소년법상 보호처분의 변경과 이중처벌금지

Juvenile Act Article 37 (Change of Dispositions) has existed since the enactment of the Juvenile Act. This system has the advantage of contributing to the healthy growth of juveniles by adding to the resilience of treatment. However, it is also true that it has a fatal problem that can never be freed from the double jeopardy and the principle of proportionality. To avoid disputes over its unconstitutionality, the number and scope of disposal changes need to be limited, and legislative improvements are required to recognize the full effect of non-disposal decisions. Furthermore, as evidenced by the argument, the modified disposal in violation of probation is not a sanction against probation or violation of additional disposal, but a change based on the determination of existing protective disposal. In other words, it is clearly different from the protecive disposition according to new notification or reference. Therefore, when the disposition is changed in violation of probation or additional disposition, even if the act constitutes a crime, the prosecution of the case does not violate Article 53 of the Juvenile Act. The ruling in this case, which points out this point, is valid. However, in the long run, introducing a new quasi-juvenile age and seeking to unify the juvenile justice process would help eliminate the possibility of problems arising from this ruling.