2012년을 기준으로 미국의 인구 10만 명당 구금자수 707명으로 세계 최고의 수준이다. 현재 미국의 구금자 수나 구금율은 지난 몇 십 년 동안에 이루어진 변화의 결과이다. 보수주의 시대에 해당하는 1980년대에서 1990년대에 이르기까지 미국은 이른바 강경대응방식(tough-on-crime approach)을 취하였고, 그 결과 구금자수와 구금율이 급격히 증가한 것이다. 강경대응방식은 구금자수와 구금율의 급격한 증가 이외에도 따른 행형예산의 대폭적 증가, 과밀수용 등 처우의 악화, 권한남용 및 인권침해 증가, 행형비리 등 온갖 문제점을 드러내었다. 강경정책은 2000년대에 들어와서도 한동안 지속되다가, 2000년대 후반 세계금융 위기를 맞으면서 예산문제를 감당할 수 없게 된 미국 정부는 기존 대응방식의 문제점을 분석하고 그 대안으로 효율적 대응방식(smart-on-crime approach)을 채택하기에 이르렀다. 이와 같은 새로운 대응방식은 비단 예산 절감의 차원에 그치지 않고, 그동안 강경정책에 가려 묵인하거나 소홀히 취급하였던 인종간 불균형, 청소년·여성 등 취약자에 대한 배려, 사형수의 처우, 민간행형시설의 비효율과 인권침해 등 행형전반에 걸친 문제점들을 하나씩 점검하기 시작하였다. 이로써 현재 미국은 예산절감, 인권신장 그리고 범죄통제라는 세 마리 토끼를 한꺼번에 잡을 수 있는 방안을 마련하기 위해 안간힘을 쓰고 있다. 최근 우리나라에서는 성폭력범죄를 비롯하여 각종 흉악범죄의 실상이 언론을 통해 적나라하게 보도되면서 흉악범죄에 대한 경경대처 여론이 비등하였고, 이에 정치권과 사법부는 형벌가중, 보안처분 확대, 양형기준 인상 등 강경대응방식으로 나아가고 있다. 그러나 이러한 방식은 미국의 경험이 증명하듯 예산의 압박, 인권침해 사례의 증가, 행형비리의 증대와 같은 각종 폐해를 양산할 우려가 다분하다. 필자는 그 동안 미국의 경험은 우리나라가 참조하기에 충분한 시사점을 제공한다고 보고, 구금자수와 구금율의 변화, 인종간 불균형, 청소년, 여성, 노인, LGBT(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender ; LGBT), 사형수 등 구금을 중심으로 하여 최근 미국 행형의 변화에 대해 살펴보았다.

우리나라 헌법은 “누구든지 법률에 의하지 아니하고는 체포·구속·압수·수색 또는 심문을 받지 아니하며, 법률과 적법한 절차에 의하지 아니하고는 처벌·보 안처분 또는 강제노역을 받지 아니한다.”고 하여(제12조제1항) 형사절차에 관하여 적법절차의 원칙을 천명하고 있다. 이 원칙은 입법작용, 행정작용 그리고 사법적용 전반에 걸쳐 적용되는 독자적인 헌법원리로서 특히 인권침해소지가 큰 형사절차에서 엄격하게 적용될 것이 요구되고 있다. 그동안 수사절차와 재판절차에서는 적법절차원칙이 비교적 엄격하게 적용되어 왔으나 형집행절차에서 법원은 부과되는 형벌이나 보안처분의 종류와 양만을 결정할 뿐 구체적인 집행은 행정부에 일임하고 있고, 그 집행의 과정에서 발생하는 각종 인권침해에 대한 사후적 구제에 있어서도 법원의 역할은 미미하였다. 이에 반하여 독일과 프랑스는 형집행의 과정상 중요한 결정을 법원이 직접할 뿐만 아니라 형집행과정에서의 인권침해를 구제하기 위한 전문기관으로서 형집행법원 내지 형집행법관제도를 운용해 왔다. 최근 우리나라는 성폭력범죄대책의 일환으로 성범죄자 신상정 보공개, 치료감호, 위치추적 전자장치(전자발찌), 성충동 약물치료(화학적 거세) 등 자유제한적 보안처분제도를 속속 도입하였고 최근 법무부는 (구)사회보호법 상의 보호감호를 보호수용이라는 명칭으로 재도입하는 것을 내용으로 하는 형법개정작업을 진행 중이다. 본 논문은 이와 같은 상황에서 독일과 프랑스의 입법례를 소개·검토하고, 이를 토대로 적법절차의 관점에서 형집행에 대한 사법적 통제를 강화하기 위한 방안의 일환으로 가석방 등 형집행과정상 중요한 결정을 법원의 권한으로 옮기고 나아가 형집행법원·형집행법관과 같은 사법심사제도를 도입할 것을 주장한다.

