Earticle

초록

영어

Overcrowding of a correctional facility is not only a fundamental human rights aspect of the prisoner, but also causes correction accidents, such as battering of prisoners and prisoners of prisoners, deterring correction of prisoners and sound social return, and spreading them to social problems caused by rioting. It can be an important issue. Therefore, the constitutionality of the Constitutional Court over the decision to accept the oversight is a very good decision. Unfortunately, however, it does not provide a clear legal basis for illegal acts of acceptance, leaving behind a legal debate on unconstitutional overcrowding In order to be relieved of such unconstitutional acceptance, administrative lawsuits must be filed but the detained person or the defendant must not disclose his / It is practically difficult to file an administrative action against an acceptance act. Moreover, it is not easy to raise a constitutional complaint after it has been completed or after it has been released from the detention center. In fact, it is possible that the applicant who raised the constitutional complaint about the acceptance of overcrowding was a human rights activist. It would not be easy for ordinary people to raise a constitutional complaint in this regard. Since unconstitutional acceptance practices still in progress can not just be overlooked, it is necessary to establish clearer legal standards for judging such unconstitutional acceptance practices. The legislation for this is that, as in Article 146 of the German "Law on the Execution of the Act", the "Penal Execution Act" in principle stipulates the prohibition of acceptance of overcrowding in principle, However, if it is inevitable that an additional exceptional requirement is required depending on the acceptance and operation status of the present correction facility, it may be temporarily stipulated in the Enforcement Ordinance or the Enforcement Regulations. It is also possible that the regulations on the size and facilities of the correctional facilities are specified more specifically in Articles 143 to 145 of the German "Act on the Law of Operation", and that details are delegated to the Enforcement Ordinance or Enforcement Rules. In addition, the minimum accommodation space per person in the correctional facilities is 2.58􀩍 per person in the hatching room and 4.62m2 in the singing room. However, the standards proposed by the Torture Prevention Committee, which is a specialized agency of the European Council, It is necessary to adjust it up to the minimum standard (4m² for the living room) or the minimum standard for the international cross (5.40m² for the living room (including the toilet) and 3.40m² for the living room (including the toilet)).

목차

Abstracts
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Problems of legislation and imprisonment on correctional facilities
1. Legislation on correctional facilities
2. The imprisonment of correctional facilities
3. Minimum imprisonment area per person
Ⅲ. The Constitutional Court case (2013 HUNMA 142)
1. Facts
2. Subject of judicial review
3. Claimant's claim
4. Judgment on the requirements of law
5. Judgment on the merits
6. Decision point
7. Judge Park Han-cheol, Judge Kim Iso-su, judge Ahn Changho,Judge Cho Yong-ho's supplementary opinion
Ⅳ. A Comment on the Constitutional Court's case
1. Legal basis of confinement space
2. Raise the minimum capacity per person
Ⅴ. Conclusion
[References]

키워드

저자

• Min Seok, Sim [ Doctor of Law, Dongguk Univ. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  DONGGUK LAW REVIEW

• 간기

  반년간

• pISSN

  2287-9676

• 수록기간

  2012~2025

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340