대법원 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰

강우예(Kang, Wu-Ye) 한국형사법학회 2012 형사법연구 Vol.24 No.1

Sentencing guidelines should have justifiable purpose and proper means, just like any other legal institutions. In Korea, since 2009 in which the first form of sentencing guidelines took effect, the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of murder, the sexual crimes, the crimes of robbery, the property crimes, the crimes of perjury, the crimes of false charge, the crimes of kidnapping, the crimes of fraud, the crimes of drugs, etc., have been established by Korean Sentencing Committee. Unfortunately, however, there has not been any living debates among korean scholars about what are good forms of sentencing guidelines, the establishment of which has been lead by practitioners, such as judges and prosecutors. In short, Korean sentencing guidelines have been formed, mainly reflecting the opinions of the Korean Supreme Court. First of all, we should analyze the current Korean sentencing guidelines system, to clarify how the legality principle in which legislators hold the exclusive power to tell about what is crime and which level of punishment is proper could reconcile with the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, we should reconsider if there is any other alternative means to regulate sentencing area. Also, in the current korean sentencing guidelines, we should think more about the ground on which defendants have opportunities to realize their rights more effectively. The sentencing guidelines is not just the reference book for judges but should be interpreted as an legal institution in which a citizen's liberty should not be deprived of in a arbitrary way. To make it possible, we correctly understand the features of the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, this article rely on the debates which happened around American sentencing guidelines. The current korean sentencing guidelines will be so controversial area. Establishing sentencing guidelines means the opportunities of considering unlawfulness and culpability of criminal act in a more details. It is a serious question if the Korean Sentencing Committee has try to look at this aspect. Fundamentally, in the area of sentencing, sentencing factor should not take the form of isolated categories that resemble the elements of a crime. Rather, sentencing guidelines should take the form of providing more discretion. Albert Alschuler has been right at this point. The problems happening in sentencing area should be resolved in a more practical way, rather than with categorization of legal factors.

미국의 사기죄에 대한 양형기준과 시사점

박찬걸 한양대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

At the time of its introduction, our country's Sentencing Commission was made referring mainly to the operation methods of the sentencing commissions actually run in the US or the UK. The basic purport of its introduction was to fundamentally solve a diverse range of problems related with the existing sentencing practices, which was assessed as a political determination. The Sentencing Commission was placed under the Supreme Court of Korea with its authority and functions being independent and at the same time, all methods to establish sentencing guidelines were assigned to the Sentencing Commission. And the Commission has been continuing to make sentencing guidelines more objectively. However, development of sentencing guidelines for reasonable and fair sentencing policy should never be sought by finding average scores from sentencing practices in the past, nor by simple reproduction of such practices. In an effort to seek changes as to sentencing guidelines for frauds in our country from this point of view, the main purpose of this study was to examine sentencing guidelines for frauds currently taking place in the US. At the present circumstances in which there is continuous effort to date to adopt American sentencing guidelines focused on sentencing guidelines grid, the study believes the analysis on American sentencing guidelines for frauds could be a significant task. So, the study, in the first place, examined generals of US Federal sentencing guidelines focused on the role of the US Sentencing Commission, characteristics and application methods of US Federal sentencing guidelines. And then, it conducted analysis on the content of American sentencing guidelines focused on basic crime grades of significant frauds, characteristics of special crimes, overall factors related with fraud. The study completed the discussion by drawing implications for sentencing guidelines in our country. 현재 시행되고 있는 우리나라 사기범죄의 양형기준에 대한 변화를 모색하기 위하여 미국의 연방에서 시행되고 있는 사기죄와 관련된 양형기준을 검토해 보는 것이 본고의 주된 목적이라고 할 수 있다. 현행 우리나라 사기범죄의 양형기준은 2011. 3. 21. 의결되어 2011. 7. 1. 시행된 이후 현재까지 아무런 변화 없이 시행되어 오고 있는데, 기본적으로 피해액을 중심으로 총 5단계의 유형분류가 이루어지며, 일반사기와 조직적 사기로 다시 유형을 분류하고 있지만, 양형인자는 상호 대동소이한 것으로 제시되어 있는 것이 특징이다. 반면에 미국에서 시행되고 있는 사기죄와 관련된 양형기준을 살펴보면, 우선 단일의 격자식 양형기준표를 이용하여 43개의 범죄등급과 6개의 범죄경력범주에 의하여 총 258개의 셀로 구성되어 있는 가운데, 개별 사기죄의 기본범죄등급을 기준으로 계량화된 가중 및 감경요소를 가감하여 범죄등급을 상하조정하면서 종축이 정해지고, 범죄경력점수에 의하여 횡축이 정해지면 구체적인 양형범위가 결정되는 것이 특징이다. 최근까지도 격자식 양형기준을 중심으로 한 미국식 양형기준제를 채택하려는 시도가 지속적으로 나타나고 있는 현 상황에서 미국의 사기죄 관련 양형기준을 분석해 보는 것은 유의미한 작업이라고 판단된다. 이하에서는 우선 연방양형위원회의 역할, 연방양형기준의 특징 및 적용방법 등을 중심으로 미국의 연방양형기준 일반론을 고찰한 다음(Ⅱ), 사기죄의 기본범죄등급 및 특별범죄특성, 사기범죄와 관련된 개괄적 양형인자 등을 중심으로 미국의 사기죄에 대한 양형기준 내용을 분석한 이후(Ⅲ), 우리나라에의 시사점을 도출하며 논의를 마무리하기로 한다(Ⅳ).

