중국형법상 기업의 처벌제도

김창준 ( Chang Joon Kim ) 한국비교형사법학회 2011 비교형사법연구 Vol.13 No.1

The study sets forth forth in detail the revolution of China`s Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises, the basis for Enterprise Criminal punishment and the structure of the enterprise criminal punishment theory, as well as the fomation of intentional crime in the enterprise crimes. ln addition, it dwells on the content, the characteristics and the existing problems of the Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises in the penal code. The Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises in China was first stipulated in the Administrative Law and Special Criminal Saw in the late 1980`s, and was introduced into Penal code through amendment of criminal law in the late 1990`s. There are almost 130 kinds of enterprise crimes included in the Penal code of China, most of the enterprise crimes are under the category of intentional crime and the rest are included into that of negligent crime. The Punishment on the criminal enterprises is principled on the Double punishment System, which basically follows the principle that: in the event of the crime committed by an organization or an institution is described in the preceding clause, the organization or institution shall be imposed penalty fine, and the superintendent who is directly responsible and whoever is directly responsible shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding clause. Therefore, Double punishment Systemis, based on the Natural person Inclusion Theory, an individual crminal punishment structure for enterprises. Penalty fine punishment as a means of criminal sanction levied upon the enterprise organizations, is currently not only the osle type and the unique criminal sanctin, with most of penalty fine cases are imposed System of Unspecified Penalty Fine Amount and System of Penalty Fine Aggregation, but also monetary penalty is the only the punishment in terms of punishment execution. The existing systematic problems are the major causes that reduce the effect of criminal punishment. As a result, to improve and perfect the system of enterprises criminal punishment in the penal code is the most pressing demand of the day.

강벌주의 입법과 형사정책 경향에 대한 연구

이종혁 아주대학교 법학연구소 2022 아주법학 Vol.16 No.2

The prevailing tendency in today's society as a whole, is to ultimately resort to criminal punishment. There has been a public opinion that severe punishment should be imposed on the offender whenever an antisocial incident occurs, and criminal policy conscious of that pubic opinion has been directed toward imposing severe punishment on the offender. However, there are many criticisms on whether such violent punishment theory actually contributes to the re-socialization of criminals and the safety of society. Considering that criminal punishment has an attribute of harm and is also the most powerful means that the state can impose on individuals, it is self-evident that it must conform to the principle of proportionality. It is also necessary to look back on whether the criminal policy has been successful in an effective sense. Crime must be deterred, and it cannot be denied that one of the purposes of punishment is to retaliate against the perpetrator, and that there is a recovery of harm that can be achieved through this. The effect of Threats(menace) given by the severe punishment is also self-evident. However, the criminal punishment should be commensurate with the responsibility of the offender and should not proceed towards a totalitarian criminal law that loses human dignity. The history of mankind, regardless of East and West, has already experienced totalitarian criminal law, and in the midst of it, the substantive truth has been ignored and many innocent people have been executed. Since the right of punishment, which can infringe on a person's life, body, or property, is a very serious power, it must be strictly controlled by the principle of the rule of law and must not be used in a direction contrary to important basic principles such as the principle of responsibility and the principle of proportionality. Punitivism is viewed as a tendency that emerged based on hostile criminal law thinking and to strengthen the sense of security based on exaggerated and distorted facts. Judging from a traditional punishment theory standpoint, the aforementioned punitive legislation and criminal policies are against human dignity, the principle of responsibility and proportionality, and run the risk of moving toward totalitarian criminal law. The extension of punishment and the strengthening of punishment may only have the effect of relieving the immediate legal sentiment, rather than being the fundamental solution in terms of social prevention. In the end, there is a high possibility that it will merely end up as ‘Threats(menace) for Threats’, even if we look at the cases of other countries. Therefore, punishment should not be determined based on vague criteria such as public opinion or legal sentiment. Moreover, criminal legislation should be implemented through a detailed review in line with the teleological aspects of general prevention and special prevention that conform to the principle of thorough accountability and proportionality. In this paper, we will examine the trend of punitivism widely spreading in recent criminal policies and the corresponding punishment theory.

