지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Nowadays, as the juvenile delinquency is being realized as one of serious social problems around the world, the effort to prevent it and to reform a juvenile delinquent is continually going on.
Though the judicialsystem dealing with the juvenile delinquency is different in each country, they have in common in emphasizing the reformation and the protection of the juvenile for their proper development rather than the punishment of them.
Generally, the right to prior consideration, that is, the right to consider the process of handling with the juvenile crime as the first one, has been given to the public prosecutor since the establishment of the juvenile law in 1958. However, recently, while there is a suspicion about the prosecutor's direct interference in the process of protection for the juvenile delinquent, that the legal court has to be introduced as the alternative to the prosecutor's prior involvement in the juvenile legal process, in order to solve the problem related with the present juvenile law, is coming up as a strong opinion.
Therefore, this research, after discussing the advantage and disadvantage of giving the priority to the prosecutor with the review of the legal interpretation related with the juvenile law§ 49 (1), tried to suggest the reformation plan.
The present right of the priority to prosecutor has to be corrected like the following, as the effective defense from the juvenile delinquency whose problem is becoming severe in quantity and quality.
First, we have to install the separate juvenile legal court as like in Germany, and choose the alternative to uniify the juvenile legal process.
Second, in relation with the priority to the prosecutor, the transformation from the juvenile law centered around the prosecutor which is amateur about the juvenile problem, to the one professional about the juvenile delinquency, has to be done. In other words, the legal process which is professional about the juvenile delinquency, has to be founded.
Third, we have to diversify the kinds of protection in order to facilitate the prosecution practice properly, and enrich its content.
Though the judicialsystem dealing with the juvenile delinquency is different in each country, they have in common in emphasizing the reformation and the protection of the juvenile for their proper development rather than the punishment of them.
Generally, the right to prior consideration, that is, the right to consider the process of handling with the juvenile crime as the first one, has been given to the public prosecutor since the establishment of the juvenile law in 1958. However, recently, while there is a suspicion about the prosecutor's direct interference in the process of protection for the juvenile delinquent, that the legal court has to be introduced as the alternative to the prosecutor's prior involvement in the juvenile legal process, in order to solve the problem related with the present juvenile law, is coming up as a strong opinion.
Therefore, this research, after discussing the advantage and disadvantage of giving the priority to the prosecutor with the review of the legal interpretation related with the juvenile law§ 49 (1), tried to suggest the reformation plan.
The present right of the priority to prosecutor has to be corrected like the following, as the effective defense from the juvenile delinquency whose problem is becoming severe in quantity and quality.
First, we have to install the separate juvenile legal court as like in Germany, and choose the alternative to uniify the juvenile legal process.
Second, in relation with the priority to the prosecutor, the transformation from the juvenile law centered around the prosecutor which is amateur about the juvenile problem, to the one professional about the juvenile delinquency, has to be done. In other words, the legal process which is professional about the juvenile delinquency, has to be founded.
Third, we have to diversify the kinds of protection in order to facilitate the prosecution practice properly, and enrich its content.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
Ⅱ. 선의주의의 유형과 비교법적 고찰
Ⅲ. 현행법상 검사선의주의의 해석론과 정책론
Ⅳ. 현행 소년법상 검사선의주의의 개선방안
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1986. 5. 19.자 86모8 결정
소년법 제46조의 규정상 소년에 대한 형사피고사건을 심리한 결과 이에 관할 소년부에 송치할 만한 보호처분사유가 있는지의 여부는 법관이 자유재량에 의하여 판정할 사항이다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1986. 12. 23. 선고 86도2314 판결
소년법 제53조 소정의 "사형 또는 무기형으로 처할 것인 때에는 15년의 유기징역으로 한다"라는 규정은 소년에 대한 처단형이 사형 또는 무기형일 때에 15년의 유기징역으로 한다는 것이지 법정형이 사형 또는 무기형인 경우를 의미하는 것은 아니다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003968316