배상명령제도의 문제점 및 개선방안

The system of restitution orders was introduced for the purpose of swift justice for victims. With it, victims of crime can receive damage indemnification through a criminal trial within a certain scope, even without a civil procedure. Nonetheless, it is not well used. This is because, in both theory and procedure, the ordering of damage indemnification in a criminal procedure is different from in a civil procedure. Improvement is necessary for both the subjects and scope of indemnification orders. This paper insisted that the subjects of indemnification orders be expanded and centered on criminal groups. Actual benefits do not exist to raise civil procedures because of the small indemnification amount for damages in raising a civil procedure. This is in order to give practical assistance to victims within the limits of a criminal procedure, while maintaining the purpose of the introduction and operation of the original institution. Also, the scope of subjects needs to be expanded based on necessary costs with clear amount calculations, as well as on partial citations and indemnification orders, which should be activated by authority as prescribed by the established law of trials in order to supplement low citation rates. This study also stated that in order to guarantee certain indemnification, the accused’s faithful property report should be induced and reflected in the sentencing. Furthermore, this study asserted that according to Japan’s system operation, in the case of property crimes, the introduction of an institution taking from property criminals to pay benefits to victims should be considered.