만주국 일본재판의 비판

동구이 ( Gui Wu Dong ),박상식 ( Sang Sik Park ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.39 No.2

Manchukuo was established near northeastern district in March, 1932 by Japan as a puppet state and perished after Japan`s defeat in World War Ⅱ. During that 14 years, Manchukuo legislates laws, such as “The Security Police Act”, “Punishment of Rebels Act”, “Punishment of Local Rebels Act - Temporarily enact”, and “Bo-gap law-Temporarily enact”. In the mean time, there were many defects in the enforcement of the law. For example, laws were terribly cruel to anti-Japanese, the principle of legality was nominal, remolding of thought went against the subjectivist viewpoint of punishment, and Bo-gap law went against individual responsibility. This text is focused on the Manchukuo`s punishment that run counter to the criminal law, enforcement of punishment after trial, and standard for enforcement of punishment. 1. The Assaults Committed by Manchukuo(Cruel punishment for criminals) There had been two types of criminal offence in Manchucuo. One is that occurs between ordinary people. The reciprocal damage will be punished in any society. The other one is anti-Japan activity that can be deemed as a criminal act by the Japanese Empire, and also can be deemed as courageous resistance for Chinese. For these acts, Manchukuo treat them as a special criminal act and enforce punishments. 2. The Principle of Legality(Just a tool of punishment) Manchukuo`s criminal code declares ‘the Principle of Legality` in Article 1 but theory and practice are not the same thing. The Principle of legality requires both formality and substantivity. For example, according to the Article 2 of ‘Punishment of Local Rebels Act - Temporarily enact`, it sentences of death for all of these: crimes against public, murder, robbery, piracy, rape, and abscond. These cruel punishments are totally against the Principle of Legality and equity of crime and punishment. 3. Remolding of Thought(Against subjective viewpoint of punishment) The development history of theory of punishment is a competition between old-school and new-school. The old-school, in a subjective viewpoint, has based on the punishment in retribution and criminal liability for offender of legal interest. However, the new-school has adhered to objective viewpoint and put the criminal liability in the physical threat that occur from the criminal act. In an aspect of punishment, old-school has countenanced the punishment based on risk of the criminal act, but new-school has desired the prevention of repeated crime, the basis of criminal liability expands infinite. 4. Bo-gap Law(Emphasizing group responsibility) In the Criminal Law, responsibilities have been developed from group responsibility to personal responsibility, from consequences to subjectivity, and in modern society, responsibilities are recognized as all personal and subjective responsibilities. In Article 9 of “Bo-gap law-Temporarily enact “regulates the contents about the anti-personal responsibilities in modern society. In conclusion, during the 14 years of Manchukuo, these criminal laws were mostly focused on establishing the order with suppressing anti-Japan groups, and scarcely focused on general criminal acts.

