양형기준 시행성과와 향후 과제

The main purposes of the 1st sentencing guideline are : (1) achieving a balance between fairness and reasonableness of sentencing; (2) adjusting experimental and normative accesses in deciding scope of sentencing; (3) providing creative probation standards. Based on an analysis during 8 months after the implement of the 1st sentencing guideline, there was no radical changes on sentencing practices, however, there was enhancement of consistency of sentencing in Korean justice system.The lowest confirmity rate was 82.2% (Bribery) and the highest confirmity rate was 94.9% (Embezzlement/Misappropriation).The average confirmity rate was 89.7% and it was higher than what it was anticipated.The confirmity rate was higher in sentencing for the female accuseds than for the male ones. For the homicide cases (Type 2), there were not many changes in average sentencing period, while the disparity in sentencing period was decreased.For the robbery (robbery resulting bodily injured with/without intent) cases, the average sentencing period was increased and at the same time, the degree of disparity was lower than before.Furthermore, disparity of sentencing periods among embezzlement/misappropriation offenses (Type 3) were narrowed during the period.The sentencing period was decreased for the perjury and the false accusation.However, the sentencing period was increased for sexual offenders. It showed stark differences in sentencing between before and after of announcing the advisory sentencing standards. Also, it could be interpreted that leveling down effect of decreasing sentencing period for sexual offenders was improved after announcing the advisory sentencing standards. In order to make this sentencing guidelines work successfully, it is necessary tightening a sentencing hearing system.For this, the investigation about sentencing factors conducted by investigation officer of court will contribute a development of the sentencing hearing system.Criminal judges are having positive view toward the sentencing guideline.In addition to that, many prosecutors have referred to sentencing standards for their opinion of sentencing during closing statement. However, there was not visible changes in criminal judicial practices. Even though this sentencing standards are advisory, the fact that the announcement of this standards make many people, includes judges, attorney generals, accusers, victims, even general citizens have a norm in sentencing and by doing so it is expected to bring gradual changes in a good way.While the sentencing standards provide certainty and fairness, it may prevent to permit sufficient judicial flexibility to take into account relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the sentencing standards as take consider into this points.