우리나라 양형기준 설정방식과 양형위원회 운용방식에 관한 점검 및 개선방안

박형관 한국형사정책학회 2014 刑事政策 Vol.26 No.2

It has been almost 5 years since the advisory sentencing guidelines system was introduced and the first guidelines implemented in our nation. Thus far, sentencing guidelines for 26 crime categories including murder are in force. The demand by the people to abolish such sentencing problems such as unduly lenient sentencing, unwarranted disparities, untransparent sentencing, and perhaps most serious "Jeon-Kwan-ye-Woo" or favor shown to counsel who are former prosecutors or judges, was the impetus for the introduction of the sentencing guidelines system. Since its implementation, there have been some improvement in the judges' compliance rate as well as in consistency and predictability in sentencing; however, the people's deep rooted distrust toward the criminal justice system has yet to be significantly alleviated. The basic characteristics of the current sentencing guidelines and Commission activities are still skewed in favor of judges’ sentencing practice, that is the Commission has been slow to set forth new guidelines and the guidelines still allow for much judicial discretion. Furthermore, the guidelines lack objectivity in the evaluation of the major sentencing factors thereby failing to fully gain the public’s trust. With the end of the trial period, the problems that arose demand immediate attention and resolution. Nonetheless the Commission has yet to initiate the reform process, seemingly content with the current gradual approach in promulgating sentencing guidelines. To achieve the sentencing reform goals in accordance with the intent of the introduction, the current sentencing guidelines need substantial revisions. This should begin with a thorough discussion and evaluation of the goals and principles in framing guidelines. Other pressing issues include grading the seriousness of the major offenses and setting the base level of each offense, raising objectivity when evaluating the major sentencing factors, establishing guidelines on deciding appropriate punishment, and enhancing objectivity in the criteria for the in-out decision. Other suggestions include mandating judges to explain the guidelines application process in the sentencing report and the development of a sentencing data base by the Commission to improve predictability in sentencing. These proposals for revision aim to create a new guidelines system which corresponds with the common sense of the public. As it is highly unlikely that the incumbent judiciary dominating Commission will accept or implement these suggestions, the composition of the Commission must first be rebalanced with members from outside the judiciary. Neutrality, independence, and specialization of the operating style of the Commission must be improved and the role of the public and the National Assembly should be reenforced and expanded. Only through these efforts will the new guidelines become more objective to the public with a view to a greater and genuine trust by the public of our nation's criminal justice system. 참고적 양형기준제가 도입되고 양형기준이 시행된 지 약 5년이 되었다. 현재 살인을 포함하여 26개 범죄들에 관한 양형기준이 시행되고 있다. 양형기준제 도입은 소위‘전관예우’의 폐해, 관대한 양형, 불합리한 양형편차, 불투명한 양형 등 양형 문제점들을 극복하려는 정책적 결단이었다. 양형기준의 시행으로 양형의 일관성이나 예측 가능성이 다소 높아졌으나 뿌리 깊은 국민의 사법 불신이 해소되었는지 의문이다. 현 양형기준 및 양형위원회 운용 방식은 법관의 업무 수행을 도와주기 위한 참고용 성격이 짙다. 양형기준은 더디게 설정되고 있고 법관의 재량이 여전히 넓게 보장된다. 주요 양형인자들의 평가에 있어 객관성도 부족하다. 이로 인하여 국민의 신뢰를 확보하기에 미흡하다. 시험적인 운용을 통해 나타난 설정방식의 여러 문제점들을 신속히 해결하여야 한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 양형위원회는 종래 설정방식에 따라 기준을 추가로 설정하는 것에 머무르고 있다. 양형 개혁 목표를 달성하기 위하여 대폭적인 개선이 필요하다. 양형기준 설정에 관한 목표나 원리 등을 뚜렷이 정할 필요가 있다. 주요 범죄들 사이의 범죄의 심각성에 따른 서열화를 진행하고 기본 범죄수준을 정하며 주요 양형인자들에 관하여 더 객관적 평가를 해야 한다. 형종 기준이 마련되고 집행유예 기준도 더 객관화되어야 한다. 법관은 판결문에 기준 적용과정을 상세히 기재하고 양형위원회는 데이터베이스를 구축하여 양형의 예측가능성을 높여야 한다. 이러한 개선은 보다 국민의 상식에 맞는 양형기준을 만들기 위한 것이다. 사법부가 주도하는 양형위원회는 위 요청을 충실히 수행하기 어렵다. 따라서 양형위원회 구성이나 운용에 중립성, 독립성, 전문성이 더 보장되도록 개선되어야 한다. 국민과 국회의 역할이 강화되어야 한다. 이를 통하여 국민이 바라는 객관적 양형기준이 마련될 때 형사사법에 관한 국민의 신뢰가 높아질 것이다.