형법상 누범규정에 대한 특별관계로서 특별법상 누범규정의 해석

김정환(Kim, Jong-Hwan) 한국형사법학회 2014 형사법연구 Vol.26 No.3

누범이라는 개념을 입법자가 유지하고 있는 현실에서 차선책으로 누범규정의 해석․적용상의 문제점에 대하여 살펴보았다. 누범에 대한 일반적인 규정을 하고 있는 형법 제35조 이외에 폭처법, 특가법, 특강법에서는 각 특별법상 범죄의 누범에 대하여 가중된 별도의 처벌규정을 두고 있다. 판례는 폭처법 제3조 제4항, 특가법 제5조 의4 제5항과 제6항의 누범규정의 해석․적용에 있어서 특별법에 의한 가중 후에 형법 제35조 누범규정에 의한 가중을 인정한다. 특별법상의 누범규정의 성격을 보면, 상습범을 규정한 것으로서 독립적 구성요건이므로 형법총칙의 누범규정이 적용가능 하다는 것이 그 논거이다. 그러나 이러한 판례의 입장에 대해서는 동감할 수 없다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 폭처법 제2조 제3항과 제3조 제4항, 특가법 제5조의4 제5항과 제5조의 5, 특강법 제3조의 법률문언에서는 형법상 누범의 특별규정임을 명시하고 있다. 즉 이 규정 들에서는 어떤 요건을 갖추어 ‘누범으로 처벌하는 (할) 경우’라고 표현하고 있는데, 이 경우에는 바로 형법 제8조 단서에 의하여 형법 제35조는 적용되지 않고 특별법만 이 적용되는 것이다. 법률문언에서 명확히 특별법만을 적용하도록 규정한 경우에 대법원이 행한 논증처럼 그 규정의 성질을 논하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 둘째, 법률문언에서 명확하게 누범의 특칙으로 규정하고 있지 않은 특가법 제5조 의4 제6항의 경우에도, 법조경합 (특별관계) 의 본질의 측면에서 보면 이 규정 역시 누범규정의 특칙으로 보게 된다. 특가법 제5조의4 제6항이 적용되는 경우는 모두 형법 제35조의 요건을 충족하는 것이고, 형법 제35조의 요건 이외에 추가적으로 각 특별법의 일정한 범죄가 전범 (前犯) 으로 요구된다. 따라서 특가법 제5조의4 제6항은 형법 제35조에 대하여 추가적으로 형법 제35조의 누범가중을 하는 것은 이중평가금지에 위반된다. 셋째, 법리적 측면 이외에 실질적 측면에서도 판례에서 특별법상 누범규정에 형법상 누범규정을 적용할 실익을 찾을 수 없다. 절차적인 면에서 특별법상의 누범규정의 성격을 누범가중의 특례규정으로 본다면 법원은 특별법의 누범규정이 공소장의 기재되지 않았더라도 직권으로 판단하여 이를 적용할 수 있으나, 독립적 구성요건으 로 본다면 공소장에 특별법상의 누범규정이 기재되지 아니한 경우 법원은 직권으로 이를 적용할 수는 없고, 따라서 법원에 의한 직권적용에 의하여 피고인이 예상하지 못한 불이익을 막을 수 있기 때문에 피고인에게 유리하다고 한다. 그러나 특별법상 누범규정을 새로운 구성요건으로 보면 형법상 누범규정에 의한 가중이 가능해지는 데, 이것이 오히려 피고인에게는 더 불리한 수 있다. 그 외에 선고형을 보더라도 형 법상 누범가중규정을 적용한 형량 가중의 효과는 나타나지 않았다. 법원은 특별법에 서 이미 중한 법정형이 규정되어 있어 굳이 이를 더 가중하여 처벌하지는 않는다. 결국 폭처법 제2조 제3항과 제3조 제4항, 특가법 제5조의4 제5항․제6항 및 제5조 의 5, 그리고 특강법 제3조는 형법상 누범규정의 특별규정으로 해석되고, 따라서 이 규정이 적용되는 경우에는 형법상 누범규정 (제35조) 에 의한 추가적인 가중처벌을 허용되지 않는다. An offender released from prison will either recidivate or desist. When it comes to criminology, repeated crime, which is called recidivism, is an important feature concerning topics about incapacitation, specific deterrence and rehabilitation. Reducing recidivism is the key goal for probation and parole program. In the criminal justice system, aggravated punishment is designed to treat recidivism. Criminal law defines recidivism as committing other crimes within three-year after being released from incarceration. Under Article 35 (2) of ‘Criminal Act’, punishment for repeated crimes can be aggravated twice the maximum penalty of specified crime. Other than ‘Criminal Act’, recidivism is also regulated in special criminal laws such as Article 2 (3) (4) of ‘Punishment of Violences Act’, Article 5-4 (5) (6) and Article 5-5 of ‘Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes’, Article 3 of ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes’. The Supreme Court applies recidivism punishment regulations under special criminal laws and ‘Criminal Act (Article 35) ’ separately. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4913 delivered on 23 Aug 2007, Supreme Court decided, recidivism punishment regulations in special criminal laws are rather habitual crime regulations than particular regulations of recidivism. Consequently, an offender who committed the crime of Article 2 (4) of ‘Punishment of Violences Act’ will be sentenced aggravated penalty by Article 35 of ‘Criminal Act’. However, because I believe the recidivism punishment regulations of the special criminal laws are reiteration of Article 35 of ‘Criminal Act’, the legal interpretation of Supreme Court decision 2007Do4913 cannot earn my approval. An offender who committed crime against Article 2 (4) of ‘Punishment of Violences Act’ facing weighted penalty both by ‘Punishment of Violences Act’ and ‘Criminal Act’ is double punishment.

