양형실태 분석을 통한 양형기준 개선방안 고찰 = Contemplating Plans to Improve Sentencing Guidelines by Analyzing the Actual State of Sentencing - Focused on Judgments on Embezzlement/Breach of Trust -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가며
• Ⅱ. 횡령ㆍ배임죄의 양형실태 분석
• Ⅲ. 양형기준의 개선방안
• Ⅳ. 나가며
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 탁희성, "형사정책과 사법제도에 관한 연구(Ⅳ) -양형기준제 시행에 따른 양형합리화정책 성과분석 및 평가-" 한국형사정책연구 2010

2 김혜경, "형법 제51조 양형규정의 개정방향 검토" 한국형사정책학회 23 (23): 291-323, 2011

3 이정민, "협동적 양형판단을 준비하는 일본의 양형논의 및 양형정책" 한국형사정책연구원 20 (20): 371-391, 2009

4 서봉규, "현행 양형기준의 문제점과 개선방안" 법학연구소 11 (11): 33-67, 2010

5 이호중, "우리나라의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 분석" 한국형사법학회 22 (22): 241-272, 2010

6 승재현, "우리나라 양형위원회 양형기준모델의 타당성 평가" 법조협회 59 (59): 87-135, 2010

7 류부곤, "우리나라 양형기준에 대한 고찰" 한국형사법학회 24 (24): 249-276, 2012

8 대법원 양형위원회, "연간보고서" 2010

9 방희선, "양형기준제와 양형위원회 도입방안 연구" 법무부 2010

10 천진호, "양형기준제 시행의 문제점과 양형자료 조사제도 도입을 위한 제언" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 251-272, 2009

11 최호진, "양형기준의 합리성 검토와 개선방향" 한국비교형사법학회 11 (11): 81-103, 2009

12 서보학, "양형기준의 시행에 대한 평가와 개선방향" 한국형사법학회 23 (23): 59-86, 2011

13 최석윤, "양형기준법안에 대한 비판적 검토" 한양법학회 (34) : 417-435, 2011

14 김현석, "양형기준 시행성과와 향후 과제" 한국형사정책연구원 21 (21): 7-41, 2010

15 대법원 양형위원회, "양형기준" 2010

16 김혜경, "양형관련 형사법 개정방안 연구" 대검찰청 2011

17 김슬기, "법정형과 양형기준의 관계에 관한 고찰 - 폭력범죄를 중심으로 -" 한국형사법학회 24 (24): 73-108, 2012

18 오영근, "바람직한 양형기준제와 양형위원회 운영의 방식에 관한 연구" 대검찰청 2010

19 오영근, "바람직한 양형기준의 방식" 한국형사정책연구원 20 (20): 347-370, 2009

20 김성돈, "미국의 주 양형법개혁과 양형가이드라인시스템 - 메사츄세츠주의 양형가이드라인법안을 중심으로 -" 한국법학원 71 : 206-234, 2003

21 박강우, "대법원 양형기준안과 바람직한 양형개혁의 방향" 한국법학원 (114) : 206-229, 2009