양형기준제도와 양형기준준수율: 영국과 한국의 사례를 중심으로

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.3

To enhance sentencing consistency, sentencing guidelines were introduced in England and Wales(recently revised in 2010) and Korea in 2007. The article compares sentencing guidelines and compliance rates for England and Wales and Korea. The reason for comparison of both systems even in different criminal justice systems is that sentencing guidelines for both jurisdictions are individual offence specific guidelines in contrast with the comprehensive systems of the U.S. federal sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines compliance rates in 2013 are 97 percent in England and Wales and 89.6 per cent in Korea. However, the high compliance rates do not show the consistency in sentencing. This article explores that sentencing guidelines compliance rate is a limiting indicator to show sentencing consistency. The definition of departure from sentencing guidelines is different in both jurisdictions. In England and Wales it is defined broadly as departure from ``offence range`` under the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. Thus, the departure rates is lower in comparison of the rates defined from the ``category range`` in the period before 2009. In contrast, in Korea it is considered as departure from each ``recommended sentencing range``. The departures seems to be more narrowly defined in Korea than in England and Wales. In Korea, some maintain that the scope of each recommended sentencing range is too broad and thus starting points should be introduced. However, the scope in Korea is not as large as the one in England and Wales. Considering the limits of departure rates for showing consistency in sentencing, the article maintains that departure rates should be equally defined when comparing the degree of consistency in different sentencing guidelines jurisdictions. In conclusion, sentencing consistency completes not only from ``consistency of outcome`` but also from ``consistency of sentencing process.`` Thus, to enhance sentencing consistency, more clearly articulated steps for sentencing guidelines should be established.

