This study is designed to introduce perspectives of sociological understanding for criminal punishment. The basic stance of sociology of punishment is that we should consider social contexts under which penal policy and criminal justice activities are constructed and processed. This notion is quite different from the existing penological approach to the enterprise of crime control : it focuses on finding the best way to deter criminals from committing crimes and evaluating the most effective correctional programs and punishment devices. On the contrary, the sociology of punishment seeks to understand punishment within the broader social environments such as economic and political contexts. According to the sociological account of the function of punishment, a main role of punishment is not confined in its instrumental purposes. It also serves as an indicator to represent the society itself. Based on this line of understanding, this article first clarifies the concept and functions of punishment in sociological terms and then introduces explanations for changes in forms of punishment suggested by Durkheim, Marxist penal sociologists and Foucault. Next, it reviews many empirical studies that consider social, economic, political contexts for explaining crime control practices such as imprisonment. In conclusion, this study encourages further research adopting the sociological lenses in exploring criminal justice practices.

이 연구는 처벌이 사이버범죄에 대해 갖는 억제효과를 검증하는 것에 주목한다. 처벌의 영향력은 다른 주요 변인들을 통제할 경우 약해지는지를 알기 위해 부모와의 관계, 사이버범죄에 대해 갖는 태도, 충동성을 통제변인으로 사용하며, 아울러 처벌의 억제효과는 조건적일 것이라는 가설을 검증하기 위해 지각된 처벌가능성과 부모와의 관계, 사이버범죄에 대해 갖는 태도, 충동성 각각의 상호작용 효과를 고려했다. 서울시 남자 중, 고등학생 559명을 대상으로 조사한 결과에서는 현실에서의 범죄처럼 사이버범죄에 있어 처벌의 억제효과는 대체로 미약했으며, 오히려 사이버범죄에 대해 갖는 태도가 중요한 요인으로 제시되었다. 한편 조사결과에서는 처벌의 조건적 효과가 일부 유형의 사이버범죄에서만 부분적으로 지지되었다.

The death penalty is one of the oldest forms of punishment, and despite its evil nature it still remains a worthy system. Ultimately, of course, the capital punishment is stepping towards extinction. Also, many countries are banning it altogether, if not already banned. However, it is rather inappropriate to say that a country that prohibits execution is a country that assures humans rights. Similarly, a person against the death penalty does not necessarily mean that he/she is a human rights activist. So far, the debate whether to continue or to abolish the capital punishment has been valued too abstractly by ethical and religious measures. It is true that the death penalty has realistic functions such as acting as the last measures to social protection, realizing judicial definition, and reducing criminal judicial cost, however, they have not been valued properly. Thus, these functions must be considered before a decision can be made whether to use the death penalty or to eliminate it from the society. The capital punishment has been used as means to control the society, the East and the West alike, from the ancient times and has undergone many changes historically. One of the main problems of the system, however, is the fact that it has been used as a political tool. Therefore, the death penalty has to be prevented altogether from being used as an instrument to rid of political opponents or to suppress minor powers or alienated groups. In addition, the system has to be strengthened by devising plans to minimize the room for error. Criminal law that allows death penalty to political offenders or public safely violators should be revised. Meanwhile, trial procedures, such as trials by jury, also need changes so that the highest level of prudence is given for the capital punishment. The capital punishment is a fearful system where human lives are take away but is also absolutely necessary. It is an appropriate retribution for those immoral members of the society who has no respect for the life of others. It also is a defense mechanism to prevent more lives from being harmed. Therefore, we must change our attitude about the death penalty to a more realistic viewpoint. In general, those criminal procedures that only protect the criminals rights should also be revised to protect the victims instead. In sum, the capital punishment will no longer be needed when the criminals that deserve the ultimate punishment no longer exist in our society.

Although the purposes of punishment vary with their theoretical standpoints, the function of "special deterrence" of the criminals should be the primary correctional goal. Article 1 of the Korean Correction Law defines that "the reintegration of inmates" is the main objectives of the execution of punishment. "A short-term imprisonment" which deprives criminals of their liberty for the short period of time is too short to run the rehabilitative programs for fulfilling the goal of "reintegration." In contrast, it provides sufficient time for the criminals to learn criminal techniques and attitudes from their prison colleagues. In this sense, some argue that this type of punishment has more negative effects rather than it serves the correctional goal. As a result, attempts are recently made to find out alternatives of the short-term deprivation of liberty(e.g. pecuniary punishment). However, there have been much controversies about the exact time-span of "the short-term" punishment and the clear diagnosis of the alleged negative impacts. This article, therefore, is designed first to illustrate possible negative effects of the short-term imprisonment with its relation to the penological thoughts, and then seek alternative types of punishment that better serve the correctional idea of "reintegration."