형가중적 특별법에 관한 헌법재판소 결정문 분석

여경수 헌법재판연구원 2015 헌법재판연구 Vol.2 No.2

Korea has a great number of so-called Special criminal acts in addition to the Criminal Code. They are almost products which were enacted as social needs arose from time to time, but their mass production has a bad influence which damages unity and coherence of criminal law system seriously. Hard criminal code has led to the production of special criminal code. The special criminal code is legislated only focusing on the convenience of application. special criminal, however, usually provide harsher punishments than the criminal code, and the degree of the criminal penalties is excessively relentless compared with that of the criminals. Aggravation factors of the special criminal are out of balance and vague. In determining the type and the degree of the statutory sentence for a crime, the request for the respect and the protection for human dignity and values against the threat of criminal punishment under Article 10 of the Constitution should be observed, the statutory sentence should be determined within the range enabling the application of the principle of different punishment for different crimes pursuant to the spirit of prohibition of excessive legislation of Section 2 of Article 37 of the Constitution for the substantive realization of the principle of the government by the rule of law, and the appropriate proportion should be maintained so that the criminal punishment corresponds to the nature of the crime and the responsibility therefor. The balance between crime and punishment should be consistent with the value system of the time that is based upon the constitutional order. Therefore, a fresh review over the statutory sentence in the basic law of the Criminal Act is required as a matter of principle when the amount of sentence for a specific crime is no longer appropriate due to changes in social circumstances, while, however, the amount of criminal punishment should not exceed the degree of responsibility of the actor also when the sentence is aggravated for special reasons. Ultimately, the Provision contradicts the principle of responsibility that requires proportionality between liability and punishment as well as the principle of equality for disruption of balance in the punishment system, which is ultimately against the Constitution. 우리나라에서는 형사특별법이 다수 존재한다. 형가중적 특별법은 사회 일반에서 물의를 빚고 있는 특정 범죄행위를 기존의 형량보다 중한 형으로 처벌하는 경향이 있다. 우리나라 형가중적 특별법에는 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률, 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률, 특정강력 범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법과 같은 법률이 있다. 우리 헌법은 국가권력의 남용으로부터 국민의 기본권을 보호하려는 법치국가의 실현을 기본이념으로 하고 있다. 형사실체법이 헌법의 기본원리에 위반되는 경우에는 헌법재판소로부터 통제를 받을 수 있다. 헌법재판소는 형가중적 형사특별법에 관한 헌법재판에서 다음과 같은 원칙을 제시하였다. ①인간의 존엄을 보장하기 위한 측면에서는 중벌주의는 한계가 있다. 형벌이 지나치게 가혹하거나 잔인하면 일시적으로는 범죄 억지력을 발휘할지 모르지만, 결국에는 중벌에 대해 면역성과 무감각이 생기게 된다. 나아가 범죄예방과 법질서 수호로 이어지는 것이 아니라 법의 권위를 실추시키고 법질서의 영속성과 안정을 저해하는 요인이 될 뿐이다. ② 우리 헌법상 형벌의 본질은 인간의 가치를 실현하는 목적에 부합해야한다. 우리나라 형벌의 목적은 범죄인을 사회로부터 추방하거나 격리시키려는 중형위주의 가혹한 응보형주의가 아니다. 우리나라에서 형벌의 본질은 범죄인의 교화개선에 있다. ③ 형벌은 평등의 원칙에 충실한 형벌체계상의 균형성이 준수되어야한다. 형사특별법에서 그 법정형을 가중하는 것은 합리성을 갖추어야한다. 또한 형벌이 가중된 범죄는 유사범죄와 비교하여 현저히 부당하지 아니한 범위 내에서 가중해야 한다. ④ 형벌규정은 실질적 법치주의에 따른 과잉입법금지의 원칙이 준수되어야한다. 형벌은 책임과 형벌간의 비례성 원칙이 준수되어야한다. 입법자가 형벌이라는 수단을 선택함에 있어서는 그 형벌이 불법과 책임의 경중이 일치해야한다.

