• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.351-380
• /
• 2018

In every society, citizens must decide how to punish criminals, uphold the virtue of justice, and preserve the security of the community. In doing so, the members of society must ask themselves how they will punish those who carry out the most abhorrent of crimes. Many common responses to such a question is that death is an acceptable punishment for the most severe crimes. But to draw some theoretical distinction between a crime that deserves incarceration and a crime that is so heinous that it deserves capital punishment is subject to three errors. First, what possible line could be drawn? To decide on a particular number of deaths or to employ any standard would be arbitrary. Second, the use of a line would trivialize and undermine the deaths of those whose murderers fell below the standard. Third, any and all executions still are unjust, as the State should not degrade the institution of justice and dehumanize an individual who, although he or she has no respect for other human life, is still a living person. Simply put, all murders are heinous, all are completely unacceptable, and deserve the greatest punishment of the land; however, death as punishment is inappropriate. Also, while this article arrives at the conclusion that the death penalty is an inappropriate form of punishment, I have not offered an acceptable alternative that would appease those who believe capital offenders deserve a punishment that differs in its quality and severity. This is a burden that, admittedly, I am unable to meet. I finally conclude that the death penalty is unjustified retribution. This is the only claim that can effectively shift the intellectual paradigms of the participants in the debate. The continued use of the death penalty in society can only be determined and influenced by the collective conscience of the members of that society. As stated at the outset of this article, it is this essentially moral conflict regarding what is just and degrading that forms the backdrop for the past changes in and the present operation of our system of imposing death as a punishment for crime.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.107-115
• /
• 2015

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.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.337-374
• /
• 2017

Wer wegen eines Wahldelikts zu Geldstrafe von mehr als 1 Million Won verurteilt wird, verliert nach ${\S}$ 18 Abs. 1 Satz 3, ${\S}$ 19 Satz 1, ${\S}$ 266 des Koreanischen Wahlgesetzes $f{\ddot{u}}r$ die Dauer von $f{\ddot{u}}nf$ Jahren die $F{\ddot{a}}higkeit$, ${\ddot{o}}ffentliche$ ${\ddot{A}}mter$ zu bekleiden und Rechte aus ${\ddot{o}}ffentlichen$ Wahlen. Bei Verurteilung zu Freiheitsstrafe wegen eines Wahldelikts ${\ddot{A}}mter$ sich die Dauer des Verlusts der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ und des aktiven bzw. passiven Walhrechts auf 10 Jahre. Dies erfolgt kraft Gesetzes. Das $hei{\ss}t$, dass die Entscheidung ${\ddot{u}}ber$ das Ob und die Dauer des Verlusts nicht im Ermessen des Gerichts steht. Allerdings sollte $diesbez{\ddot{u}}glich$ nicht verkannt werden, dass ein deratriger Entzug von $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$, $W{\ddot{a}}hlbarkeit$ u.s.w., mit dem eine Straftat geahndet werden soll, selber von Natur aus eine Art Strafen darstellt. Der im ${\S}$ 41 des Koreanischen StGB geregelte Strafen-Katalog $enth{\ddot{a}}lt$ $n{\ddot{a}}mlich$ eine zeitlich begrenzte Aberkennung des oben genannten ${\ddot{o}}ffentliche$n Rechtsstatus als eine Art Ehrenstrafen. Nicht einleuchtend ist, warum das Wesen der Sanktion $gem{\ddot{a}}{\ss}$ ${\S}$ 18 Abs. 1 Satz 3, ${\S}$ 19 Satz 1, ${\S}$ 266 des Koreanischen Wahlgesetzes, die den gleichen Zweck und die gleiche Rechtsfolge wie die im ${\S}$ 41 des Koreanischen StGB geregelte Ehrenstrafe hat, nicht als Strafe aufgefasst werden sollte. Handelt es sich bei der oben genannten Sanktion um eine Art Ehrenstrafen, so stellt sich die Anforderung, sie je nach der Eigenart der begangenen Tat bzw. des $T{\ddot{a}}ters$ zu individualisieren. Das Gebot der Individualisierung der Strafen, welches $haupts{\ddot{a}}chlich$ vom materiellen Rechtsstaatsprinzip ableitbar ist, kann im Grunde nur verwirklicht werden, wenn das Gericht dazu befugt ist, unter $Ber{\ddot{u}}cksichtigung$ der konkreten $Umst{\ddot{a}}nde$ jedes Einzelfalls ${\ddot{u}}ber$ eine angemessene Strafe zu befinden. Somit ist der kraft Gesetzes eintretenden Verlust der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ und der $W{\ddot{a}}hlbarkeit$ nur schwer mit dem Gebot der Individualisierung der Strafen vereinbar. Es $w{\ddot{a}}re$ deshalb $w{\ddot{u}}nschenswert$, wenn der Gesetzgeber eine Reform in Betracht ziehen $w{\ddot{u}}rde$, welche den Ersatz des kraft Gesetzes automatisch eintretenden Entzugs der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ bzw. des Wahlrechts durch die gerichtliche fakultative Aberkennung von diesen Statusrechten beinhaltet.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.68-90
• /
• 1993