공교육의 중요한 과제는 민주사회를 살아가는데 필요한 소양을 갖춘 준법시민을 길러내는 것이라고 할 수 있는데, 법교육은 시민으로 하여금 친사회적 태 도를 길러주는데 결정적인 역할을 한다. 이처럼 민주시민교육으로서의 법교육은 1950년대 초반 미국에서 처음으로 시작되어 전세계로 확산되었으며 현재 일 본, 대만, 영국, 독일, 프랑스 등 각국에서 활발하게 이루어지고 있다. 우리나라에서도 지난 2005년 정부가 국민참여재판제도의 성공적인 정착과 법활용 능력 배양 등을 위해 법과 법절차에 대한 건전한 소양을 갖춘 민주시민의 양성을 목표로 법교육 사업을 전개하고 있다. 정부의 적극적인 노력으로 일반인은 물론 청소년, 여성, 새터민(북한이탈주민), 다문화가정 등 다양한 계층을 위한 법교육 프로그램과 교재가 개발·보급되었다. 또한 가정, 취업, 금융, 부동산, 인터넷, 교통 등 다양한 분야에 관한 생활법교재도 개발되어 활용되고 있다. 이에 비하여 수형자를 대상으로 하는 법교육 교재나 프로그램은 거의 개발되어 있지 못한 실 정이다. 그러나 최근에 들어와 정부의 법교육강화정책과 연계하여 출소예정자 를 비롯한 수형자에 대한 법교육이 사회복귀 및 재범예방의 수단으로 재조명을 받고 있다. 본 논문은 먼저 수형자에 대한 법교육이 가지는 의미를 짚어본 다음 현재 우리나라에서 실시되고 있는 수형자에 대한 교정교육(신입자 교육, 인성교육, 취업 및 창업교육, 교화방송)의 현황과 문제점을 살펴보고 그 발전방안을 제시하고자 한다.

Four-week repeated-dose toxicity of Misaengtang (MST) was evaluated according to Toxicity Test Guideline of Korea Food and Drug Administration using 6-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats. Based on the results of preliminary single-dose toxicity study, confirming safety up to an upper-limit dose, MST was dissolved in drinking water and orally administered at doses of 500, 1,000, or 2,000 mg/kg for 28 days. All doses including the upper-limit limited dose (2,000 mg/kg) of MST did not cause any abnormalities of rats, including mortality, clinical signs, body weight gain, feed/water consumption, necropsy findings, organ weights, hematology and blood biochemistry. Rather, high doses (1,000-2,000 mg/kg) of MST reduced the serum levels of alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, creatinine phosphokinase, lactate dehydrogenase and triglycerides, in addition to an increase in glucose, indicative of protective effects on hepatic and muscular injuries. Both maximum-tolerable dose and no-observed-adverse-effect level were not determined. The results indicate that long-term intake of high-dose MST might not induce general adverse-effects.

Living in a world governed almost entirely by the exercise of the discretion naturally generates a wide range of grievances. Accordingly it is essential that prisoners have a number of avenue of redress open to them whereby the illegal exercise of power maybe challenged, and by which compensation can be recovered for the infringement of such rights as survive in all prisoners notwithstanding there infringement. Under the Prison Act, prisoners have the right to pursue a request or complaint connected to or arising from there imprisonment with the governor of the prison. And it has long been accepted that prisoners also have the right to complaint to or petition the Minister with overall responsibility for the Prison Service and the care of prisoners. But the previous scheme was generally regarded as unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. It was inefficient, slow and lacking in coherence. The Ministry of Justice embarked upon a process of revising the Criminal Administration Act in 2004, and submitted the Revision Bill to the national Assembly on April 26. 2006. In this Bill a new system to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the correction adminstration, such as mandatory institutionalization of the corrections committee for consultation and legalization of the interview system with the governor of the prison. The new system is better than before, but still have major defects to dispel the culture of defensiveness surrounding the issue of complaints or requests. After the Seoul-Jail case in 2006 the Ministry of Justice introduced new systems, such as Sexual Assault Watch, Prison Ombudsman, and Advisory Council on Correction Affairs, to ensure consistency in monitoring human rights policies while accommodating public opinion about rights improvements and expanding popular participation in justice affairs administration in 2006. This article, therefore, reviews the new systems and suggests that these should be accepted in the Bill which is submitted to the national Assembly.

