「폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률」에 대한 비판적 고찰

The problems of the special law on criminal law are pointed out as penalty imbalance, middle-class, duplicate, and similar regulations. Most of the special criminal law was born in a sensitive and overreacting response to the crime that attracted the national interest. It is difficult to find a deep reflection on the necessity of legislation, and it has been recognized that lawmakers, who are politicians, are urgent legislators to overcome the concerns of citizens' crimes. The special law on criminal prosecution, which has been mass-produced on such unfounded accidents, can not be faithful to the execution of the criminal law. Only a kind of propaganda that instills instantaneous awareness through the special laws and regulations has been highlighted. The preference of such a criminal special law starts from the idea that the criminal act of crime coping is small. In other words, there is a so - called mid - capital thought that heavy punishment is effective against crime. However, an attempt to pursue general prevention by severely punishing criminals is merely an unproven fictitious allegation. It is not rational to respond to the heavy penalties that are in balance with the provisions of the criminal law. The fact that only strong repression and punishment can maximize the effectiveness of crime prevention is against the dignity of the human being, which does not fit into the liberal democratic society where the autonomy and value of the individual are respected. In spite of the criminal policy of the middle class, crime prevention effectiveness is minimal, but in reality, the sentence imposed by the special law is not so high, making the existence of special law questionable. Article 1 (Purpose) of punishment such as acts of violence is an anti-constitutional provision, Article 8 (self-defense etc.) is Article 2 (assault, etc.) is duplication and medium-sized legislation, Article 9 And the Article 10 (Administrative Responsibility of the Judicial Police Administration) are lawsuit regulations, and they appear to be inadequate in the Act on Punishment such as Acts of Violence as the provision of substantive matters. Specifically, the provisions of Article 2 (assault, etc.) to Article 6 (unexamined) punishment are weighted only by statutory forms due to differences in means of violence. Article 7 (Supremacy) is a provision having the nature of a preliminary sin. I do not think it is appropriate that there is a fear that crime will be committed solely by the act of offering or mediating the object. Article 8 (self-defense, etc.) can be fully provided by Article 21 (Self Defense) of the Criminal Act. Article 9 (Judicial Police Officers' Duties) is a provision that can only be converted into a criminal offense or criminal offense under Article 122 (Duties and Ordinances) of the Criminal Code. Article 10 Responsibility) is similar to Article 54 of the Public Prosecutors' Office Act, and it is a provision under the criminal procedure law, if necessary, in the investigation procedure. As a result, it only results in excessive criminalization, and makes it more difficult and complicated to interpret and apply it in criminal law. The Act on Punishment such as Act of Violence is a typical duplicate legislation that can adequately rate as a provision of the criminal law. It is a typical example of the mid-capitals legislation that is contrary to the principle of responsibility, excess prohibition and proportionalism, and it is an unbalanced law that breaks the balance between criminal regulations. It will be necessary to hasten the normal work to abolish the law of abolishment and to simplify and simplify the law by applying the criminal law. When the criminal law is put in place and applied as the basic law on crime and punishment, the certainty of enforcement will increase and the credibility of the law will increase. The crime is reduced when enforcing simple and minimal legal provisions through rational legal use or interpretation of law, rather than difficulties and various special laws.