새로운 범죄현상과 형사법의 현대적 과제 양형기준의 합리성 검토와 개선방향

최호진 ( Ho Jin Choi ) 한국비교형사법학회 2009 비교형사법연구 Vol.11 No.2

Recently great attention has been shown to the question of sentencing guidelines. an unfair sentencing deviation and a paternalistic judicial decision raised a discussion about sentencing guidelines. Under the Supreme Court, the Sentencing Commission was established on May 2, 2007 with a purpose to implement fair and objective sentencing practices, which the public can respect and trust. The Commission, which is independent of its role, is provided with the authority to establish or revise the sentencing guidelines and may conduct research and deliberate sentencing policy. In 2009 Sentencing Committee established guidelines of 8 crimes which are homicide, sex, bribe, robbery etc. The sentencing guidelines may not be legally binding but must be respected by the judges in rendering decisions as which to the category and period of sentencing should be involved. This paper examines the problem of Sentencing Guidelines, particularly of the improvement direction of Sentencing Guidelines and an examination of Its rationality. Before going on with the question of an examination of Its rationality, it should be mentioned that the contents of a Sentencing Guidelines. Sentencing is consistent when offenders committing similar offences are punished with similar penalties by different sentencers, whether those sentencers sit in the same court or different courts. That is not to say that there is a right sentence for every offence. Treating like cases alike does not mean treating them in exactly the same way. Sentencing is neither a scientific nor a mechanistic process. A large number of different circumstances can legitimately be taken into account by sentencers. It is insufficient to slove the Sentencing Guidelines gap due to the broad sentence range problems and there are no mandatory effect in the Sentencing Guidelines. When establish the sentencing guidelines, the limited normatives are so vague thus It`s problems should be solved through an additory study.

양형실태 분석을 통한 양형기준 개선방안 고찰

이상한(Lee, Sang-Han) 한국형사법학회 2013 형사법연구 Vol.25 No.2

After conducting studies and analyses for two years, from 2007 to 2009, in April 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission formulated sentencing guidelines for the crimes of homicide, bribery, sexual assault, robbery, embezzlement/breach of trust, perjury, and false charges and enforced the application of these sentencing guidelines to the related crimes as of July 1, 2009. The present study is very important, as it examines the present state of concrete sentencing judgments, at a point when the sentencing guidelines have been in effect for approximately four years, and it evaluates whether the sentencing guidelines have been properly observed since their enforcement, and whether the observance of the sentencing guidelines ensures the expected predictability of jurisdiction. To that end, the present study, centering on the judgments on the crimes of embezzlement/breach of trust out of the crime groups subject to the sentencing guidelines currently in effect, analyzes the actual conditions of sentencing by examining all first trial judgments applied according to the sentencing guidelines between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The present study intends to seek measures for enforcing the sentencing guidelines more efficiently by examining whether the intent and objectives of the introduction of the system were properly implemented in 2009 and evaluating the results of the enforcement by conducting an extensive analysis. The analysis focuses primarily on three matters in the sentencing guidelines that are in need of improvement. First, the sentencing guidelines for the selection of types of penalties in cases where the statutory punishments include several types of punishments, particularly in cases where personality servitudes and pecuniary punishments coexist, are necessary, as well as those for pecuniary punishments. Second, for the sentencing guidelines to be effective, actual binding force should be given to the sentencing guidelines. Third, the writing of the reasons for sentencing in written judgments should be compulsory. Furthermore, the way of writing the reasons for sentencing in written judgments should be unified to enable the post hoc verification/improvement of the sentencing guidelines, thereby ensuring greater transparency and objectivity in sentencing.

