법률의 품격-경범죄처벌법에 대한 비판적 제언

이근우 ( Keun Woo Lee ) 한국비교형사법학회 2013 비교형사법연구 Vol.15 No.2

The Punishment Of Minor Offenses Act is an extraneous law in Korean law system. The minor offenses, which are against the Punishment Of Minor Offenses Act, is punished sanctions same as criminal law, penal, so this sanctions substantially are criminal punishment. However, the punishment is finished through making a payment penalty to banking institution in practice. It is same as fine. Moreover this law exposes procedural problems between Juvenile Act. In this respect, the nature of the Minor Offense Law arises confusion whether Criminal Law or Act On The Regulation Of Violations Of Public Order. In addition, there is number of minor offenses included, this offenses will be really worth the punishment imposed is questionable. I discussed the substantial aspects and procedural aspects of the Punishment Of Minor Offenses Act and propose improvements in this study. Through this critical review, I suggest some alternatives of the Act.

스토킹처벌법상 구성요건의 적용 및 한계

강소영 ( Kang So Young ),이완희 ( Lee Wan Hee ) 한국경찰학회 2021 한국경찰학회보 Vol.23 No.6

The enactment of the 「Act on Punishment of Stalking」 has allowed exemptions for punishment and procedures for stalking crimes, and protection procedures for victims of stalking crimes to be stipulated, which becomes an opportunity to change the social awareness of stalking crimes and protect victims. However, since the components of a stalking crime require some abstract concepts and interpretations, the controversy may arise over future legal applications. Therefore, this paper aimed to suggest a standard in the interpretation of the Act on Punishment of Stalking by analyzing the Judicial precedent for violation of the 「Punishment of Minor Offenses Act」 and 「Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Use and Information Protection」, which have similar components to those of the 「Act on Punishment of Stalking」. Regarding the interpretation of the components, ‘in victim,’ it is reasonable to consider that a crime can be established if a stalker is implicitly and abstractly aware that he/she conducts an action of stalking against the will of a victim. In respect to ‘what causes anxiety and fear,’ it is deemed to be reasonable to judge anxiety and fear as a rational fear based on the rational judgment standard of the general public. In determining ‘reasonable ground,’ the urgency and supplementation of a relevant action should be comprehensively reviewed. Regarding ‘continuity, repetitiveness,’ repetitiveness is unnecessarily the same action to be repeated; although there are respectively different actions, they will fall under the term if the action corresponding to the category of a stalking action is repeated. In addition, it is desirable to interpret that repetitivenessㆍcontinuity is recognized even after a relatively long time has elapsed between actions. On the other hand, it is deemed to be reasonable for the protection of the victim to consider that an ‘action of reaching’ online stalking has been reached if a victim can objectively recognize it, regardless of whether the victim is actually aware of it. Regarding collectionㆍuseㆍpostingㆍdistribution of personal information will be punished by the 「Act on Punishment of Stalking」 newly established, but if they are clearly defined as online stalking, it will lead to ensure clarity of punishment and prevent a gap in punishment. It is deemed to continuously put efforts to review and amend the behavior category of stalking, such as online stalking, tracking, distributing, and posting personal information frequently found from stalking damages, in the future although not reflected in the legislation.