고려시대 "연고지 유배형"의 성격과 전개

오희은 ( Hee Eun Oh ) 서울대학교 국사학과 2016 韓國史論 Vol.62 No.-

As can be confirmed in Five Punishments(五刑) code and Standard Implements of Punishment(刑杖式) of ≪Goryeosa(高麗史)≫, Goryeo adopted Song``s penal system, which executed the Replacement Punishment of Flogging(折杖法) on the basis of Five Punishments. The Replacement Punishment of Flogging was a penal law to replace four of Five Punishments (excluding the capital punishments), 笞, 杖, 徒, 流, with flogging and forced labor. Song Dynasty developed Pyeonbae punishment (編配刑) to ease the gap between the capital punishment and other four punishments replaced with flogging, thus making Pyeonbae punishment(編 配刑) a commutation or an additional punishment. Therefore, Goryeo``s punishment of exile was very similar to Song``s Pyeonbae punishment(編配 刑) in its way of development and execution; it is enough to say that Goryeo``s punishment of exile, in some characteristics, was Goryeo``s version of Pyeonbae punishment(編配刑). Among the punishment of exile of early Goryeo period was ``the Punishment of Exile to a Place in Connection with the Criminal``, which is called Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑). Like other punishments of exile, Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑) was also a severe punishment, serving as a commutation or an additional punishment to other punishments stated in the code of criminal law. However, it was the lightest punishment compared to other punishments of exile. Generally, it was applied only to the ruling class; it deprived them of the rights of controlling their land and the merits they enjoyed being exempted from labor(役). In most cases, the ‘Punishment of Exile to a Place in Connection with the Criminal’ from early Goryeo period comes down to Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑), a punishment of exile to Hyang(鄕). Goryeo``s Hyang (鄕) does not only mean the person``s Bonguan(本貫), but also consists of many other places s/he is connected either paternally, maternally, or by marriage. However, in later Goryeo period, many other places than Hyang (鄕) came to be seen as ‘Places in Connection with the Crimina’, causing the ``Punishment of Exile to a Place in Connection with the Criminal`` to change. Criminals were exiled to other places like Byeolup(別業), which were places personally connected to him/her but not Hyang(鄕). On the other hand, in later Goryeo period, Yuan Dynasty``s criminal law influenced Goryeo``s crime punishment system to differ from its earlier form. Thus, the ``Punishment of Exile to a Place in Connection with the Criminal`` cleansed itself of its earlier heavy characteristic and changed into mild punishment applied to high-ranking officials. Also, it started to combine with a newer punishment, Conscription(充軍刑). Therefore, it is possible to say that the ‘Punishment of Exile to a Place in Connection with the Criminal’ also changed according to time.

