피해자고소의 기소권 제한에 대한 고찰
Victim's Accusations and Prosecution
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Principly, The state exercised the rights for punishment exclusively. And it appears in the form of Amtragsdelikt. Amtragsdelikt is an offence subject to victim's complaint. Antragsdelikt is a crime that can prosecute a case only if they have a victims' accusation. so state's punishment could be opened by victims' intention only in Antragsdelikt. That is, Antragsdelikt has a meaning - harmony between national punishment right and victims' intention. So the interpretation of laws relating to Antragsdelkt has to follow the meaning and interpret that. Next, here is noticeable that what is specifical contents of victims' intention and how is it making the harmony with punishment's right. The Antragsdelikt is exceptionally recognized as the limits of national punishment's right. So the bigger is necessity of national punishment's right, the smaller is that recognition range. The national punishment's right needs more when the action violates the benefit and protection of the law. For this reason, the Antragsdelikt has to be recognized about small criminal in principle. But it has to be except in the case of benefit of the law relating to life and body. Because that case cannot be punished by personal intention. Therefore, the criminal of Antragsdelikt has to be moral benefit of the law. Next, Antragsdelikt has to be recognized by decriminalization, reconciliation or economics of criminal law. That is, Antragsdelikt has a similar effect that victim can limit national punishment's right and decriminalize small violated action about moral benefit of the law. This effect is clearly in relation to the accesed rights. Checking for the prosecution of the exclusive attention of the exception as a typical case, such as France and Britain signed prosecution. Meanwhile, the accused when the checks clear the rights of the accused, as well as maintenance functions appeal, Court of First Instance's jurisdiction is limited to. In other words, the limit for Antragsdelikt other inspection rights for all victims of the test drop my charges are recognized as subject to prosecution.
Abstract
Principly, The state exercised the rights for punishment exclusively. And it appears in the form of Amtragsdelikt. Amtragsdelikt is an offence subject to victim's complaint. Antragsdelikt is a crime that can prosecute a case only if they have a victims' accusation. so state's punishment could be opened by victims' intention only in Antragsdelikt. That is, Antragsdelikt has a meaning - harmony between national punishment right and victims' intention. So the interpretation of laws relating to Antragsdelkt has to follow the meaning and interpret that. Next, here is noticeable that what is specifical contents of victims' intention and how is it making the harmony with punishment's right. The Antragsdelikt is exceptionally recognized as the limits of national punishment's right. So the bigger is necessity of national punishment's right, the smaller is that recognition range. The national punishment's right needs more when the action violates the benefit and protection of the law. For this reason, the Antragsdelikt has to be recognized about small criminal in principle. But it has to be except in the case of benefit of the law relating to life and body. Because that case cannot be punished by personal intention. Therefore, the criminal of Antragsdelikt has to be moral benefit of the law. Next, Antragsdelikt has to be recognized by decriminalization, reconciliation or economics of criminal law. That is, Antragsdelikt has a similar effect that victim can limit national punishment's right and decriminalize small violated action about moral benefit of the law. This effect is clearly in relation to the accesed rights. Checking for the prosecution of the exclusive attention of the exception as a typical case, such as France and Britain signed prosecution. Meanwhile, the accused when the checks clear the rights of the accused, as well as maintenance functions appeal, Court of First Instance's jurisdiction is limited to. In other words, the limit for Antragsdelikt other inspection rights for all victims of the test drop my charges are recognized as subject to prosecution.