대만의 경범죄처벌법(「社會秩序維護法」)(총칙)에 관한 연구 -주요내용과 우리 법의 시사점을 중심으로-

김성수 ( Seong Soo Kim ) 한국경찰법학회 2008 경찰법연구 Vol.6 No.2

This study is to provide an new and helpful material and perspective for the reform of our present minor offenses punishments act(hereafter says our act), through the Social Order Protection Act(「社會秩序維護法」)(hereafter says this act) in Taiwan, which was promulgated on June 29, 1991 and effective from the same day. In this study, after outlining its background and giving the general survey, if necessary. we try to give some advices for the reform of our act. For amendement of our act, promulgated on December 31, 1983, there has been several preceding scholaly or working-level works have been done on the topics of comparative minor offenses punishments act, but no systemic attempt has yet been made to this topic. For the most part, they have tended to center around the examples of Germany(Gesetz uber Ordnungswidrigkeiten), France(Code penal, contraventions), Japan(Minor Offenses Act) or America(misdemeanor; Civil Money Penalty) etc. But in my view, this examples of this nations, in some cases, the legal nature are different each other, in another cases, as in our act, are short of the systemicity, because our act enumerate 54 kinds of the minor offenses(Art. 1, subparagraph 1 to 54) in one article, and there are 2 to 3 things about another general provisions and 4 articles about special applications, so very insufficient in its entire formulation. In this respect we should really learn a lot from taiwanese experience, where it has one law about the punishment of the minor offenses besides penal code and the administrative penalty law, which corresponds to our act on the regulation of violations of public order. In exploring the taiwanese example about the minor offenses, this paper will be limited to consideration of a brief sketch of the social order protection act(general provisions), especially the recent develpment of it, including its history, which is retroactive to the year of the last period of Ching and the contents of its main text. Before going on with the main question, it should be mentioned that this present act is made through several amendments, par example 1906, 1908, 1915, 1916, 1943, finally it adopted the act name of violation of social order and its protection, formley misdemeanor enforced by the police or punishments for police offences etc. Next I survey the main contents and its characteristics of the present act, which consists of 4 parts : general provisions, procedure of sanction, special provisions and supplementary provisions. In exploring this topic, this paper is limited to the consideration of the act itself, especiallty its contests of entire articles. First in its part 1, which is orderd in 4 chapters by general rules, responsibility, punishments and limitations. The part 2 has the 5 chapters : juridiction, investigation, sanction, execution and remedies. In part 3 it has 4 categories, one after the other, violation of public order, interference to public moral, interference with official duty and violation of other`s body & property. Proceeding from what has been said above, we suggest our act should be made into three parts : the general provisions(part I), the special provisions(part II) and the supplementary provision(part III). The former, which has been considered the shortest in its system in my view, could include the general rules, responsibility(punishments included), and procedure of sanctions : juridiction, investigation, sanction, execution and remedies etc. The part II should be classified by several category, which also can be suggestive as a 4 types of taiwanese act, on which nevertheless to reach a fuller types, we need to work more closely at another comparative example for Germany, France, Japan, USA and also China etc. Nonethelesss, it is to be hoped that this tentative study lays the foundation for future work on our reform of our minor offense punishment act.