내국인의 국외범에 대한 처벌기준

조현욱 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2019 法과 政策 Vol.25 No.1

This article goes on the criteria of punishment against crimes by Koreans outside Korea. The Article 3 of the Criminal Act states that “this act shall apply to all Korean nationals who commit crimes outsie the territory of the Republic of Korea” referring to the principle that the application of the Criminal Act depends on nationality. The Seoul High Court provides for the first time the punishment criteria against crimes by Koreans outside Korea such as the “application of Article 20 of the Criminal Act based on Article 37 Clause 2 of the Constitution” . This punishment criteria is preferable in terms of reduction of the criminal punishment and Hight of freedom for the people of the Republic of Korea. As we have seen, the analytical solution to Article 3 of the current Criminal Act is desirable in terms of reduction of the criminal punishment, but there are some parts which are difficult to be easily accepted due to each of the contained problems. Although Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides a certain degree of control over the scope of criminal punishment, also it is undeniable that Article 3 of the current Criminal Act takes absolute Personal principle and leads to the expansion of the criminal punishment. A new interpretation or amendment of Article 3 of the Criminal Act is needed in accordance with the situation of the global village and the main theme of the conference called “the task of public law and private law in accordance with social change”. I think that it is desirable to fundamentally solve the problem through preparation of the provision such as “That this shall not apply where such acts under Act in effect at the time of the act do not constitute a crime, or the prosecution thereof or the execution of the punishment therefor is remitted” in Article 3 of the Criminal Act, not interpretation. 지구촌(地球村)시대를 맞아 해외여행이나 파견 등 국가 간의 인적 교류 증가로 인해 외국에서 도박, 마약, (아동・청소년)성매매 등의 범죄를 저지르고 본국으로 귀국한 자국민에 대한 형사처벌 여부가 문제로 등장하고 있다. 대법원은 지금까지 현행 형법 제3조가 속인주의를 규정하고 있으므로 대한민국국민이 외국법에서는 허용되나 국내법에는 위반되는 행위를 외국에서 한 경우도 범죄가 되고, 당연히 위법성이 조각되는 것은 아니라고 판단해 왔다. 그러나 위법성이 조각되는 경우가 어떤 경우인지에 관해서는 명시적인 판시를 한 적이 없었다. 최근 이러한 행위에 대해 우리나라의 국가안전보장・질서유지 또는 공공복리를 침해하는 때에 한해 처벌할 수 있다는 기준을 처음으로 제시한 하급심판결이 등장하였으며, 대법원은 “국가안전보장이나 질서유지, 공공복리”부분은 판결문에 명시하지 않고 위법성조각사유만 언급한 채 동 판결을 확정하였다. 서울고등법원이 내세우고 있는 헌법 제37조 제2항에 따른 헌법합치적 해석이 형사사건의 기본적 해석기준으로 작동한다는 점은 분명하나, 개별 범죄의 보호법익을 함께 고려할 때 반드시 타당한지는 의문이 든다. 지구촌(地球村)시대라는 상황과 “사회변화에 따른 공법과 사법의 과제”라는 학술대회의 대주제에 맞게 형법 제3조의 새로운 해석 내지 입법론적 해결방안이 필요한 시점이다. 서울고등법원이 헌법 제37조 제2항에 근거한 형법 제20조 적용이라는 내국인의 국외범에 대한 처벌기준을 제시함으로써, 절대적 속인주의 적용으로 가벌성이 무한대로 확장될 수 있는 부분이 일정정도 제어될 수 있을 것이다. 또한 형법 제3조가 절대적 속인주의를 채택하고 있다는 점을 재확인하면서도, 헌법합치적 해석에 입각한 내국인의 국외범에 대한 처벌기준을 최초로 제시함으로써 외국에서 대한민국국민의 자유를 신장시켰다는데 의미를 찾을 수 있다. 살펴본 바에 따르면 현행 형법 제3조에 대한 해석론적 해결방안은 가벌성 축소라는 측면에서는 바람직하나, 각각의 내포된 문제점으로 인해 쉽게 받아들이기 어려운 부분도 존재한다. 현행 형법 제3조가 절대적 속인주의를 취하고 있어 가벌성의 확대를 가져오는 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실이다. 형법 제20조를 통하여 가벌성의 범위를 일정 정도 제어할 수 있으나, 형법 제3조에 “단 행위지의 법률에 의하여 범죄를 구성하지 아니하거나 소추 또는 형의 집행을 면제할 경우에는 예외로 한다.”는 규정을 마련함으로써 문제를 근본적으로 해결할 필요가 있다.

