DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Monetary Penalty System and Privacy

벌금형 제도의 현대적 가치와 개인정보문제

  • Kim, Woon-Gon (Dept.of Maritime Police, Chosun College of Science & Technology)
  • 김운곤 (조선이공대학교 해양경찰과)
  • Received : 2015.05.07
  • Accepted : 2015.05.25
  • Published : 2015.06.30

Abstract

A fine is defined to the criminal penalty which is slighter than imprisonment on a system of criminal penalty, but put practically a seat to imprisonment and similar strong discipline contrivance to commission agent in capitalism societies be doing. Also, did heavy commission, but the corporation time, a fine to consider the respect which cannot impose other criminal penalty, and cannot but impose fine penalty only to this corporation carries out art as important criminal penalty than the commission which a person does. But fine drawing of our country cannot carry out art scaring to criminal penalty to rich body as aggregate fine drawing, and a lot of, but do abatement duration of a fine so as same, and be most in spite of adjudication criminal sentence occupying at criminal case adjudication, and difference cannot do to an amount of a fine that is carrying well out the art. Therefore, and have to change to the daily fine systemdm which gained because of total fine system in order to carry out value as modern criminal penalty, and a few fines shall exchange to penalty payment system according to complement department canon of Penal Code, and social accusation protects individual information of low commission agent if so, can normally do art accomplishment of criminal penalty. The system that the maximum can guarantee right of defence of accused has to have to be introduced in procedural a few aspect to pronounce this and a fine. Specially, let explain necessary fact to be related to, and informal procedures understand, and introduction of drawing to be able to get from accord of accused is necessary for accused before charging to informal decree in order cannot be guaranteed right of defence this of accused while consisting in writing of whether accusation and adjudication are procedural at informal procedures, and to supplement respect.

벌금형은 형벌체계상 자유형보다 가벼운 형벌로 규정되어 있지만, 자본주의 사회에서는 범죄행위자에게 실질적으로 자유형 못지않은 강력한 제재 수단으로 자리매김하고 있다. 또한 자연인인 개인보다 법인이 저지르는 경제사범, 조세범, 기업범죄에서는 범죄 규모가 클 뿐만 아니라 다른 형사제재 수단이 없는 경우에 사용되는 벌금형을 통한 제재는 형사제재 방법으로서 중요한 가치를 지니고 있다. 그렇지만 우리나라의 벌금형제도는 총액벌금형제도로서 부유한 사람에게는 형벌의 위하적 기능을 수행할 수 없고, 벌금형의 액수에 차이가 많은데도, 벌금형의 실효기간을 똑같게 함으로써 형사재판에서 가장 많이 차지하는 선고형임에도 불구하고, 그 기능을 제대로 수행하고 있다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 현대적 형벌로서 가치를 수행하기 위해서는 총액벌금형제도는 일수벌금형제도로 변경할 필요가 있고, 낮은 벌금형제도는 형법의 보충성 원칙에 따라 범칙금제도로 대체하여 사회적 비난이 낮은 범죄행위자의 개인정보를 보호함과 동시에 형벌의 기능수행을 정상적으로 할 수 있어야 할 것이다. 이와 더불어 벌금형을 선고하는 절차적인 면에서도 피고인의 방어권을 최대한 보장할 수 있는 시스템이 도입되어야 할 필요가 있다. 특히 약식절차에서는 기소와 재판절차가 서면으로만 이루어지면서 피고인의 방어권이 보장되지 못하는 점을 보완하기 위하여 약식명령으로 청구하기 전에 피의자에게 약식절차에 관계되는 필요한 사항을 설명하여 이해시키고, 피고인의 동의를 받을 수 있는 제도의 도입도 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Winfried Hassemer, Warm Strafe sein muss, Translator : Bae Jong-Dae.Yoon Jae-Wang, Nanam Publishing Co., 2011, p.130.
  2. Dona Weekly Magazine, "Problem of detention in labor house", Vol. 931, 2014. 3. 31, p.57.
  3. Park, Jae-yoon, "Comments, General Provision of Criminal Act(2)", Korea Law & Administration Research Institute, 2011, p.500.
  4. Kim, Hye-Kyung, "Fines to be proportional to imprisonment", Korea Journal of Criminology, Vol.24 No.2, 2012, Korean ABociation of Criminology, p.111.
  5. Japan Supreme Court, 1950. 6. 27. Case of Criminal, 46, 958.
  6. Jo, Dae-hwan, "Problems of detention in a work", Legal Profession Journal, Vol.47 No.3, 1998, Korea ABociation of Legal Profession, p.6.
  7. Kim, Il-soo.Seo, Bo-hak, Particulars of Criminal Law, Pakyoungsa, 2002, p.789.
  8. Meyer-Gossner, ${\S}$407 Rn. 1; Zipf, S. 230.
  9. Song Kwang-soub, "The Current utilization of summary proceedings, its drawbacks and directions for improvement", Prosecution Service, Vol.40, 2013. 9, Supreme Prosecutor's Office, p.179.
  10. Roxin/Schunemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 26. Aufl. 2009, S. 489-490.
  11. Fischer, Karlsruher Kommentar, StPO, vor ${\S}$ 407 Rn. 2.
  12. Supra Note 9, p.200.
  13. Supra Note 3, pp.503-504.
  14. Jang, yoon-seok, "the Improvement of Summary proceedings", Legal Profession Journal, Vol., 47 No. 2, 1998, Korea ABociation of Legal Profession, p.168.
  15. Supra Note 9, p.207.
  16. You, Keun-seob, "Japan summary proceedings", Prosecutor, Vo., 95, 1987, p.336
  17. Supra Note 14, pp.166-167.
  18. Supra Note 14, p.166.
  19. Hong, Jin-young, "The right of privacy decision and dispute resolution", Study on the civil case, Vol., 35, 2013, 02., Pakyoungsa, pp.743-744.
  20. Japan Supreme Court, 1981. 4. 14. Case of Civil, Vol., 35, No.,3, p.620
  21. Kim, Young-cheol, "Studyon the Protective Privacy in Criminal Law",Dissertation of Kunkook University, 1996, pp.43-44.
  22. Kim, Young-cheol, "Case of Protective Privacy in Criminal Law", Justice, Vol., 30, No., 1.,1997, 'Korea Legal Center, p.71.
  23. SCP 1993. 3. 23. 92Do455.
  24. Lim, Woong, "A study on the Decriminalization",Sungkyunkwan Law Review, Vol., 19, No., 3,2007. 12., Sungkyunkwan Comparative LawResearch, p.466.
  25. Rhee Joo Won, Zur Auswirkung derStrafauBerkraftsetzung auf Urteile imkoreanischen Strafausserkraftsetzungsgesetz,Lawyers Association journal, No.469, 2004,Korea Association of Legal Profession, p.214.