경범죄처벌법상 통고처분과 일사부재리의 원칙

송진경 가천대학교 법학연구소 2013 가천법학 Vol.6 No.2

경범죄처벌법은 형사실체법의 일종으로서 범죄와 그에 대한 형벌을 규정하고 있다. 즉 경범죄처벌법은 경범죄로 취급되는 일련의 행위를 규정하고, 그에 대한 형벌로서 본래 ‘10만원 이하의 벌금, 구류 또는 과료’ 등의 형벌을 부과할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다(경범죄처벌법 제3조). 경범죄처벌법이 경범죄행위에 대해 통고처분에 의한 범칙금 납부로 사안을 종결할 수 있도록 규정한 것은 행위의 불법성과 책임이 상대적으로 가볍다는 점과 국민편의를 도모하는 차원이 반영된 것으로 보인다. 그렇다면 ‘통고처분에 대한 범칙금’ 납부는 -비록 명칭과 부과절차 등이 통상적인 공판절차가 아니라고 하더라도- 해당 처분의 근원은 형벌에 대한 규정이며, 통고처분의 대상이 된 행위 역시 경미‘범죄’이다. 시민의 소박한 관점에서 본다면 통고처분에 의해 범칙금을 납부한 자는 자신의 범칙행위에 대한 문제가 마무리된 것으로 신뢰하였을 것이다. 법치국가원리는 신뢰보호를 한 내용으로 하고, 일사부재리는 신뢰보호의 일종이다. 경범죄처벌법도 헌법상 일사부재리의 원칙을 동법 제8조 제3항 등에서 명시하여 재차 확인하고 있다. 경범죄처벌법은 통고처분에 의한 범칙금으로 규율해서는 안 되는 경우의 하나로 ‘피해자가 있는 행위’를 한 경우를 명시하고 있다. 그런데 피해자가 있음에도 불구하고 수사기관의 초동수사 미진 등으로 통고처분에 의해 사건을 마무리한 경우의 처리가 실제로 대법원판례에서 보는 것처럼 문제되고 있다. 생각건대 초동수사를 담당하는 경찰관은 개별 사건의 사실관계를 애초에 면밀하게 조사하였어야 하고 경범죄처벌법 등 관련 법률을 적용함에 있어서 신중하게 접근하여야 한다. 수사를 담당하는 국가기관이 애초에 법률을 정확히 해석하여 적용하지 못한 경우에 그에 대한 책임을 시민에서 전가하는 것은 국가기관의 책무와 위상에 어울리지 않는 것이라고 여겨진다. 그렇다면 통고처분에 의해 범칙금을 납부한 자에 대해서는 면소판결을 내리는 것이 일사부재리의 원칙과 법치국가원리에 부합하는 결론이 아닐까 한다. Punishment of minor offenses act allows the punishment against minor offenses to pay fines because legislators might think that the illegality and criminal liability of the minor offenses are relatively light and intend to provide convenience for the public. Even though penalty payments are imposed not by formal trial but by notification disposition, the basis regulations of penalty payments are related to criminal punishments. Besides, the behavior subjected to penalty payments are minor offenses. From simple and plain viewpoint of ordinary people, a person who paid penalty payment may have confidence that the punishment against one’s behavior of violating regulation. The principle of law-governed country contains protection of confidence and the prohibition against double jeopardy is a kind of protection of confidence. Also, punishment of minor offenses act stipulates the prohibition against double jeopardy as one of the constitutional principle in the article 8 clause 3, etc. Punishment of minor offenses act stipulates that the term “offender” means a person who commits an act of offense, and does not fall an act involving a victim. Nevertheless, we can find some cases of Supreme Court reexamined by formal criminal procedure although the offender paid penalty by punishment of minor offenses act because of a insufficient investigation at the initial stage. It is a judicial police officer’s responsibility to investigate the facts of a case carefully if they applied punishment of minor offenses act. Although state agencies including investigative authority make a wrong interpretation and application of the law, if the state agency pass the responsibility of the wrong application of the law to a citizen, it is not appropriate for the responsibility and stage of a country. As a result, in the viewpoint of the prohibition against double jeopardy and the principle of law-governed country, it is a proper and logical resolution for a person who paid penalty by disposition of notification to be acquitted.

구걸행위금지조항의 위헌성 -미국 주요판례를 통한 비교법적 고찰-

金知慧 ( Ji Hye Kim ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울대학교 法學 Vol.53 No.3

