본 고에서는 개정행형법(형의 집행 및 수용자의 처우에 관한 법률)의 개정의의에 대하여 음미하였다. 개정행형법의 의의로는 수용자의 법적지위를 분명히 함과 동시에 수형자처우의 목표로써 교정교화 및 사회복귀를 도모한다는 것을 보다 명확히 하였다는 점에 있다. 하지만 개정법률과 관련하여 가장 아쉬운 점은 수형자의 자각적 개선의지와 관련된 구체적인 규정이 명문화되지 않았다는 점이다. 행형처우에 있어서 수형자에게 교정교화 및 사회복귀를 위한 각종의 지도와 훈련 등이 실시된다고 하여도 그것이 오로지 국가에 의한 일방적ㆍ타율적 인 규제로써 이루어져 수형자가 이것을 단순히 수동적으로 따르는 것에 그친다면 수형자의 교정교화 및 사회복귀라는 교정의 목적은 처음부터 달성할 수 없는 목표가 된다. 행형처우란 본래 수형자 스스로가 사회복귀의 필요성을 자각하여 이에 관한 강한 의욕을 갖고 자발적ㆍ주체적인 노력을 하는 것에 의해 그 효과를 기대할 수 있다. 마찬가지로 자유형의 집행에 의한 사회방위는 수형자의 개선과 사회복귀에 의해 성립하는 것으로 그 기능을 다하는 것에 행형의 가장 중요한 의의가 있다는 것은 부정할 수 없다. 그러므로 그 실시에 있어서는 무엇보다 수형자 개개인에게 이러한 의욕을 환기시키고 자발적인 노력을 촉진시키는 것이 요청되며, 이것은 수형자에게 자유형의 집행에 있어서 원활한 사회복귀를 하여야 한다는 일정 정도의 의무를 갖게 하는 것이라고 할 수 있다.

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.

The Korean Penal Execution Act has been revised several times for the purpose of strengthening the ability of adaptation to a society for prisoners. This article has reviewed major issues of the draft for revision and analyzed the propriety of the issues. The paper addresses the issues in sequence of the draft for revision and they are as follows: First of all, it explores an extension of human rights for prisoners, such as the issues of security level of correctional facilities, construction criteria of correctional facilities, duties of the head of prison, freedom of religion in prison, freedom of writing, kinds of protective equipments, kinds of punishments, consideration of minority and the social weak, declaration of presumption of innocence of the convicted, and the principle of sole internment for a person who is sentenced to death etc. In particular, the government has to provide adequate medical facilities for a prisoner's needs Moreover, prison officials may be obligated to provide continuing medical treatment to newly released prisoners until the prisoners are able to obtain medical care on their own. In sum, prison officials should not interfere with a prisoner's exercise of fundamental rights of constitution unless the interference is reasonably related to a legitimate penal interest, nor may prison officials retaliate against a prisoner for exercising such rights. Second, it discusses the issue of extension of external communications and reinforcement of the ability of adaptation to a society. For example, the right of access, the right of use of mails, and telephone communication etc. Third, it deals also with reinforcement of the capacity for administration of internment, such as a legal basis of electronic surveillance system. Lastly, it examines the ways enhancing the efficiency and transparency of correction administration, such as mandatory institutionalization of the corrections committee for consultation, introduction of authority for the delivery of personal belongings, and legalization of interview system with the head of prison and so on.

“국군은 국가의 안전보장과 국토방위의 신성한 의무를 수행함을 사명으로 한다.”고 우리헌법 제5조 2항은 명시하고 있다. 그러므로 군에서 발생하는 범죄행위는 곧 인적요소인 전투력을 손실시키게 된다는 것을 의미하게 되므로 군내 범죄예방에 노력하고, 발생된 범죄행위에 대해서는 철저한 수사활동을 통해 해결하여 범죄발생을 억제함과 동시에 낙오된 수용자에 대하여도 보다 적극적이고 합리적인 교정교화 업무를 수행함으로써 무위의 전투력 손실을 방지하는데 중점을 두어야 하겠다. 따라서 현재 진행 중에 있는 군행형법 전부개정안에 관한 검토와 연구는 이러한 측면에서 매우 중요한 의미를 내포하고 있다 할 수 있겠다. 특히 군행형법 개정안은 2005년도부터 사법제도 개혁추진위원회에서 군사법제도 개혁일환으로 추진하여 온 군형법 개정안 등 총7개 법안 중1) 하나로서 그동안 국방부에서는 군사법제도 개혁 건의문을 존중하면서 군의 특수성 보장을 위한 군내외의 다양한 의견수렴 절차를 거쳐 군행형법 개정안을 사법제도 개혁위원회에 제출하였으며 이를 토대로 최종 입법안을 의결(현재 국회계류 중) 하였다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 군행형법 개정방안 중 일부사항은 다른 군사법 개선방안과 같이 관련부서간의 이해관계로 인해 충분한 논의가 아직도 미흡한 감이 없지 않은 실정으로 군의 특수성과 장병 인권보장이 구현되는 측면에서 개정이 이루어지도록 좀 더 신중하게 접근해 나가는게 바람직하다고 생각한다.