영국양형제도의 분석과 국내도입의 문제점 검토

권오걸 한국형사정책연구원 2008 형사정책연구 Vol.76 No.-

Once the defendant is convicted either after trial or having entered a guilty plea, the court will proceed to a sentencing hearing and determine the appropriate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence. The court will then pronounce in the open court the imposition of sentence. Sentencing policy and its development is sensitive and complex and is becoming more controversial with increasing political interference and intervention. Much of the new sentencing framework is found in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Halliday Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales. Central to the approach of Halliday Reviews is that the courts should have a greater role in the implementation of sentences and offenders should spend more time under supervision after their release from custody. He also wanted to see a greater predictability in sentencing so that the sentencing practice would have a greater different effect on potential offenders. In the history of the development of sentencing guidelines in England and Wales, Guidelines originated from two separate sources in the 1980s. These were the Magistrates' Association and the Court of Appeal. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created the Sentencing Advisory Panel(SAP), a body with a diverse membership, to assist and advise the Court of Appeal in the promulgation of sentencing guidelines. The Panel and the Court of Appeal worked together effectively in this way 1999 to 2003, at which point the Sentencing Guidelines Council(SGC) was established. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss. 167-173 has established a new Sentencing Guidelines Council(SGC). The Council, composed mainly but not exclusively of sentencers, took over the task of issuing sentencing guidelines, with Panel performing much the same function as before, but now advising the Council rather than the Court of Appeal. The existing structure for issuing guidelines in the England and Wales, taking the SGC and the SAP together, is unique. Guidelines are issued by a body which commands authority and respect, and Guidelines are the product of a rational process involving wide consultation. Also there is a process in place for ongoing review and revision of guidelines. The most difficult point to analysis the sentencing system in the England and Wales is that the current sentencing system is among the change. In generally citizen have a more interest in the result of sentencing rather than process of sentencing. In Korea the Sentencing Guidelines Council(SGC) was established in May 2007. The meaning of establishing the Sentencing Guidelines Council(SGC) in the Korea as well as the England and Wales is not in the uniformity of outcome, but in the uniformity of approach. Therefore Korea Sentencing Guidelines Council must try to achieve not the uniformity of result but the uniformity of approach. 본 연구는 현행 영국의 양형시스템의 내용과 문제점을 형사사법법(The Criminal Justice Act) 2003의 내용과 그 시행에 따른 평가를 중심으로 고찰하고, 이러한 영국의 양형시스템에서 우리가 취할 수 있는 거시적 또는 미시적 요소들이 있는지의 여부를 살펴보는 것을 그 목적으로 한다. 영국의 형사사법법(The Criminal Justice Act) 2003은 양형에 있어서의 일관성을 유지하고 상습적인 범죄인을 대상으로 하여 다른 기관들 사이의 공조를 증진시키기 위하여 형사사법체계의 본질적 개혁을 단행하기 위한 개혁의 산물이다. 동법률은 Halliday가 주도한 보고서와 2002년에 발간한 Home Office의 백서를 바탕으로 제정되었다. 동법률은 형사사법안에서의 많은 제안들을 구체화하였으며 특히 사회내처분의 다양화, 구금형의 유연성 확보, 형사절차, 증거 그리고 양형에 관한 많은 개혁적 규정을 담고 있으며 영국의 양형시스템의 근본적 변화를 주도하고 있다. 이러한 CJA 2003의 목표는 형사사법시스템을 재편하는 것이었다. 영국과 우리나라에서의 양형이 가지는 사회적 중요성은 사실상 거의 같다고 할 수 있으며, 양형법률과 양형실무를 내용으로 하는 전체적인 양형시스템이 사회적 정의의 기준을 만족시킴으로서 범죄인과 국민에게 형평과 공정으로서의 형사정의를 전달해주는 기능을 할 수 있는 방향으로 나가야 할 것이다. 이러한 정의(Justice)는 영국의 Home Office 2002의 백서 'Justice for All' 에서 명시된 양형정책의 핵심요소로 되어있다. 결국 정의를 구체화 할 수 있는 시스템으로서의 양형제도는 ' 같은 범죄(like offences)는 유사하게(similarly) 다루어야 하며, 단지 그들이 한 것(저지른 것) 때문이 아니라 그들이 누구인가 때문에 처벌해서는 안 된다'는 관점위에서 정립되어야 할 것이다.