While the phenomenon of criminalization of poverty, which punishes the acts of people in poverty, especially homeless people, to sustain their life has become an international issue, the National Assembly of Korea introduced a provision that punishes begging in public places in the amended Punishment of Minor Offenses Act of 2012. The Act will take in effect in March 2013. In the United States, provisions that similarly regulate behaviors of homeless people have existed from the colonial period and been challenged for its unconstitutionality. In this regard, this article uses a comparative approach to consider the constitutionality of the ban on begging under the amended Punishment of Minor Offenses Act by looking at several notable U.S. cases. In the federal courts of the United States, some of the constitutional challenges against vagrancy and begging laws have succeeded under the principles of void for vagueness, freedom of speech, and cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court in Papachristou (1972) concluded that the vagrancy law in the City of Jacksonville was void for its vagueness, as the law, by allowing and promoting arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of law on people who are poor and excluded, failed to uphold the rule of law principle. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Loper (1993) decided that the ban on loitering for the purpose of begging in the City of New York infringed on the freedom of speech, which in public forums is protected at the highest standard, strict scrutiny, because begging, similar to charitable solicitation, was recognized as a form of speech expressing the need for food, housing, clothes, medical services, and transportation. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Jones (2006) decided that the Los Angeles ordinance that prohibited sitting, lying, and sleeping violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment when the punishment was applied to people who, as a result of being in the status of homelessness and unable to afford private spaces, involuntarily took a course of acts that were essential and unavoidable to a human being. The U.S. jurisprudence on vagrancy and begging laws provides useful perspectives for Korean courts to consider in dealing with the ban on begging in the amended Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. This article argues that by adopting the U.S. approach when applying the principle of nulla poena sine lege and the principle of responsibility under the Korean jurisprudence, a successful argument can be made for the unconstitutionality of the ban on begging in South Korea: The provision at issue lacks clarity required under the principle of nulla poena sine lege, as in Papachristou; and the principle of responsibility may not be satisfied because, as in Jones, the prohibited conduct, begging, lacks blameworthiness. In applying these principles, courts may recognize begging as a constitutionally protected activity as it concerns freedom of expression, as in Loper, and/or general freedom of action, which are fundamental rights under the Korean Constitution. In essence, a provision of this type punishing poverty requires attention as it would permit arbitrary governmental interference on socially disadvantaged groups, thereby undermining the rule of law.

