Earticle

초록

영어

The human race has arranged various ways for fair and rational judgments on the examination of an offense. There are discussions in diverse perspectives on statement of objectives of a punishment, new principles of a punishment, improved treatment within society, a new short-term imprisonment system, establishment of a guideline on the examination of an offense, a conference for the examination of an offense, dichotomization of the procedure in a public trial, rationalization of the prosecutors demand of punishment, Presentence Investigation System, and so forth. This study focused on the Presentence Investigation System among various ways for rational judgment on the examination of an offense. Imposing a punishment on a person who socially infringed on the benefit and protection of the law is established through the examination of an offense of the judiciary based on criminal procedures. The procedure of an examination of an offense enables the judiciary to specifically determine the kind and amount of the punishment for the accused. While it is important not to victimize a innocent person with a punishment, the examination of an offense to decide which punishment shall be laid on the guilty can be more important. The Presentence Investigation System originates from sentencing by the judiciary based on scientific investigation into the accused by probation officers in the United States, which developed along with the Probation system. Various countries currently apply this widely. This is a system to scientifically investigate the personality and environment of the person found guilty in the criminal procedure and to use this as a basic material of the examination of an offense. Several problems arise in operation of the Presentence Investigation System. First, in terms of implementation, the limit of investigative workforce and time confines investigation only to interviews with the accused and the family while verification at the site or valuation by professionals do not properly take place. Second, while investigation takes place for adults and juveniles both in terms of implementation, legislatively, the subject and scope of the investigation before sentencing are limited to juvenile criminals that are subject to community treatment. Third, contents and forms of investigation are insufficient. Thus, methods to improve the Presentence Investigation System for rationalization of the examination of an offense include the following based on them. The institute for investigation before sentencing needs to have a sufficient budget and experts. The investigation shall be obligatory for not only the subject of community treatment but also all criminal offenses. The subject of investigation before sentencing shall be extended to adult criminals in terms of legislation. Forms and contents of investigation shall be more professionalized. Also rationalization shall be promoted by having the point of time for the Presentence Investigation begin after decision of guiltiness.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
 Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰
  1. 양형의 의의
  2. 양형 합리화 방안으로서의 판결전조사제도
 Ⅲ. 판결전조사제도의 운영현황 및 문제점
  1. 판결전조사의 활용현황
  2. 판결전조사 담당기관
  3. 판결전조사의 대상 및 범위
  4. 판결전조사 절차
  5. 판결전조사의 내용
  6. 현행 판결전조사제도의 문제점
 Ⅳ. 선진국의 판결전조사제도
  1. 미국
  2. 영국
  3. 독일
  4. 기타
  5. 시사점
 Ⅴ. 판결전조사제도의 개선방안
  1. 판결전조사기관의 전문인력 확보
  2. 판결전조사의 의무화
  3. 판결전조사대상에 성인범 확대 입법 보완
  4. 판결전조사 양식 및 내용의 전문성 제고
  5. 판결전조사 개시의 합리화
 Ⅵ. 결 론
 참 고 문 헌
 

키워드

저자

• 양문승 [ Yang, Mun-Seung | 원광대학교 경찰행정학부 교수, 원광대학교 경찰학연구소장. ]
• 유학희 [ Yoo, Hak-Hee | 원광대학교 대학원 경찰행정학과 박사과정 수료. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  원광법학 [Journal of Law research]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-429X

• eISSN

  2508-4526

• 수록기간

  1962~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340