양형기준법안 도입의 쟁점과 발전방향

최응렬(Choi Eung Ryul),류준혁(Ryu Jun Hyuk) 한국공안행정학회 2007 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.16 No.4

한국의 사법제도개혁추진위원회가 제시한 양형기준법안 마련을 위한 관련 법률의 일부 조항이 2006년 12월 22일 국회 본회의를 통과함에 따라 앞으로 2년이내 양형위원회는 양형기준안을 발표하여야 한다. 어떠한 형태의 양형기준안이 준비될지는 알 수 없지만, 이 연구는 양형기준법안 설립에서 몇 가지 중요한 문제점과 개선방향에 대해서 미국의 실증적 연구를 중심으로 서술하였다. 첫째, 미국의 양형개혁의 역사와 다양한 양형기준법안을 고찰함으로써 한국의 양형기준법안의 종류를 고려해 보았다. 둘째, 한국의 양형기준법안이 따르고 있는 권고적ㆍ자발적 형태의 양형기준의 의미와 미국에서 실시된 권고적ㆍ자발적 양형기준법안의 실패요인과 보완책을 실증적 연구를 기반으로 제시하였다. 셋째, 미국의 기속적 연방양형기준법안의 실패요인과 최근의 연방법원의 양형기준법안에 대한 여러 가지 판결을 소개한다. 넷째, 양형기준법안의 실시 이후에 나타난 검사로의 재량권 이동현상(Hydraulic displacement)을 실증적 연구를 통해 서술해 보았다. Recently, the presidential committee on judicial reform in Korea proposed sentencing guidelines and proposed bill was passed in congress. Consequently, the guidelines developed by sentencing commission will take effect within 2 years. How sentencing commission will make sentencing guidelines is still unknown. This study will focus and describe several important issues and problems in developing sentencing guidelines. First, after reviewing the history of sentencing reform and various forms of sentencing guidelines in United States, this paper will recognize the type of sentencing guidelines that are developing in Korea. Second, the meanings of voluntary and advisory sentencing guidelines will be explored and then identify various reasons of failure of voluntary/advisory sentencing guidelines in United States and find a solution. Third, this paper will describe the presumptive federal sentencing guidelines' shortcomings and introduce various federal court decisions for federal sentencing guidelines. Fourth, this paper will explore the discretion movement from judges to prosecutors(hydraulic displacement) that commonly appear after sentencing.

영국 양형기준제 운용 변화와 한국의 양형개혁에 주는 시사점

박형관(Park Hyung Kwan) 대검찰청 2016 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.51