층간소음분쟁 해결을 위한 형사법적 접근

박광현 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學論叢 Vol.46 No.-

Recently, the noise level between floors has become a serious social problem. The psychological and physical harm caused by the noise between floors and the violent crimes derived from it cause social conflicts. Inter-floor noise has various application problems, as well as dispute resolution and prevention. Therefore, there is a need for a policy and legislative alternative to actively intervene in floor noise through social consensus. The solution to the inter-level noise dispute requires non-judicial resolution, civil law resolution, and criminal law intervention as a last resort. The noise dispute between layers is inevitably accompanied by social cost, and it is desirable to resolve it through non-judicial means if possible. Non-judicial solutions, however, are skeptical in terms of effectiveness because of their arbitrary nature. If the noise between floors is difficult to resolve autonomously through agreement between residents, the mediation system of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee, which is a means of dispute settlement outside the trial, is used. Civil law resolution has largely the right to maintain and maintain the civil relations concerning the claim for damages pursuant to the illegal act of Article 750 of the Civil Act, the request for the prevention and removal of the interruption of the ownership of the Article 214 of the Act, and the loss of life of Article 217 of the Act. Receipt limits may be interpreted in criminal terms as meaning or need. However, despite the compensation for the noise between floors in civil law, there is a frequent occurrence of continuous noise between floors consistently with the emotional attitude. In this case, the civil law solution is limited. In addition, damages are vulnerable in that they are insignificant compared to the cost of collecting evidence for noise disputes. Criminal legal solutions should be applied as a last resort on the principle of supplementality. If the above non-judicial and civil jurisdictions are not solved, the criminal judiciary solution must be involved. Criminal law, which is a problem in case of inter-layer noise disputes, may constitute a constitutional requirement under the Minority Punishment Act. There is a need. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the administrative punishment in case of violation by strengthening the noise-related regulation requirements of the Building Act, and introduce civil and punitive damage compensation system under civil law. Criminal law intervention may be justified if criminal offenses are committed against the offender. However, existing apartments can be placed in the blind spot of the law, so resolving them through national support can be a methodology. Criminal legal interventions should be actively reviewed as a last resort in line with the growing number of violent crimes such as murder crimes due to noise between floors. 최근 층간소음문제는 심각한 사회문제로 대두되었다. 층간소음으로 인해 발생하는 심리적, 물리적 피해와 이에 파생된 강력범죄는 사회적 갈등을 야기하고 있다. 층간소음은 다양한 분야에서 적용문제와 분쟁해결 방법 그리고 예방적 차원에서 문제를 안고 있다. 따라서 사회적 합의를 통해 적극적으로 층간소음에 개입할 정책과 입법적 대안이 필요하다. 층간소음분쟁을 해결하는 방안에는 비사법적 해결, 민사법적 해결 그리고 최후수단으로 형사법적 개입이 방법론으로 제기된다. 층간소음분쟁은 사회적 비용이 필연적으로 수반되고, 피해사실의 입증이 어렵기 때문에 가급적 비사법적 수단을 통해 해결하는 것이 바람직하다. 그러나 비사법적 해결은 임의규정 성격으로 실효성 측면에서 회의적이다. 층간소음분쟁이 거주자간의 합의를 통한 자율적 해결이 난해한 경우 재판 외 분쟁해결수단인 환경분쟁조정위원회의 조정제도가 활용되고 있지만 조정당사자가 이에 불복하는 경우 조정제도의 실효성 확보에도 한계가 있다. 그리고 민사법적 해결은 크게 민법 제750조 불법행위에 기한 손해배상청구, 동법 제214조 소유권에 기한 방해예방 및 제거청구 그리고 동법 제217조 생활방해에 관한 상린관계를 규정한 유지청구권이 있다. 특히 상린관계에서 수인한도란 형사법적으로 상당성 또는 필요성의 의미로 해석될 수 있다. 그러나 민사법적으로 층간소음에 대해 손해배상을 했음에도 불구하고 감정적인 태도를 일관하여 계속적인 층간소음을 유발하는 경우도 빈번하게 발생되고 있는데 이러한 경우 민사법적 해결방안도 한계가 있다. 또한 손해배상액은 소음분쟁을 위한 증거수집 비용에 비해 미미하다는 점에서 취약점을 노출한다. 마지막으로 형사법적 해결방안은 보충성의 원칙상 최후수단으로 적용되어야 한다. 위의 비사법적 해결, 민사법적 해결이 되지 않는 경우 형사법의 개입이 정당화될 수 있다. 형사법적으로 층간소음 분쟁시 문제되는 범죄는 경범죄처벌법상 소란행위, 협박죄, 상해죄 등이 구성요건에 해당될 수 있고 이에 파생되는 살인죄, 상해죄, 방화죄 등 강력범죄를 예방하기 위해 형사법적 개입을 검토할 필요가 있다. 이와 더불어 건축법의 소음관련 규정 요건을 강화하여 위반시 행정형벌을 강화하도록 해야 하고, 민사법상 손해배상과 징벌적 손해배상제도를 도입하고 이러한 제재수단으로 해결이 불가능한 경우 최후수단으로 악의적이고 상습적인 층간소음 가해자에 대해 형사법적 개입이 이루어진다면 형사법 개입의 정당성이 인정될 수 있다. 다만 기존 공동주택의 경우 법의 사각지대에 놓여 있을 수 있으므로 국가지원을 통한 리모델링을 통해 해결하는 것도 하나의 방법론이 될 수 있다. 층간소음으로 살인범죄 등 강력범죄가 증가하고 있는 추세에 맞게 최후수단으로서 형사법적 개입이 검토되어야 한다.

스토킹범죄의 정의에 관한 연구 ― 독일과 일본의 논의를 중심으로 ―

장응혁 ( Chang Eung-hyeok ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

Features of stalking crime is that most of the victims are women, the occurrence of stalking often happens by the acquaintances of the victims and the situation gets worse as time passes. Therefore, in order to protect the victim of the stalking, an effective countermeasure is needed. Because the law is limited to the initial response to stalking punishment, the necessity of a special law has been raised. Many bills were proposed until 20th National Assembly but fail to become legalized. Therefore, it is necessary to enact special law of stalking in the 20th National Assembly to inform the public and law enforcements that stalking is not a mere personal matter but a serious social problem. In principle, every crime should be considered as depriving offense. If a crime is considered as endangering offense, the crime should be specified concretely. If an exeception is needed, the exeception should have the enough reason to be accepted and have the rational grounds. I hope that stalking bill go through the parliament which enables the country to actively intervene stalking crimes in the future.

