지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In, our country, Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was enacted Dec. 31, 1983 and was enforced Jan. 1. 1984 in order to cope with crime phenomenon generated by economic growth. And Art. 3 Sec. 1 of this Act was revised Dec. 31, 1990. It heavily punishes for big scaled property crimes such as beach of trust over 500,000,000 Won.
Meanwhile, in April 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission formulated sentencing guidelines for the beach crime of trust after conducting studies and analyses for two years, from 2007 to 2009 and enforced the application of these sentencing guidelines to the related crimes as of July 1. 2009. But, according to a recent survey, the standards that are presented in the sentencing guidelines, despite the efforts of the Supreme Court Sentencing Guidelines Commission for the rationalization of punishment against economic crimes, the reality is that still does not function properly. Specially they estimate that the degree of businessman( the head of a conglomerate, director etc.)’s punishment in the economic crimes is lower than the cases of the ordinary citizens. So the revised bills submitted to the Diet proposed to toughen up prison sentences for beach crime of trust of corporate’s director etc. It reflects demand of economic democratization and is to protect the suspension of sentence or the special amnesty for businessman committed the beach crimes of trust. They assert the appropriate and reasonable amount of the penalty is an essential element for ensuring the fairness and reliability of the entire criminal justice. And they think the strongest punishment is the most efficient way to prevent crimes.
But these opinions are contrary to the principle of responsibility in the criminal law and the purpose of punishment, improvement of criminals. The excessive punishment bring serious side effects to criminal practice affairs by regulating unnecessarily strong punishments and go against the constitutional principle of proportionality.
So we should consider to abolition of this Act of aggravated punishment because the criminals could be punished sufficiently only with ordinary criminal law. Otherwise this Act should be revised to include appropriate and rational contents.
Meanwhile, in April 2009, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission formulated sentencing guidelines for the beach crime of trust after conducting studies and analyses for two years, from 2007 to 2009 and enforced the application of these sentencing guidelines to the related crimes as of July 1. 2009. But, according to a recent survey, the standards that are presented in the sentencing guidelines, despite the efforts of the Supreme Court Sentencing Guidelines Commission for the rationalization of punishment against economic crimes, the reality is that still does not function properly. Specially they estimate that the degree of businessman( the head of a conglomerate, director etc.)’s punishment in the economic crimes is lower than the cases of the ordinary citizens. So the revised bills submitted to the Diet proposed to toughen up prison sentences for beach crime of trust of corporate’s director etc. It reflects demand of economic democratization and is to protect the suspension of sentence or the special amnesty for businessman committed the beach crimes of trust. They assert the appropriate and reasonable amount of the penalty is an essential element for ensuring the fairness and reliability of the entire criminal justice. And they think the strongest punishment is the most efficient way to prevent crimes.
But these opinions are contrary to the principle of responsibility in the criminal law and the purpose of punishment, improvement of criminals. The excessive punishment bring serious side effects to criminal practice affairs by regulating unnecessarily strong punishments and go against the constitutional principle of proportionality.
So we should consider to abolition of this Act of aggravated punishment because the criminals could be punished sufficiently only with ordinary criminal law. Otherwise this Act should be revised to include appropriate and rational contents.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 배임죄의 형량강화의 문제점
Ⅲ. 결어
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (2)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-300-002796158