참고문헌 (35)
- 강동범, "친고죄에 있어 고전 수사의 허용여부" (1996), 박영사
- 김경락, "친고죄에 있어 고소 전 수사의 허용여부", 법정논총, 39 (2004), 중앙대학교
- 金成圭, "公訴提起의 條件으로서의 告訴 ― 親告罪에 있어서의 告訴를 중심으로 ―", 성균관법학, 15(1), pp.112~126 (2003), 법학연구소
- 김용근, "경찰수사단계에서 성폭력범죄 피해자 보호방안"
- 김재민, "경찰의 피해자수사 개선방안에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2004
- 김형준, "친고죄의 고소와 그 취소", 법학논문집, 24(2) (2000), 중앙대학교 법학연구소
- 문채규, "항소심에서의 공소장변경과 고소취소의 효력, In 지송 이재상 교수 화갑논문기념집" (2004), 박영사
- 성시탁, "고소가 없는 강간죄의 처벌에 관하여", 법정, 6(2) (1976), 한국사법행정학회
- 심희기, "강간ㆍ강제추행죄의 고소와 시스템 중시 사고, In 지송 이재상 교수 화갑논문기념집" (2004), 박영사
- 심희기, "친고죄나 세무공무원 등의 고발이 있어야 논할 수 있는 죄에 대하여 권리자의 고 소고발전에 수사할 수 있는가" (2000), 홍문사
- 여상원, "강간죄에 대한 고소없이 고소기간이 도과되었음에도 그 수단인 폭행협박을 별도로 폭력행위등 처벌에 관한법률위반죄로 기소한 경우의 조치", 대법원 판례해설 제41호, ~ (2002)
- 윤해성, "과학기술발전에 따른 친고죄와 재판공개원칙의 한계", 성균관법학, 18(3), pp.563~582 (2006), 법학연구소
- 윤희식, "중국의 自訴제도에 관한 연구", 해외연수검사연구논문집, 19(2) (2004), 법무연수원
- 오세빈, "간통에 대한 고소와 유서의 요건 및 효력", 형사재판의 제문제, ~ (1991)
- 오영근, "친고죄로의 공소장변경과 항소심에서의 고소취소의 효력, In 지송 이재상교수화갑논문기념집" (2004), 박영사
- 이승준, "‘밀양 여중생 성폭행 사건’의 국가배상청구를 통해 본 警察搜査에 관한 小考", 법학연구, 18(1), pp.295~314 (2008), 법학연구원
- 이용식, "친고죄에 있어 고소 전 수사의 허용 여부, In 지송 이재상교수 화갑논문기념집" (2004), 박영사
- 이재상, "친고죄의 고소", 경희법학, 20(1) (1985), 경희대학교
- 이존걸, "수사단서로서의 고소", 법학연구, (19), pp.305~325 (2005), 한국법학회
- 이존걸, "성폭력범죄와 그 대책방안", 법학연구, 7 (2001), 한국법학회
- 이호중, "축소사실에 대한 공소장변경없는 유죄인정 : 비친고죄의 공소 사실에 대하여 친고 죄의 유죄를 인정하는 경우" (2000), 박영사
- 이호중, "친고죄와 공소장의 변경", 판례월보, (349) (1999), 판례월보사
- 하태훈, "법원의 공소장변경과 고소취소의 효력", 형사법연구, (26), 한국형사법학회
- 한인섭, "성폭력의 법적 문제와 대책", 인간발달연구 (1996)
- 한인섭, "성폭력에 대한 법적 대응-법률⦁판례의 문제", 공익과 인권, 4(1) (2007), 서울대학교 공익인권법센터
- 한인섭, "성폭력특별법과 피해자보호 : 그 문제와 개선점", 피해자학 연구, (3) (1994)
- 黒澤睦, "告訴権・親告罪の法的性質に関する一試論--親告罪における告訴は 訴訟条件にすぎないのか", 富大経済論集, 51(1) (2005), 富山大学
- 黒澤睦, "告訴権の歴史的発展と現代的意義", 法学研究論集, (18) (2002), 明治大学
- 黒澤睦, "修復的司法としての親告罪？", 法学研究論集, (16) (2002), 明治大学
- 黒澤睦, "親告罪における告訴の意義", 法学研究論集, (15) (2001), 明治大学
- 黒澤睦, "告訴期間制度の批判的検討", 法学研究論集, (17) (2002), 明治大学
- 樋口晴彦, "捜査機関の告訴・告発の不受理について", 警察学論集 (2002), 立花書房
- 平田紳, "告訴人のいない犯罪の非犯罪化論", 福岡大学法学論叢, (31) (1987), 福岡大学総合研究所
- 東条伸一郎, "訴訟条件としての告発と告訴不可分の原則の関係", 警察学論集, 31(4) (1978), 立花書房
- 高橋勝好, "告訴の理論と実際", 警察学論集, 15(4) (1962), 立花書房,