형사피해자와 범죄피해자의 구별필요성 - 헌법재판소 결정을 중심으로 - = The distinction between ‘A victim of a Crime’ and ‘Crime Victim’ - Centering on Constitutional Court decisions -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이용식, "형사피해자의 지위에 대한 소고" 한국피해자학회 14 (14): 5-22, 2006

2 윤영미, "형사피해자의 재판절차진술권에 대한 헌법적 고찰 ― 미국에서의 논의를 참조하여 ―" 한국헌법학회 15 (15): 329-366, 2009

3 이형국, "형법총론" 법문사 2021

4 박미숙, "현행법상 형사피해자의 범위" 한국피해자학회 12 (12): 5-26, 2004

5 김철수, "헌법학신론" 박영사 2010

6 장영수, "헌법학" 홍문사 2020

7 전광석, "한국헌법론" 집현재 2020

8 장진숙, "재외국민의 범죄피해와 국가의 보호의무" 유럽헌법학회 (28) : 345-388, 2018

9 홍일선, "입법부작위 헌법소원심판의 적법요건 연구" 비교법학연구소 57 : 185-216, 2019

10 강경근, "일반헌법학" 법문사 2018

11 강동욱, "언론보도에 따른 피해자의 2차 피해 구제제도와 그 개선방안" 한국피해자학회 23 (23): 5-33, 2015

12 소병도, "범죄피해자의 헌법적 권리와 적법절차를 통한 보장" 법학연구소 17 (17): 307-332, 2016

13 박상식, "범죄피해자의 의견진술권에 관한 연구" 한국피해자학회 14 (14): 75-115, 2006

14 김혜경, "범죄피해자 구조금지급의 법적 개선방안 - 헌법상 범죄피해자구조청구권의 본질과의 상관성을 중심으로 -" 한국형사법무정책연구원 26 (26): 115-150, 2015

15 안성훈, "국외범죄피해자의 국가구조에 관한 이론적 고찰" 한국피해자학회 29 (29): 115-139, 2021