determination of personal information. In particular, it was argued that the people's right to self-determination of personal information by performing investigation activities under the Anti-Terrorism Act and collecting information should also fall under the damage of terrorist crimes. Next, since most of the current support for victims of terrorist crimes focuses on the financial support system, it was proposed to strengthen access to support victims of terrorist crimes as well as the input of human and material assets to overcome the trauma of victims (although there are also payments for mental damage recovery). In addition, the Korean Crime Victim Support Center was ordered to play an active role in introducing an active victim support system such as CVAP in New York State. Conclusion: This research begins with the question “Where is the current state of consideration for victims of terrorist crimes under our actual law?” To this end, we will first review the concept and scope of victims of terrorist crimes. This is because the concept of terrorist crimes is value-charged and the victims of terrorism are the same. In addition, the ministry conducted a review of the characteristics of the victims of terrorism.

범죄피해자 보호ㆍ지원제도의 개선방안

원혜욱(Won, Hye Wook) 한국피해자학회 2017 被害者學硏究 Vol.25 No.3

In the criminal justice system so far, the victim was regarded as a personal matter even though he suffered enormous damage both mentally and economically due to the crime, but he did not pay much attention to compensation or compensation for it. In 1964, we have enacted the protection policy for victims from all over the world, including New Zealand. In Korea, based on the “Crime Victims Protection Act” enacted in 2005, the State and local governments have established policies for the protection of crime victims and are supporting the activities of the organizations concerned with the protection of victims. In accordance with the Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice on Victims of Crime and Abuse, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1985, it is recommended that appropriate measures be taken to protect victims on an international, regional, or national level. In this paper, we propose the improvement methods of crime victim protection law and crime victim protection support, focusing on the consideration of crime victims’ protection and support system in New Zealand, Japan, Germany and other countries.

일반 논문 : 보복범죄의 범죄피해자 등 보호제도의 문제점과 개선방안

김대근 ( Dae Keun Kim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2015 고려법학 Vol.0 No.77

우리나라의 보복범죄의 범죄피해자 등 보호와 관련된 기본법제로는 ‘특정범죄신고자 등 보호법’(이하 범죄신고자법)이 있다. 이 법은 특정범죄에 관한 형사절차에서 국민이 안심하고 자발적으로 협조할 수 있도록 그 범죄 신고자 등을 실질적으로 보호함으로써 범죄로부터 사회를 방위하는 데에 이바지함을 목적으로 하며, 이 법을 기반으로 하여 현재 우리나라는 보복범죄의 범죄피해자 등을 보호하고 있다. 그러나 최근 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한법률(이하 ‘특가법’이라 한다)상의 보복범죄가 크게 증가하였음에도 불구 하고, 이에 대한 처벌이 상대적으로 높지 않다는 점이 지적을 받고 있다. 이 연구에서는 범죄피해자 등의 두터운 보호를 위해 관련 제도를 형사절차내, 외에서 검토하고, 보복범죄를 예방하고 줄이기 위한 합리적인 형법정책을 모색하고자 한다. 우선, 형사절차 내 범죄피해자 등 보호제도로는 ‘신변안전조치’, ‘보좌인 지정제도’, ‘수사단계에서 조서 등 서류에 인적사항 기재 생략’, ‘가명조서의 활용’, ‘증인 소환 및 신문의 특례’, ‘영상물 촬영 및 증거 활용’, ‘증인지원관제도’ 등이 있다. 그리고 형사절차 외 범죄피해자 등 보호제도로는 ‘구조금 신청제도’, ‘정보제공 및 통지제도’, ‘출판물 게재로부터의 보호제도’ 등이 있다. 그러나 ‘범죄피해자 등’에 주목한 정책적 대안들은 다음과 같은 몇 가지 근본적인 한계를 가질 수밖에 없다. 형법정책적으로는 특가법 제5조의9에 대한 비판적 이해를 통해 보복범죄를 보다 확실하고 엄하게 처벌할 수 있는 가능성을 검토할 필요가 있다. 구체적으로는 특가법 제5조의9 ‘보복의 목적’ 을 적극적으로 해석하는 것과, 보복의 목적이 인정된 특가법의 죄와 그 행위 태양이라고 할 수 있는 관련범죄의 상상적 경합을 인정하는 것, 그리고 보복범죄의 흔한 태양인 주취상태에 대한 법적 평가에 대한 것이 그것이다. 보복범죄는 범죄피해자 등에 대한 생명, 신체를 침해할 뿐만 아니라 국가의 정당한 형사사법을 저해하여 궁극적으로 법치국가의 틀을 훼손할 수 있다는 점에서 심각한 범죄이면서도, 그 특성상 섬세한 대책이 요구되는 과제라고 할 수 있다. 특히 범죄피해자 등에 대한 보호 대책은 수사와 재판 단계에서는 물론 형사절차 종료 이후에도 지속적으로 이루어져야 할 부분이기 때문에 장기적 관점에서 논의를 해야 할 부분이다. Main law regulating the protection of victims of crime is ACT ON PROTECTION OF SPECIFIC CRIME INFORMANTS, ETC. The purpose of this Act is to protect informants, etc. of specific crimes, to ensure that citizens can voluntarily cooperate in criminal procedures concerning specific crimes without fear, thereby contributing to defending society from crimes. However, there are some criticisms that even though retaliatory crime in ACT ON THE AGGRAVATED PUNISHMENT, ETC. OF SPECIFIC CRIMES(Article 5-9) has increased nowdays, the level of punishment is low. This study is to review the relevant institutions within the criminal proceedings for the protection of crime victims. Also it will try to seek rational criminal policy which can prevent and reduce retaliatory crime in Korea. First, there are some policy such ‘personal safety measures’, ‘assistants to informants’, ‘omission of personal information, such as described in documents from the investigation stage record’, ‘usage of a pseudonym reference’. ‘special rules with summon and examination of witness’. ‘shooting films’ and ‘person subject to registration’ in criminal procedure system. Also, there are some crime victim protection systems such as ‘rescue funds’, ‘notification of major changes relatedto the sccused, etc.’, and ‘protection system from publications published’ though they are not in criminal procedure. However, only crime-victims- oriented policy options are bound to have some fundamental limitations. It is necessary to examine the possibility of using a critical understanding scrutinizingly Article 5-9 (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Retaliatory Crime) in ACT ON THE AGGRAVATED PUNISHMENT, ETC. OF SPECIFIC CRIMES as a criminal policy. Specifically, one is to make an active interpretation of “the intent to retaliate against offering clues for any criminal investigation, such as accusation and complaint, making a statement, testifying, or presenting materials, in connection with the investigation or trial of the person``s or another person``s criminal case”. And another is to permit so-called imaginative concurrence of crimes with Article 5-9 in ACT ON THE AGGRAVATED PUNISHMENT, ETC. OF SPECIFIC CRIMES and related crimes. Finally, to have an accurate assessment on drunken condition which is general behavioral types as a retaliatory crime. Retaliatory crime is very serious things in that it hinders legitimate criminal justice in the country, as well as violate the life and body for crime victims, etc thus may eventually derogate the foundation of rule of law. That’s why delicate measures against retaliatory crime is required and we have to discuss protection measures for victims of crime, etc. not only in the investigation and trial stage but also after the criminal proceedings terminated with a long-term perspective.