• Venture DIGEST
• /
• s.137
• /
• pp.37-37
• /
• 2009

사업을 영위하다보면 종업원이 행한 행정법규 위반행위에 대하여 그 영업주에 대하여도 형벌을 부과하는 경우를 본 적이 있을 것이다. 이처럼 종업원의 비위행위로 영업주가 예상치 못한 처벌을 받는 경우가 흔하게 있었는데, 최근 헌법재판소에서 양벌규정의 위헌상 여부에 대한 결정을 내려 사회적 이목이 집중되고 있다.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2009.05a
• /
• pp.559-566
• /
• 2009

The Capital punishment is a sentence which imposes the defendant to be put to death for his crime, thus depriving him/her of life and it's the heaviest punishment of all. It is a very sensitive issue in the sense that it denies a person's life and dignity. It is also an on-going issue which continues to cause political and ethical controversies. Although there is no direct stipulation acknowledging capital punishment in the constitution, there is controversy on the existence of indirect basis. The Art. 12. I. can not be regarded as an indirect provision if it is interpreted to have criminal punishments stipulated by written law. As the supreme Court and the Constitution Court are supporting the capital punishment which seems unconstitutional, legislative examination is inevitable. Considering the fact that the Constitution is neither for nor against the death penalty positively, it is possible to abolish it by enactment of a law and thus, constitutional amendment would not be needed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.207-229
• /
• 2019

It is a general recognition that more serious criminal acts in a certain area of society should be given more serious condemation than the same general crimnal act. In particular, considering the purpose of the medical treatment and the trust relationship between the doctor and the patient, the sexual violence by doctor in medical field can not be placed on the same line as that of the general public. But the special legislation to solve this through criminal legal sanctions is not desirable. The basic principle of criminal law ist ultima ratio, so the principle of supplementality. It means to try to solve by all possible means and finally to enter with punishment. A flat and hasty Reaction without the considering of the speciality of medical treatment will cause serious cracking in that area. In addition, it will not be able to expect desirable results in legal practice by breaking down the legal system. Rather, administrative regulation is more efficient than punishment sanctions. But the best way is autonomous control by members of the medical area. Penalties in criminal law must make an enterance at the last, and administrative regulation should be timely intervene in specific situations through diversification. In conclusion, state interventions should be farthest in order to proceed to autonomous control of medical area.

• 건강소식
• /
• v.11 no.4 s.101
• /
• pp.18-21
• /
• 1987

경제 발전이 절정에 달한 국민들이 인간생활의 정상적인 질서를 파괴해 가면서 방탕한 생활의 결과가 천간인 AIDS이지 않은가 생각되며 모든 삼라만상은 제 나름대로 질서가 있는 법이거늘 하물며 만물의 영장인 인간생활의 법칙을 어기며 물질 만능의 쾌락추구자에게 내리는 형벌이라고 생각된다. 자기자신을 절제하면서 아주 평범하게 사는 사람들에게는 이 무서운 병원체일지라도 감히 침범을 못 할 것이라고 확신하면서 생활하길 바란다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Nuclear Society Conference
• /
• 2004.10a
• /
• pp.1407-1408
• /
• 2004

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2013.07a
• /
• pp.173-175
• /
• 2013

본 논문에서는 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등의 관한 법률에서 '타인'의 범위에 관한 해석을 논점으로 삼고 있다. 대법원은 위 법 제49조의 '타인'의 범위에 관한 해석에서 생존한 사람뿐만 아니라 사망한 자도 포함하여 해석하고 있다. 물론 동법의 사자(死者)도 정보통신망의 안정성과 정보의 신뢰성 확보를 위해 포섭하여 해석할 수 있다는 견해가 존재할 수 있지만 형법 및 형사특별법은 죄형법정주의라는 이념상 허용될 수 없다는 견해가 타당하다. 형사법의 해석은 형벌이라는 가혹한 법률효과를 예정하고 있으므로 형벌법규의 해석은 엄격해야 하고 명문규정의 의미를 피고인에게 불리한 방향으로 확장해석하거나 유추해석을 해서는 안된다. 만약 동법 제49조의 '타인'의 범위에 사자(死者)를 포함한다면 법률해석의 방법인 문리해석, 논리해석, 목적론적 해석, 헌법 합치적 해석에도 반하므로 동법에서 '타인'의 범위에 사자(死者)를 포함시키고자 한다면 동법의 개정을 통해 법규 수범자에게 예측가능성을 확보할 수 있도록 용어의 분명한 정의규정이 입법을 통해 반영되어야 한다.