양형기준제는 중립적 위원회가 설정하는 양형기준을 통하여 공정하고 객관적인 양형을 실현하려는 제도이다. 양형기준 설정방식은 종합적으로 설정하는 방식과 점진적 설정 방식으로 나뉜다. 영국과 우리나라는 후자의 방식을 채택하였다. 점진적 방식은 양형문제점들을 획기적으로 해결하기 어렵고 주요 범죄 간의 비례성을 유지하기 어렵다. 영국은 그 단점을 개선하려 노력해 왔는데 우리가 이를 참고할 만하다. 영국의 초기 양형기준은 항소법원 양형기준 판결과 비슷하게 법관의 양형재량을 폭넓게 인정하였고, 양형기준 준수 여부에 관한 모니터링이나 실증분석도 잘 이루어지지 않았다. 그 결과 효과적인 교정정책의 수립이 어렵게 되자 영국은 2009년 검시관 및 사법에 관한 법(Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ‘CJA 2009’)을 제정하여 해결하고자 하였다. 양형기준의 효력을 강화하고 양형기준 준수 모니터링, 수용인원 예측 등이 양형위원회의 주된 업무가 되었다. 그러나 CJA 2009 시행에도 불구하고 영국에서 양형의 일관성 등 양형목표들이 확실히 달성되었는지 의문이다. 사법부가 양형개혁을 주도하여 전과 등 주요 양형인자의 평가방법이나 양형자료의 수집, 분석에 있어 미온적인 개혁이 이루어져 여전히 법관의 양형재량이 많고 양형의 투명성도 약하다. 영국의 예를 타산지석으로 삼아 우리도 점진적 방식의 문제점을 극복하기 위하여 양형의 투명성과 객관성을 높여야 한다. 특히 양형자료의 수집과 분석도 지속적으로 철저하게 이루어져야 하고, 양형위원회가 국민에게 양형정책, 양형기준을 적극 홍보하고 기준의 수립이나 개정에도 국민이 활발히 참여하도록 노력을 기울여야 한다. The purpose of the sentencing guidelines system is to achieve just and objective sentencing through a set of guidelines set by a neutral and independent commission. The two ways in producing guidelines is the comprehensive method and the other is the gradual approach. England and Wales(hereafter, ‘England’) and the Republic of Korea have opted for the latter. The gradual approach, as can be discerned by its name, is limited in achieving rapid sentencing reform goals and because of time lapses in the establishment of guidelines, fails to maintain proportionality among the major offences. The England has henceforth made a concerted effort to address these problems; Korea would benefit from its example. Early English sentencing guidelines were very similar to the Court of Appeals sentencing guidelines judgments which allowed for significant discretion to judges. The monitoring of sentencing guidelines compliance and data based analysis of the guidelines have not been successfully accomplished. As a result setting effective correction policies proved very difficult. To remedy this problem, England enacted the Coroners and Justice Act 2009(‘CJA 2009’). CJA 2009 strengthened the binding force of the guidelines and redefined the main roles of the Sentencing Commission to be one of monitoring compliance of the guidelines and projecting prison populations. But even with the implementation of the CJA 2009, it remains unclear whether sentencing goals such as consistency have been achieved in the England and Wales. It cannot be ignored that the results are a product of a judiciary dominated sentencing reform effort with a proclivity for mild measures in evaluating major sentencing factors such as criminal records and the collection and analysis of sentencing data. Judges continue to exercise much discretion in sentencing leaving transparency, another goal in sentencing reform, unresolved. In full consideration of the example set by the England, South Korea must make a concerted effort to ensure the neutrality of the Korean Sentencing Commission and improve transparency and objectivity in sentencing by means of thorough and continual data collection and analysis. Further, the Korean Sentencing Commission should actively inform the public of sentencing policies and guidelines and encourage active public participation in the establishment and revision of sentencing guidelines.