Act on the Invalidation of Criminal Sentences(AICS) Article 1 (Purpose) regulates “The purpose of this Act is set out standards regarding the administration of previous criminal records and the materials of investigation records, and the invalidation of punishment, thereby guaranteeing a normal social rehabilitation for ex-convicts.” To achieve the one of the goals, AICS Article 7(Invalidation of Punishment) regulates “(1) Where the period of following subparagraphs elapses after the execution of punishment is completed or exempted without being sentenced to suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment, the punishment shall be invalidated: Provided, That detention and minor fine shall be invalidated when the execution of punishment is completed or exempted: 1. Ten years in the case of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor of more than three years; 2. Five years in the case of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor of not more than three years; 3. Two years in the case of a fine. … ” There are three more legal apparatus for the invalidation of punishment. One is the general amnesty by Amnesty Act Article 5 (1), the second is the motion to the invalidation of punishment by the person her or himself or a public prosecutor by Criminal Code Article 81, and the third is the elapse of the term of suspension of sentence without the sentence being nullified or revoked by Criminal Code Article 65. What is the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment? The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea has explained the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment by the two concept, the invalidation for the future(not retroactive) and the fact that it does not mean that the existence of the decision of the punishment is extinct. It remains to be seen that what is the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment in view of the two conflicting interests between the guarantee of social security and the guarantee of civil rights.

The original ruling took into consideration the fact that the accused was a Chaebol owner and applied the concurrent offence punishment provisions and the discretionary sentence reduction system to lower the inferior limit of the penalty, and passed a suspended sentence. In order to divert public criticism, the original ruling also ordered a huge payment as a social contribution fund as a means of a community service order according to article 62-2 of the penal code. But the Supreme Court construed the concept of a community service order in a restrictive manner as ‘work or manual labor that can be imposed by the hour up to 500 hours.' As a result of this construction the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the original judgment that ordered the payment of a social contribution fund as a community service order. The original court maintained the suspended sentence by imposing a 300 hour community service instead of the original social contribution fund payment. Consequently the fairness of the examination of the offence was greatly impaired by lowering the inferior limit of the penalty to 3 years in a case in which the accused was proven guilty of 11 separate offences including one of which the penalty is stipulated as ‘life sentence or imprisonment for more than 5 years.' This ruling disclosed the problematic issues of the concurrent offence punishment provisions and the discretionary sentence reduction system that grant judges excessive discretion on weighing penalties. It is also legislatively meaningful that the case raised issues on introducing new forms of ‘suspended sentence conditional orders' such as fund payment orders or damage recovery orders.

본 연구에서는 운동선수들의 언어‧ 물리적 체벌과 기분상태를 비교분석하는 것이 주된 목적이다. 서울 및 수도권 속해 있는 고등학교 운동선수를 모집단으로 설정하고 연구 대상은 총 463명이며 남자선수는 252명 여자선수는 211명이였다. 수집된 자료를 분석하기 위하여 요인 분석(Factor Analysis), 신뢰도분석(Reliability Analysis), 빈도분석(Frequency Analysis), 다변량 분산분석(MANOVA), 일원분산분석(one-way ANOVA)을 하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻을 수 있었다. 첫째, 남 여 운동선수들에게 체벌을 가하는 가해자는 각각 선배, 지도자, 부모 순으로 나타났고, 체벌의 형태는 언어적․물리적 체벌, 언어적 체벌, 물리적 체벌 순으로 나타났다. 둘째, 남 여 운동선수들의 체벌에 따른 기분상태는 혼란, 활력, 분노에서 차이가 나타났고, 남자선수들이 여자선수들에 비해 긍정적 기분상태는 높고 부정적 기분상태는 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 언어적 물리적 체벌은 주로 선수와 관계된 선배, 코치‧ 감독, 부모님 등에 의해서 받고, 남자운동선수들은 언어‧물리적 체벌을 받고서도 비교적 긍정적 기분상태를 유지하나 여자 운동선수들은 언어‧ 물리적 체벌을 받으면 대체로 부정적 기분상태를 유지하는 것으로 나타났다.

Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (“PTEA”) stipulates that any person who evades tax obligations through fraud of other wrongful conduct shall be punished under the PTEA. So far, most of discussions surrounding Article 9(1) of the PTEA were focused on the meaning of “fraud” or “wrongful conduct.” In the case at hand, the focus was on the meaning of “tax evasion.” There has been much controversy and debate over this issue. The debate centers on the issue of whether a person who has properly reported the tax base and therefore cannot be said to have interfered with the tax authorities’ ability to impose and determine tax liabilities, but instead has hindered the collection of the tax, can be punished under the PTEA. In the recent Supreme Court Decision 2005 Do 9546 delivered February 15, 2007 the court ruled that even if there was no interference of the imposition or determination of tax, if there was interference of collection of tax, then the conduct should also be punished. The author of this paper fully agrees with the Supreme Court's decision for the following reasons: First, the legislative purpose of the PTEA is to secure the state’s tax revenues as well as realize the spirit of fairness and justice in tax collection. Moreover, although anyone can report tax returns properly, if that person deliberately attempts to avoid the collection of tax, that conduct cannot go unpunished. Tax returns, in the end, serve the purpose of facilitating tax collection. Second, on a practical level, hindrance of the imposition /determination of tax and the hindrance of collection are both unlawful behavior that bring on the same result, and therefore should be treated alike. In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court decision is significant in that it clarifies the interpretation of “tax evasion” as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the PTEA. More importantly, this interpretation is in accordance with the principle of the legal principle of Nullum crimen sine lege.