스토킹 행위의 특징과 대응 방안

김잔디 경찰대학 치안정책연구소 2015 치안정책연구 Vol.29 No.3

과거 스토킹은 연예인이나 스포츠 선수, 정치가 등 저명한 사람에게 한하여 발생하는 것으로 여겨졌지만 이제 스토킹 피해는 유명인에게 국한되는 문제가 아닌 일반인에게도 발생할 수 있는 중대한 사회 문제로써 인식되고 있다. 그리하여 1990년대 후반부터 스토킹 행위를 규제하고 피해자를 보호하기 위한 입법 방안 등 다양한 논의가 계속되어 왔음에도 불구하고 주목할 만한 성과를 내지 못한 채 폐기되었다. 그러던 중 2013년 경범죄처벌법에서 스토킹 행위를 규제하는 조항이 신설되었고, 경미한 처벌이지만 스토킹 행위에 대한 처벌이 가능하게 되었다. 그러나 이러한 규정은 스토킹 행위의 특징을 고려하였을 때 처벌효과를 기대하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라 지금까지 논의되어 왔던 스토킹 행위 처벌규정과는 다소 거리가 있다고 판단된다. 문제가 되고 있는 사회 현상이나 범죄 등에관한 대처방안을 제시하기 위해서는 먼저 대상이 되는 행위의 발생 원인이나 성격 등을 정확히 파악할 필요가 있다. 이에 본고에서는 스토킹 피해에 관련된 통계를 분석하여 그 실태에 대해 살펴보고, 이러한 통계분석결과로부터 스토킹 행위의 특징 및 이러한 특징으로 인하여 발생할 수 있는 대책상의 난점에 관하여 논하도록 하겠다. 그리고 우리나라의 현행 제도가 이러한 특징을 충분히 반영하고 있는지, 만일 이러한 특징을 반영하고 있지 않다면 그로 인한 문제가 무엇인지 알아보도록 하겠다. 다음으로 우리나라의 스토킹에 대한 대응 실태를 검토하고, 현재의 대응체제가 가해자의 재범을 방지하고, 피해자를 보호․지원하는 측면에서 긍정적인 효과를 보이고 있는지, 문제점은 없는지에 대해 논하였다. 마지막으로 위의 결과를 토대로 스토킹 대책에 관한 제언을 하겠다. In the past, it was believed that only famous celebrities, athletes, and politicians would be stalked, but now stalking is being considered as an important social problem that could also happen to ordinary people. Thus, various discussions were made about regulation for and protection from stalking after the late 1990s, only to be disregard. In the meantime, a clause to regulate stalking was made in the Minor Offenses Act in 2013, which made it possible to punish stalkers, though it was minor punishment. However, considering the characteristics of stalking, this clause is not only hardly expected to make proper punishment effects but judged to be distant from appropriate regulation for stalking. In order to suggest coping measures for problematic social phenomena or crimes, it is needed to reduce the range of a criminal behavior and clearly determine its causes and characteristics. Thus, this study analyzes the statistics related to stalking victimization to find out the current status of stalking, and discusses the characteristics of stalking and the difficulties in responding due to such characteristics. In addition, the study investigates whether the current system of Korea fully reflects such characteristics, and if not, examines what are the resultant problems of the characteristics. Then it examined the present state of coping measures for stalking and analyzed their effects and problems in the aspect of protection of and support for victims. Lastly, it tried to make a suggestion about coping measures for stalking based on the study results.

기초질서관련 법률개정을 통한 법적실효성 확보방안

김태계(Kim TaeKye),박기석(토론자) 한양법학회 2008 漢陽法學 Vol.23 No.-

The government of the practical(Lee myeongbak government) use thinks to progress as the industrialized country that the basis order must be recovered. Our society needs the order than anything else and the confirmed report of a legal efficiency for a basis order recovery. The government began the reform after they win in Presidential election. First, The National Police Agency is prearranging to revise the minor offense act. Old 12 Articles are abolished and two Articles are established newly so that suitable to the period. Second, the law on assembly and demonstration is prearranging to be revised. The article that prohibited a mask putting on an identity authentication interference purpose is established newly. And the possession of the iron pipe, guns, etc is prohibited The strike with so noisy meeting is limited. This is because it infringes others privilege. Third, The National Police Agency is planing that it revises the act on the performance of duty by police officers. The Act is decided to give to competence which confirms an identity authentication of the passer-by to the policeman. Anyone must be punished if we do not reply to an identification requirement of the policeman. The reason of such law revision is because of a legal effectiveness.