Japan's prisons were run according to the Prison Law of 1908, the product of an age in which the Emperor was sovereign, and the administrative directives whose primary intent was disciplinary. in 1982, the japanese government embarked upon a process of revising the Prison Law according to a self-declared policy of "codification, modernization and internationalization," A Penal Facility Bill was submitted to the national Diet(parliament). But this bill was entirely unacceptable because not only does it perpetuate the present rules and policies presently in force in prisons but has been presented as a package with a Police Detention Facility Bill which perpetuates the infamous Daiyo-kangoku, that is police station cells used as substitute prisons. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations(JFBA) had strongly opposed the two detention facility bills on the ground that they institutionalize the already prevailing order in Japan's penal institutions, and they are not in keeping with principles of codification, modernization and internationalization. Thus far, the legislation package had been presented unsuccessfully three times to the Diet. After the Nagoya-Prison case in 2003 the Ministry of Justice has been working to revise the Prison Law and submitted a bill on criminal institutes and the treatment of convicted inmates, which was designed to replace a part of the Prison Law, to the Diet on March 14, 2005. And the Bill finally cleared the Upper House on May 18, 2005. This act excluded the provisions pertaining to unconvicted inmates as the JFBA had been strongly urged. In addition, recommendations by the Administrative Reform Council were well reflected in the bill, even though there were several points remained to be improved. And during the deliberation in the Lower House, 4 items were modified, including that the new law should be reviewed in 5 years. With respect to the provisions of the Prison Law relating to unconvicted inmates including use of Daiyo-Kangoku, they remain as a law on the detention of crime suspects in criminal institutes until they are revised at next legislation. In this regard, the JFBA, the Ministry of Justice, and the National Police Agency are going to hold joint meetings.

On Nov. 12. 2015, the Suprem Court of Korea has given out an judgement on the Sewol Ferry incident that convicted the captain of a Homicide by Omission who escaped the ship abandoning more than 300 passengers and crews trapped in the sinking ship. On the contrary it denied the first navigation officer and the second of the charge a complicity in homicide by omission. The Court said that a conviction shall not be made because it was hard to admit that they were in collusion with the captain and omitted their obligations out of willful negligence or dolus eventualis. However they, as the executive members of the ship, had duty to protect the passengers and the other crews on the Sewol Ferry from the danger of death in the ship in distress. They knew that they were in a tense situation and the captain didn’t organize his response appropriately, and they could have rescued most of the people who couldn’t escape from the sinking ship if they tried to fulfill their obligation. It can be said that they took charge in the crisis with the captain, and there was implied communication between them to omit their obligation when they abandoned the passengers and crews escaping the ship with no action to rescue them. This article deals with the practical and theoretical possibility that the executive navigation officers of the Sewol Ferry can be convicted of a complicity in homicide by omission.

There are some crimes that requires more than two individuals who participate in committing such crimes in two opposite ways and criminal code provides that the performer is punished for committing them(one- sided criminality). It is one of the controversial issues whether it is possible to apply general provisions on accomplice liability to such crimes. Korean Supreme Court is taking a stance that only the performer can be punished for committing those crimes and it is not allowed to punish the accomplice through application of general rules on accomplice liability. For example Supreme Court decision 2011Do6287 decided November 13, 2011 applied that principle judging two-way criminality between doctors who issued false prescriptions and a taker who instigated the doctors to issues false prescriptions and ruled that the doctors(the issuers) are the only criminal and the other part(the taker) is free from that crime. But the Supreme Court rulings is facing some heavy criticisms that it is not resonable that the taker who instigated the doctors to divulge issued false prescriptions should be punished as an instigator and the Supreme Court’s stance will result in inequality between the principal offender and others actively involved.This article deals with problems concerning the liability of accomplice in one-sided criminality and proposes some solutions for them.

Though the article 314(Interference with Business) of Korean Criminal Code requires the result of interference with the business of another in constitution of that crime, those who give rise to a danger of the result are being judged guilty of it in judicial trials. To prohibit the excessive application overpunishment by the judiciary authorities, this article suggests some points. First, the means of interference with Business, that is fraudulent means or the threat of force, are so vague that it might infringe on the liberty of speech and press, and of meeting and assembly. So they should be interpreted within a narrow boundary or restricted to similar degree to violence or intimidation. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases in which the result of interference with the business of another are practically occurred. Because the attempt to commit that crime shall not be punished, the interference with the business could not be punished for that crime so long as it put an end to causing that result.