형사피해자와 범죄피해자의 구별필요성 - 헌법재판소 결정을 중심으로 -

김혜경 한국피해자학회 2023 被害者學硏究 Vol.31 No.1

The legal terms used by the Constitution and laws should have legal effect that distinguishes them from other concepts. However, various terms are used in various systems for the protection of crime victims and the laws on which they are based. Examples include crime victims, criminal victims, a victims of a crime, non-victims, and victim . Here is tried to examine how these concepts are used in cases decided by the Constitutional Court in relation to crime victims so far, and whether legal concepts can be distinguished based on this. First of all, it was premised that the characteristics of the Crime Victim Protection Act and the Criminal Procedure Act were different to guarantee the basic rights of crime victims. In other words, the Criminal Victim Protection Act believes that even if various systems are reorganized for crime victims to be involved in criminal procedures, it cannot be a direct criminal victim's right to participate in criminal procedures. Therefore, the Crime Victim Protection Act is a protection-oriented law in which the state intervenes in the entire process of recovering damage from the occurrence of criminal damage, including criminal procedures, and the Criminal Procedure Act is the basis for the rights of criminal victims. Next, the summary of the terms is as follows. First of all, criminal victims, defined by the Constitution as the subject of the right to state trial procedures, are limited to the subject of rights and obligations in criminal procedures and direct victims of crimes. As a result, the term victim under the Criminal Procedure Act was deleted and a plan was proposed to unify it by replacing it with a victim of a crime. In addition, crime victims were considered to include not only direct victims of crime (criminal victims) and spouses, immediate relatives and siblings, but also those affected by crime damage prevention and crime victim rescue activities according to the definition of the Crime Victim Protection Act. In addition, I would like to propose that all victims, including those other than the term non-victim as a complainant under the Criminal Procedure Act and those other than criminal victims (defined as victims of crimes under the current law), be unified as non-victims. As a result, in the Criminal Procedure Act, victims, etc. will be able to organize legal statements by simply listing them as “criminal victims and not-victims” without any additional regulations or explanations.