「스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률」 개정논의에 대한 검토 및 제언 - 구성요건상 행위유형과 피해자 범위 설정, 반의사불벌죄 적용여부 문제를 중심으로 -

沈英周 ( Shim Youngjoo ),李相翰 ( Lee Sang-han ) 법조협회 2022 法曹 Vol.71 No.2

스토킹을 처벌하기 위한 논의가 20여 년간 지속된 끝에 드디어 「스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률」이 제정되는 것으로 마무리 되었다. 그런데, 법이 제정되자마자 미비점이 지적되고, 입법적 개선이 필요하다는 의견이 많다. 법 제정과 시행은 분명 의미가 있는 일이고, 첫술부터 배부를 수는 없겠으나 시작부터 개정의 목소리가 높다는 점은 의견과 관점의 다양성에 기인했다고 보기에는 부족한, 분명 개선할 사항이 있다는 방증이라 할 것이다. 이에 본고에서는 이러한 문제 의식 하에, 개정 논의에 대한 주요 쟁점들 중 처벌과 직접 연관되는 구성요건상 행위 유형과 피해자 범위 설정, 반의사불벌죄 적용을 중심으로 살펴보고 보완 방안에 대해 살펴보았다. 비정형성을 지니는 스토킹의 특성을 감안하면, 처벌의 사각지대를 방지하기 위하여 '기타 유형'으로 포괄하거나 보충하는 규정을 두는 것이 바람직하며, 진정한 피해자 보호를 위해 반의사불벌 적용은 삭제하는 것이 바람직하다. 다만, 피해자 범위 설정에 관한 지나친 범위 확대는 바람직하지 않으므로, 직접피해자만을 대상으로 하는 것이 바람직한 바, 현행법이 직접피해자만을 대상으로 하지만 스토킹범죄 전단계인 스토킹행위의 보호 대상으로 간접피해자를 규정하고 있어 간접피해자를 대상으로 하지 않는 부분에 대한 보충이 가능하다고 판단된다. 추가적으로 「경범죄 처벌법」상 지속적 괴롭힘죄와의 관계설정을 위한 개정이 필요하다는 점도 짚어 보았다. After debate for over two decades on the punishment of stalking, it was finally decided to enact the Act on Punishment, etc. of Stalking Crimes (hereinafter the Stalking Punishment Act). However, as soon as the Stalking Punishment Act was enacted, imperfections were pointed out, and many people expressed the need for legislative improvements. The enactment and enforcement of the Stalking Punishment Act is clearly meaningful, but it was not perfect from the outset. However, the fact that many people believe revisions are required cannot be attributed to the diversity of opinions and viewpoints; it is evident that there is clearly room for improvement. Therefore, with an awareness of these concerns, this paper explores the setting of the type of action, the victims’ scope, and the application of no punishment against will as component requirements directly related to punishment as major issues in the debate on revisions; it also examines improvement measures. Considering the atypical nature of stalking, it is desirable to have regulations encompassing or supplementing other types to prevent blind spots in punishment, and to delete no punishment against will for true protection of victims. However, it is advisable to target only direct victims because it is undesirable to excessively expand the scope of the victim. Although the current law targets only direct victims, it is possible to supplement the parts that do not target indirect victims because the Stalking Punishment Act stipulates that indirect victims are subjects of protection for the stalking act, which is the pre-stage of stalking crimes. In addition, the need for revision in establishing a relationship with consistent harassment crimes under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is discussed.