행정제재와 형벌의 관계에 관한 소고

최봉석 한국법제연구원 2011 법제연구 Vol.- No.40

Administrative sanctions are classified into two categories, administrative criminal penalty and administrative order punishment. The two are distinct in sanction but in fact indistinct which case charged administrative penalty or administrative order punishment. also there is indistinct in administrative criminal penalty and administrative order punishment. for example penalty. Administrative penalty is so criminal penalty that applied criminal general principles. On the other hand, administrative order punishment charged a fine on violating the administrative order that is not criminal penalty. It make “Act on the Violations of Public order” to administrative sanction so gain identity in legal system in germany. “Act on the Violations of Public order” included an substantive law and an adjective law so applied criminal general principles as it is regardless of legal sanctions. There is Act on the Violations of Public order to common law in administrative penalty in germany. But there is not common law in administrative penalty in korea so take place in many troubles. Both sides are quite distinct to degree the benefit and protection of the law. but they do not always equal in many cases. and It is complicated content and system in administrative criminal penalty so make many problem in equal treatment. To overcoming problem in administrative penalty, administrative criminal penalty convert to administrative order punishment and simplify the kind and meaning of sanction. hereunder, we can distinct in administrative criminal penalty and administrative order punishment. and we must accept wholeheartedly to administrative criminal penalty when restrictions are strict. We must review a administrative criminal penalty and make the decriminalization and balance between administrative order punishment and administrative criminal penalty, imprisonment and fine penalty. Recently, in this connection, “Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public order” is established and forced. For the basic solution, we must make legislation containing administrative order punishment and administrative criminal penalty. 행정벌은 크게 행정형벌과 행정질서벌로 구분된다. 양자는 제재의 내용으로는 명확하게 구분되지만 실제 어떠한 경우에 행정질서벌이 부과되고 행정형벌이 부과되는지는 분명하지 않다. 또한 범칙금과 같이 행정질서벌인지 행정형벌인지 불명확한 경우도 있다. 행정벌 특히 행정형벌 역시 형벌이기 때문에 형법의 일반 원칙이 그대로 적용된다고 할 것이다. 이와 달리 행정질서를 위반한 경우에 부과되는 행정질서벌은 형벌이 아닌 과태료가 과해지는 처분이다. 독일의 경우 행정제재에 대해 질서위반법을 규정하여 법체계에서의 독자성을 확보하고 있다. 독일의 질서위반법은 독자적인 실체법적 규정과 절차법적 규정을 모두 가지고 있고 법적 제재수단의 종류와 무관하게 형사법적 원칙은 그대로 적용되고 있다. 우리의 경우 행정제재에 대해 질서위반법이라는 행정형벌의 일반법이 존재하는 독일과는 달리 아직 이러한 일반법이 규정되지 않고 있기 때문에 많은 문제점이 발생하고 있다. 현재 행정형벌과 행정질서벌은 법익 침해의 정도에 따라 구분되지만 법익 침해에 있어서 양자가 균형을 이루지 못하는 경우가 많이 발생하고 있다. 또한 불필요하게 많은 경우에 행정형법을 의무 이행확보수단으로 활용하고 있으며 부과되는 자유형과 재산형의 경우 형의 불균형이 발생하고 있다. 행정형벌의 경우 내용은 물론 그 부과체계도 복잡하여 평등한 제재부과에 대해서도 문제점을 노출하고 있다. 이러한 행정벌의 문제점을 극복하기 위해서는 우선 행정형벌의 상당수를 행정질서벌로 전환하고 현재 행정법상 부과되는 제재의 종류와 내용을 단순화하여야 한다. 이에 따라 행정형벌과 행정질서벌을 보다 명확하게 구분하고 보다 각각의 제재에 대해 그 제재의 정도가 강한 경우에는 행정형벌로 수용하여야 한다. 그리고 기존의 행정형벌의 대상을 재검토하여 과감한 비범죄화 노력이 필요하다. 마지막으로 행정형벌과 행정질서벌, 자유형과 벌금형간의 균형을 이룰 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다. 이와관련하여 최근 ‘질서위반행위규제법’이 제정되어 시행되고 있다. 보다 근본적인 해결을 위해서는 행정질서벌과 행정형벌을 모두 포괄하는 새로운 법률제정이 이루어져야 할 것이다.

성희롱 행위에 대한 형사법적 규제

이수창(Lee, Soochang) 대검찰청 2014 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.44