Ob und inwieweit sich Polizisten in Ausübung ihres Amtes auf die Notwehr- und Nothilfevorschrift des §21 berufen dürfen, ist sehr umstritten. Der Grund dafür liegt in der Unklarheit der öffentlich-rechtlichen Vorschriften. So gestatten Gesetz über die Amtsausübung der Polizisten einen Schusswaffengebrauch zur Abwehr von Verbrechen und von gewaffenen Vergehen. Anderseits haben es Notrechtsvorbehalte, die auf strafrechtliche Rechtsfertigungsgründe verweisen. Ihnen zufolge sollen z.B. die Vorschriften über Notwehr und Notstand unberührt bleiben. Wenn das richtig ist, kann sich die Polizei wie jeder Bürger bei Ausübung von Notwehr und Notstand auf §21 berufen. Aber dann fragt sich, welchen Sinn die den Schusswaffengebrauch einschränkenden Regeln des Gesetz über die Amtsausübung der Polizisten überhaupt haben soll. Der Widerspruch hat sich jetzt nicht befriedigend auflösen lassen. Nach der im Strafrecht überwiegenden Meinug darf der Polizist sich schlichthin in Ergänzung der polizeigesetzlichen Regelungen bei der Ausübung von Notwehr und Notstand auf §21 berufen. Aber die Bedeutung der polizeigesetzlichen Spezialregelungen ist dann nicht in einer Einschränkung der durch §21 gegebenen Nothilfebefugnis, sondern darin zu sehen, dass sie das für den Normalfall bei der Notwehr Angemessene im Form einer handlichen, konkretisierten Anweisung zusammenfassen. Wenn etwa der Schusswaffengebrauch bei der Abwehr von Verbrechen untersagt ist, bei denen der Täter selbst nicht mit Schusswaffen versehen ist, dann ist das so zu verstehen, dass ein geschulter Polizist im Regelfall mit einen solchen Vorgang ohne den Einsatz von Schusswaffen sollte fertigt werden können; dann ist ein Schuss auch nicht i.S.d. §21 angemessen. Wenn z. B. ein Dieb mit der Beute flieht, hat ein Polizist im Vergleich mit einem Privatmann so viel größere Ergreifenmöglichkeiten, dass ein Schuss meist nicht erforderlich sein wird. Dazu kommt, dass ein Einschränkungen, die bei unerheblicher Angrifen schwere Verlezugen als nicht angemessen erscheinen lassen, natürlich auch bei Polizisten gelten und sich namentlch bei der Abwehr unbeffeneter Vergehenstäter auswirken. Ähnlich vorhält es sich mit den so viel diskurierten Spezialregenlung über den gezielten Todesschuss. Nach den Rechtssprechungen nur abgegen werden darf, sofern er das einzige Mittel zur Abwehr einer gegenwärtigen Lebensgefahr oder der gegenwärtigen Gefahr einer schwehrwiegeden Verletzung der körperlichen Unversehrtheit ist. Überschreitet der Polizist die Grenzen der Notwehr, so kann das Gericht von Strafe absehen oder die Strafe nach senem Ermessen mildern(§21 Abs. 2). Und er überschreitet die Grenzen der Notwehr aus Werwirrung, Furcht oder Schrecken, so wird er nicht bestrafen(§21 Abs. 3). §21 Abs. 2 und 3 erfassen die Situation, in denen die Wahrnehmungen des Täters aufgrund der Affekte eingeschränkt sind, so dass es zu Fehlschätzung der Lage kommt oder der Täter sich überhaupt keine Gedanken macht und deshalb so handelt, weil es ihm gerade einfällt. Unbewusste Notwehrexzess unterscheidet sich von der Putativnotwehr. Nimmt der Täter irrig das Vorliegen einer Notwehrsituation an, also einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff, der weder bevorsteht noch bestaden hat, handelt es sich um eine so gennante Putativnotwehr. Der Irrtum über die tatsächlichen Voraussetzungen der Notwehr wird als Putativnotwehr bezeichnet. Nach der eingeschränkten Schuldtheorie, die von namhaften Stimmen im Schriftum vertreten wird, wird die Putativenotwehr zwar nicht als Tatbestandirrtum angesehen, wohl aber §13 unmittelbar oder entsprechen angewendet wird, weil die Strukturähnlichkeit mit dem eigentlichen Tatbestandirrtum als ausschlaggebend ercheint. Aber die Fahrlässichkeitsdilikte des geltenden Rechtes in erster Linie auf die Tatbestandsfahrlässichkeit und nicht auf die vermeidbar irrige Annahme rechtsfertigender Sachverhalte zugeschnitten sind. Und wer die Voraussetzungen eines Rechtsfertigungsgrundes annehme, wisse immerhin, dass er einen Tatbestand erfülle und damit etwas an sich Verbotenes tue. Diese Appelfunktion des Tatbestandsvorsatzes müsse ihn besonderes sorgfältiger Prüfung des Sachverhaltes veranlassen; versäume er diese, so sei das Unrecht seines Verhaltens schwer als das gewöhnlichen Tatbestandsirrtums. So die irrge Annahme rechtsfertigender Umstände soll als einen unmittelbar unter §16 zu submierenden Verbotsirrtum. Der Irrtum schliesst also nicht den Vorsatz, sondern im Falle seiner Unvermedbarkeit die Schuld aus; ist der Irrtum vermedbar, so kann die Vorsatzstrafe gemildert werden.