연구논문(硏究論文) : 미국 노스캐롤라이나 주 양형기준제 연구

박형관 ( Hyung Kwan Park ) 법조협회 2013 法曹 Vol.62 No.10

공정한 양형을 바라는 국민의 열망에 부응하여 참고적 양형기준제가 도입되고 이에 따라 만들어진 양형기준이 시행된 지 벌써 4년여가 흘렀다. 많은 기대와 우려 속에 탄생한 양형기준제가 이제 어느 정도 정착하는 모습을 보인다. 실무상 수사나 형사재판 과정에서 양형기준의 검토와 적용은 판사나 검사가 당연히 해야 할 일상적인 업무가 되었다. 우리나라에 적합한 양형기준의 방식에 관하여 양형위원회는 개별적 단계적 설정방식을 채택하고, 이에 따라 미국 연방이나 여러 주들에서 채택하고 있는 종합적이고 망라적인 설정방식은 받아들여지지 않았다. 주된 이유 중 하나는 최초 양형기준을 2년 내에 제정하여야 한다는 시간적인 제약과 함께 시행착오를 줄이고자 하였기 때문이다. 개별적 설정방식은 장점에도 불구하고 몇 가지 단점이 있다. 즉 개별 양형기준이 단계적으로 설정되는 사정으로 주요 범죄간 전체적인 형량의 균형을 유지하는데 어려움이 있고 교도소 수용 인구를 예측하기 어려워 종합적인 교정정책을 수립하기도 어려운 면이 있다. 개개 양형기준의 형량을 가중 또는 감경하는 경우 다른 기준들의 형량을 조정하기도 쉽지 않다. 현 양형기준 설정방식은 시험적으로 운용되는 면이 있으므로 다른 양형기준에 관한 비교법 연구가 필요하다. 이런 측면에서 미국 연방이나 각 주 양형기준 중 성공적인 양형기준 중 하나로 평가받는 노스캐롤라이나 주의 양형기준을 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 미국 노스캐롤라이나 주 양형기준은 양형기준에 기속적인 효력을 부여하면서도 구체적인 형량범위의 폭이나 형종 선택의 폭을 넓게 제시함으로써 판사의 재량을 적정하게 부여하려고 노력하고 있다. 또한 양형기준 시행에 따른 교도소 수용 인구의 변화를 효과적으로 예측하여 적정 수준에서 그 수준을 유지하려고 노력하고 있다. 양형기준의 내용이 법률로 체화됨으로써 국회가 양형기준의 수립에 적극적으로 관여하고 있다. 양형기준의 수립에 앞서 중죄와 경죄를 범죄의 심각성을 기준으로 등급 분류하여 주요 범죄 간 형벌의 비례성을 유지하는데 힘썼다. 우리나라 양형기준이 많은 성과를 거두었으나 아직도 국민이 실감할 정도로 양형 개혁이 이루어졌는지는 의문이다. 더 성공적인 양형기준제의 운용을 위하여 노스캐롤 라이나 주의 경험 등 다른 곳의 성과를 살펴보는 것이 중요하다. 국회가 양형기준의 수립, 개정에 적극적으로 참여할 필요가 있고, 현 설정방식을 유지하더라도 주요 범죄간의 형량의 균형을 유지하는 방안을 모색하여야 한다. 아울러 적정한 구금 인원의 유지를 위하여 양형위원회가 양형기준의 시행에 따른 수용 인구 변화에 관한 예측을 정기적으로 하는 등 종합적인 교정 정책의 수립에도 힘써야 할 것이다. As a result of the citizens of this nation voicing their demand for fair and righteous sentencing, an advisory sentencing guidelines system was introduced. It has now been four years since the implementation of the first sentencing guidelines and despite the many expectations and concerns about its success, the sentencing guidelines system has become well rooted in our legal system. More importantly, the review and application of these guidelines have become common practice in the daily decision-making of judges and prosecutors in criminal procedure. After deliberating over what framework would be appropriate for Korea, the Sentencing Commission decided to adopt the individual and gradual approach in framing sentencing guidelines over the comprehensive and holistic approach which many jurisdictions in America, including the federal government, have adopted. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons for that decision was less out of principle but of time constraints as there was insufficient time to develop a comprehensive framework by the deadline imposed by the National Assembly. Despite its merits, the gradual approach has its limitations. Because individual guidelines are implemented gradually it is difficult to keep concrete sentencing periods balanced across all major crimes, to project prison populations, and to develop comprehensive correctional policies. In cases where the prison term of certain individual guidelines is changed due to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, it becomes difficult to adjust the prison terms of other guidelines accordingly. As the guidelines system presently in place has been implemented to a certain extent on a trial basis, it is timely to conduct further research on the subject. For these reasons it would be helpful to look into the North Carolina sentencing guidelines, one of the successful sentencing guidelines system among the federal and state guidelines in America. Before its implementation, the North Carolina Sentencing Commission categorized felonies and misdemeanors according to their seriousness and made a great effort in maintaining proportionality among the major crimes. North Carolina guidelines exercise a binding force on judges but it allows for appropriate judge`s discretion in sentencing by providing broad sentencing ranges and sentencing options. In addition, the guidelines help to maintain manageable prison populations by projecting population changes resulting from new guidelines. The North Carolina sentencing guidelines have been incorporated into law, a sign that the State Congress has been actively engaged in establishing the guidelines. All have contributed to the guidelines` success. Although the Korean sentencing guidelines have been successful in many respects, it is uncertain as to whether they will achieve the level of sentencing reform to which the people aspire. To better implement the sentencing guidelines system we should learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions. The Korean National Assembly should take an active interest in establishing and revising sentencing guidelines as the need occurs. Further, if the current framework is to be maintained, it is imperative to find methods to ensure sentencing proportionality among major crimes. Finally, the Commission must keep up its endeavors in developing comprehensive correctional policies and projecting changes in prison populations following the implementation of new guidelines in order to maintain prison population at an appropriate level.