The revised Bill of Prison Act was introduced into National Assembly by government on 26. april 2006. This bill surpasses Korean current Prison Act both in the protection of prisoners' rights and the improvement of correctional treatment. nevertheless with many regrets there are some problems to solve in our bill between guaranteeing prisoners' Fundamental Rights and maintaining order and safety in the penal institution therefore this studies were concentrated on making up for the week points in this bill. focusing on the imprisonment, contact with the outside world of the prisoners (the right to ask an interview with , and to correspond with) and disciplinary punishment in prison in view of the fundamental rights of prisoners. Discussing the inmate rights are frequently seen by the public as un necessary expenses and luxuries but all persons are dignified although they are criminals. therefore Prisoners' fundamental rights should be respected in order to confirmation their human dignify. The following is the suggestions of these studies. 1. Contact with the outside world of the prisoners is guaranteed to the utmost for the purpose of both re-socialization and prisoners' human rights. 2. Prison overcrowding issues should be solved as soon as possible for prisoners' human dignify. 3. Surveillance by cctv to maintain order and safety there must be a great danger to violence the prisoners' privacy rights. so the surveillance of prisoners' cells by cctv must not be permitted. 4. Prohibition of writings, prohibition of mail and visit, prohibition of autdoor exercises does not appropriate for the disciplinary punishments. 5. Solitary confinement in the most critical disciplinary punishments so it should be limited to maximum 30days.

The direction of revising the Law of Criminal Punishment Execution should consider the very idea of the Constitution. In concrete, the rights of the convicted criminals should be protected in the name of their basic rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution. Many revisions have been done in the law of criminal punishment execution in a way that the law protected inmates' basic rights but still many things left untouched. Basically it is true that correctional laws tend to permit inclusive discretionary power of authorities in order to control and supervise troublesome criminals. In turn, the inclusive discretionary power gives room for authorities to overuse the power and results in the violation of constitutional rights of inmates. To resolve the conflicts between the idea that inmates have their consitutional rights and it should be protected in the one hand, and the reality that basic rights of inmates could be confined as necessary on the other hand, we should discuss more concretely about the scopes and ranges of inmates' rights and the valid criteria for limiting their rights. and the execution law should reflect this efforts.

This thesis deals with some problems on the revision of current The Penal Execution Act. By the draft for revision, made public by the ministry of justice, the purpose of revision-draft comprises some principles of prohibition of illegitimate discrimination of prisoners, strengthening the right of presumption of innocence of the convicted, rationalization and individualization of the correctional programs, widening the chances of consulting with relating professionals about the prison administration especially corrections, classification and assignment of facilities in our national penitentiaries' system, recommendation of some high tech security equipment. To the public, corrections are generally understood that the purpose of corrections is to carry out the sentence of the court, with various correctional components handling specific types of sentences. Some components are devoted to providing pretrial services for those entering the criminal justice system. Other components, such as jails, handle individuals of both pre-and post conviction status. The majority of correctional components deal with persons who have appeared before the court and have been found guilty of one or more crimes. Corrections refers to the programs, services, agencies, institutions responsible for supervising persons charged with or convicted of crimes. A paradigm is a model or a way of viewing an aspect of life such as education, politics, medicin, the criminal system. A paradigm shift can make a new way of thinking about a given subject, corrections. Recently paradigm shift recommended for corrections include doing justice, promoting secure communities, restoring crime victims and noncriminal options. Finally, we come to the conclusion that revision of the Penal Execution Act seeks to use a balanced approach involving offenders, victims, local communities and government in alleviating crime and violence and peaceful communities.

Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht auf dem Recht auf Besuch des Gefangenen im koreanischen Strafvollzugsgesetz ein. In diesem Aufsatz geht es darum, auf Grund der Verfassungsidee des Rechtsstaatsprinzip und Sozialstaatsprinzip den Grundsatz der Besuche, das Recht auf Besuch, das Besuchsverbot und die Besuchsuberwachung zu uberblicken. Durch diesen Aufsatz hat der Verfasser erstens vertreten, daß der Gefangene das Recht mit Personen außerhalb der Anstalt im Rahmen der Vorschriften dieses Gesetses zu verkehren hat. Zweitens kann der Anstaltsleiter Besuche untersagen, wenn die Sicherheit oder Ordnung der Ansalt gefahrdet wurde, oder wenn zu befurchten ist, daß die Besucher einen schadlichen Einfluß auf den Gefangenen haben oder seine Eingliederung behindern wurden. Voraussetzung ist hier jedoch, daß es sich bei den Besuchern nicht um Angehorige. Im Hinblick auf den verfassungsrechtlichen Schutz von Ehe und Familie nimmt das StVollzG in kauf, daß Besuch Angehoriger stattfinden, von denen negative Auswirkungen auf den Gefangenen ausgehen. Drittens reicht die negative Beeinflussung des Gefangenen fur sich allein noch nicht aus, um ein Besuchsverbot zu rechtfertigen. Vielmehr muß die Anstalt jeweils prufen, ob der Gefahr durch weniger einschneidende Maßnahmen- z. B. durch die Anordnung von akutisch uberwachten Besuchen- begegnet werden kann. Viertens laßt die Uberwachung von Besuchen aus Grunden der Behandlung des Gefangenen sowie der Sicherheit oder Ordnung der Anstalt zu. Die Uberwachung setzt aber konkrete, in Straffall gerichtlich nachzuprufende Anhaltspunkte fur das Vorliegen einer Gefahrdung der Behandlung, Sicherheit oder Ordnung voraus. Sowie die optische Uberwachung im Hinblick auf die Behandlung, Sicherheit oder Ordnung ausreicht, kann sich die Ansalt damit begnugen. Sie ist nur dann gehalten, die Unterhaltung zu uberwachen, wenn es aus diesen Grunden geboten ist.