현행 형법의 벌금형은 총액벌금형제도로서 범죄인의 불법과 책임을 정확하게 액수로 산정할 수 없다는 문제점과 벌금총액의 산정에 범죄인의 빈부차를 고려할 수 없어 가난한 자에게는 대체자유형의 집행으로 단기자유형으로의 전환을 강제하고, 부자에게는 형벌의 목적을 달성할 수 없다는 여러 문제점 등이 제기된다. 총액벌금형제도의 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 다음의 논거에 의해 일수벌금형제도의 도입을 제안한다. 첫째, 불법과 책임이 동일한 행위를 일수로 산정하고 일수정액을 평가할 때 행위자의 경제적 능력 등을 고려함으로써, 법관의 양형과정에서 발생되는 자의적 판단을 배제함으로써 양형상의 격차를 최소화할 수 있다. 둘째, 형사사법제도의 신뢰증진의 측면에서 경제적 능력에 적합한 벌금형을 부과함으로써 실질적으로 동등한 형벌효과와 목적을 달성할 수 있고 대체자유형의 집행가능성을 감소시킴으로써 단기자유형의 폐해로부터 벌금미납자를 보호할 수 있게 된다. 셋째, 벌금형 노역장유치처분을 폐지함에 따라 자유형 또는 사회봉사명령으로 대체할 수 있는 기준을 제시할 수 있게 된다. 법제정당시와 여러 가지 경제 상황의 변화(예: 부동산실명제, 금융실명제 등)에 의해 경제적 정보 수집이 비약적으로 발전됨에 따라 도입의견이 바람직하다는 결론이 제시되었다. 넷째, 단기자유형의 폐해를 최소화하는데 도움이 될 수 있으며, 벌금형 미납시의 환형유치에 대한 기준을 명확하게 제시할 수 있다. 다섯째, 일수벌금형제도는 집중적 보호관찰, 전자감시에 의한 가택구금, 일일보고센터, 약물남용 치료센터 입원 및 통원 등 여타의 중간적 제재들에 비하여 운영비가 비교적 저렴하며, 일수벌금이 단기자유형을 대체하는 만큼 귀하고도 값비싼 자원인 교도소, 구치소, 보호관찰 자원을 공공의 안전에 더 큰 위험을 초래하는 범죄자에 사용할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 여섯째, 일수벌금제도를 실시하면 현실적으로 경제상황에 맞게 벌금형을 선고하므로 더 많은 벌금수입이 발생하며, 벌금형 집행절차와 관련하여 감독에 많은 비용이 절감되게 된다. 또한 일수벌금형제도의 도입을 전제로 총론적 개정입법론을 제시하고자 한다.

The sum total fine penalty system, which is the monetary penalty system of the existing criminal law, faces controversy that a criminal’s illegality and responsibility cannot be computed at an accurate sum. Also because the criminal’s financial status is not considered, when substitute imprisonment is enforced, the poor are forced to choose short term imprisonment while the rich do not receive enough punishment. The imposition of the “day fine system” is desirable to solve the problems of the sum total fine penalty system for the following arguments. First, “day fine system” serves as a reasonable monetary penalty system. When imposing legal liability as a result of illegality, the wrongdoer’s financial status is considered. As a result, a judge’s arbitrary decision is avoided, minimizing the gap of punishments. Second, the criminal justice system develops trust through giving out equal effects of punitive action. Furthermore, the rate of enforcing substitute imprisonment declines, which helps protect fine defaulters from negative effects of short term imprisonment. Third, “day fine system” presents a standard of shifting monetary penalty to either restriction of physical freedom or social service order as a result of abolishing imprisonment in workhouse. At the time of the legislation, changes in economic circumstances (e.g. the real-name property ownership system, the real-name financial transaction system) occurred. This made it easier to collect financial information, which is why “day fine system” would be a desirable imposition. Forth, the negative consequences of short term imprisonment can be avoided. When the degree of crime is high and the judge has a choice of sentencing imprisonment or monetary penalty, the judge has a tendency to sentence imprisonment. However “day fine system” reduces such tendency and expands the range of monetary penalties. This can help reduce negative effects of short term imprisonment and displays a clear standard when sentencing detention in labor house to fine defaulters. Fifth, the expense of “day fine system” is more reasonable compared to medium restrictions such as probation, custody through electronic surveillance, daily reporting centers, inpatient (outpatient) treatments in drug treatment centers etc. As this system substitutes short term imprisonments, criminals who are a larger threat to public safety can be committed to costly centers such as prisons, detention centers, and probation sources. Sixth, “day fine system” allows the judge to consider the economic situation when sentencing a monetary penalty, resulting in a larger sum of revenue. This reduces the expense of supervision. I suggest the amendment of law based on the imposition of the “day fine system”.

The sum total fine penalty system, which is the monetary penalty system of the existing criminal law, faces controversy that a criminal’s illegality and responsibility cannot be computed at an accurate sum. Also because the criminal’s financial status is not considered, when substitute imprisonment is enforced, the poor are forced to choose short term imprisonment while the rich do not receive enough punishment. The imposition of the “day fine system” is desirable to solve the problems of the sum total fine penalty system for the following arguments. First, “day fine system” serves as a reasonable monetary penalty system. When imposing legal liability as a result of illegality, the wrongdoer’s financial status is considered. As a result, a judge’s arbitrary decision is avoided, minimizing the gap of punishments. Second, the criminal justice system develops trust through giving out equal effects of punitive action. Furthermore, the rate of enforcing substitute imprisonment declines, which helps protect fine defaulters from negative effects of short term imprisonment. Third, “day fine system” presents a standard of shifting monetary penalty to either restriction of physical freedom or social service order as a result of abolishing imprisonment in workhouse. At the time of the legislation, changes in economic circumstances (e.g. the real-name property ownership system, the real-name financial transaction system) occurred. This made it easier to collect financial information, which is why “day fine system” would be a desirable imposition. Forth, the negative consequences of short term imprisonment can be avoided. When the degree of crime is high and the judge has a choice of sentencing imprisonment or monetary penalty, the judge has a tendency to sentence imprisonment. However “day fine system” reduces such tendency and expands the range of monetary penalties. This can help reduce negative effects of short term imprisonment and displays a clear standard when sentencing detention in labor house to fine defaulters. Fifth, the expense of “day fine system” is more reasonable compared to medium restrictions such as probation, custody through electronic surveillance, daily reporting centers, inpatient (outpatient) treatments in drug treatment centers etc. As this system substitutes short term imprisonments, criminals who are a larger threat to public safety can be committed to costly centers such as prisons, detention centers, and probation sources. Sixth, “day fine system” allows the judge to consider the economic situation when sentencing a monetary penalty, resulting in a larger sum of revenue. This reduces the expense of supervision. I suggest the amendment of law based on the imposition of the “day fine system”.

day fine system, monetary penalty, short-term imprisonment, penalty system, daily money