종래 성희롱은 성폭력이나 강제추행의 개념 범주에 들어가지 않는 사회생활에 있을 수 있는 남녀 간의 가벼운 신체접촉 등으로 치부되었고, 이에 대하여 형사적인 처벌 보다는 직장 내의 징계, 민사상 손해배상청구 등을 통한 책임추궁에 그쳤던 것이 사실이다. 그러나 보다 효과적인 성희롱 예방을 위해서는 행위자에 대하여 보다 직접적인 제재가 필요하고, 그 방식이 적극적인 형사처벌을 통한 성희롱 행위의 ‘범죄화’라 할 것이다. 성희롱에 대한 형사법적 규제 방식은 국가마다 상이하다. 미국은 연방형법 및 주법에서 몇 가지 유형의 성희롱 행위를 나열하고 이를 형사적으로 처벌하는 개별규정을 두고 있는 반면, 프랑스와 스웨덴과 같이 형법에 별도의 포괄 규정으로 성희롱을 처벌하는 입법례도 있다. 우리나라의 경우 육체적ㆍ언어적ㆍ시각적 성희롱 등 각 행위유형별 성희롱 행위에 대하여 (i) 특정 신체부위를 만지는 육체적 성희롱은 형법상 강제추행죄, 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(공중밀집장소에서의추행), (ii) 음란한 이야기를 하는 등의 언어적 성희롱은 형법상 명예훼손, 모욕죄, (iii) 시각적 성희롱은 형법상 공연음란죄 등의 성립이 문제될 수 있다. 다만, 다양한 유형의 성희롱 행위들이 형법, 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 등의 형사처벌 규정 구성요건에 해당하지 않으면 이에 대하여 형사적 제재를 가할 수 없는 현실적인 어려움이 있다. 이를 해결하기 위하여 형법에 별도의 성희롱 처벌규정을 신설하는 방안, 제3의 특별법을 제정하는 방안 등을 생각할 수 있으나, 성희롱 피해자에 대한 보호조치를 마련하고, 기존의 형사법 체계와의 정합성 유지 등을 도모하기 위하여는 현행 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법에 성희롱 관련 처벌 규정을 별도로 신설함으로써 성희롱을 보다 강하게 처벌할 수 있는 근거 규정을 마련하는 것이 보다 바람직하다 할 것이다. Conventionally, sexual harassment has been dismissed as nothing more than casual bodily contact between the genders, which does not fall into the category of sexual violence or indecent assault. It has been dealt with by disciplinary actions in the workplace or claims for monetary damages at most rather than by criminal punishment. Imposing a more direct sanction is called for to prevent sexual harassment effectively, which can be accomplished by ‘criminalizing’ behaviors that constitute sexual harassment through tough criminal punishments. Criminal sanctions against sexual harassment differ from country to country. Whereas U.S.A. has enumerated several types of behaviors that fall into sexual harassment not only in its federal constitution but in the state law and has legislated specific penal provisions for them, some countries such as France and Sweden have a separate, catch-all provision in criminal law. In Korea, each type of behaviors, e.g. physical, verbal and visual behaviors that may constitute sexual harassment under the criminal law is (i) Indecent Act by Compulsion (Criminal Act Art.298) for physical sexual harassment by touching of a person's body, Indecent Act at Crowded Public Place (Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Art.11), (ii) Defamation (Criminal Act Art.307) and Insult (Criminal Act Art. 311) for verbal sexual harassment such as using obscene languages, (iii) Public Indecency (Criminal Act Art. 245) for visual sexual harassment. Unless a wide range of behaviors that may constitute sexual harassment fall under the elements of crimes aforementioned, inflicting criminal sanctions on them would be practically impossible. To tackle this problem, measures such as adopting a penal provision for sexual harassment under the Criminal Act or legislating another special act could be considered. However, adopting a separate penal provision under the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes that establishes a legal basis for tougher and heavier punishment would be more desirable to provide protective measures for the victims and promote consistency with the existing criminal law system.

淸代 笞杖刑의 집행과 죄인의 사망

김한밝 동양사학회 2023 東洋史學硏究 Vol.162 No.-

Corporal punishment was an intuitive punishment that corresponded with the purpose of general prevention of pre-modern punishment because it could show the public that the punishment would be applied directly to the criminal and that retribution would be imposed. Therefore, in Chinese history, corporal punishment was maintained until the end of the Qing, but there were significant differences. In this context, this study attempts to comprehensively explore the execution and purpose of caning, and the characteristics of the Qing judicial administration. In the Qing era, based on the practice of punishment centering on actual punishment, Qing government used caning as a light punishment limited to misdemeanors. Therefore, the 10 to 100 of caning in the code were converted to 4 to 40 executions, and efforts were put into the legal system to protect the standardization. The legal device for this was the law of “Executing a Sentence not in Accordance with the Rules,” which stipulated punishment tools and methods of execution. It seems that the standardization of the execution method actually secured a character as light punishment. The recognition that criminals who were punished by caning did not lead to death can be confirmed from the punishment system. In light of this, it can be assumed that in the Qing dynasty, it was common for criminals not to die if they were legally punished with a cane. Contrary to this perception, however, in actual judicial scene, there were cases in which criminals died as a result of caning, and among them, there were cases in which several criminals died in a short period of time. Since the death of multiple criminals was not such a common case even in the Qing era, the emperor thought that there was a possibility of local official’s abusing criminals. However, the cause of death was not explored from the inherent danger of corporal punishment. Until the abolition of corporal punishment at the end of the Qing Dynasty, no attempt was made to dispatch a government doctor to the site of the execution.