형사제재로서 취업제한의 법적성격과 발전방향 - 독일의 직업금지와의 비교 -

There has been little research done regarding Restriction on Employment which has been introduced into the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Unlike other criminal punishments which consider the risk of recommitment, Restriction on Employment can be imposed without the court’s separate decision, distinguishing it from the German Berufsvebot. The purpose of this research is to identify the problems of current Restriction on Employment derived from the lack of court’s decision, and to propose possible improvements. At the beginning of the research, I was mistaken that Restriction on Employment is a security measure, and further assumed that an explicit provision which requires courts to make a separate decision regarding recommitment should be inserted. However, during the research, I found out that Restriction on Employment provisions is a exception to the suspension of qualification provisions. Restriction on Employment can be imposed only when suspension of qualification is imposed concurrently with other punishments. The Germ an Berufsvebot, which is a security measure, is not used frequently in practice because of the difficulty in judging the risk of recommitment. I also found out that in terms of effectiveness, Restriction on Employment is better than Berufsvebot. I reviewed arguments proposing to change Restriction on Employment from a suspension of qualification to a security measure, and concluded that their grounds are unreasonable. First of all, low usage in practice is not an issue for Restriction on Employment. The second reasoning to the argument is that it violates the principle of liability because it is an aggravated punishment. However, this is not true for all cases since Restriction on Employment can be imposed concurrently with probation or suspension of sentence, and can be effective in substituting imprisonment. Even if we can distinguish punishments from security measures, still they could not be separated completely. The principle of liability and the preventive function coexist in both measures, and suspension of qualification is the one that gives weight to prevention. Thus, it is unnecessary to change the form of punishment of Restriction on Employment. Yet, the necessity of control for Restriction on Employment and its improvement directions are considered in this research, since we cannot ignore the possibility of abuse to impose aggravated punishment. Restriction on Employment can be imposed without any consideration on risk of recommitment. Since prediction of risk is uncertain, it is possible in a normative perspective to impose it to prevent recommitment based on the dangerousness of a certain criminal act. Thus, it is proved that imposing punishment and Restriction on Employment concurrently for specific economic and sexual crime is reasonable. However, the current non-existence of ex post facto review by the court must be improved. Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes regulates that Restriction on Employment shall not apply if the Minister of Justice approves so. This needs to be improved because it is unreasonable if the Minister of Justice can judge independently from the Judiciary Branch without any minimal requirements. Also, the ten years period of Restriction on Employment that does not offer any opportunity of cancellation regulated in the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse needs to be amended.