본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국에서 정당방위 수단으로서 치명적 위력의 행사와 수정헌법 제2조 권리에 대한 연구—한국의 정당방위법과의 비교법적 분석—

Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense under the Context of the United States Second Amendment Rights—Comparative Perspectives on the Korean Self-Defense Law—

공영호
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2022.10|법학논총 (The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University)|제35권 제2호|pp. 265-306|DOI 10.17251/legal.2022.35.2.265

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

정당방위국민참여재판후퇴의무Jury TrialSelf-DefenseDuty to RetreatCastle DoctrineForcible FelonyThe Second-Amendment캐슬 독트린위력적 중죄행위미국수정헌법 제2조

초록

The self-defense law in the United States requires a defendant to prove that it was necessary for him to use force in response in order to protect himself from attack. The defendant may use whatever degree of force is necessary—including deadly force (i.e., force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury)—to defend himself if he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm—reasonable belief of threat. In addition, the use of force used by the defendant must be proportional to the attack in kind and degree, not exceeding the force used against him. Under the duty to retreat, the defendant is not permitted to use deadly force if he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating and can retreat with complete safety to himself. As an exception to the duty to retreat, there is the castle doctrine that there is no duty to retreat from his home if he is attacked while being inside his own home or if it is necessary to prevent forcible felony inside the home. In addition, currently the majority of the states—28 states—have enacted laws eschewing the duty to retreat requirement in public places, called the “stand-your-ground” laws. If a defendant has a right to be where he is, there is no duty to retreat under this law. As a handgun is one of the most often-used means for self-defense in the U.S., there are two key issues as to the extent of individual rights for handgun use in self-defense under the Second Amendment. First, the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller held that individuals have a right to possess handguns in the home for self-defense. The availability of castle doctrine would make it easier for defendants to justify the use of handguns after the Heller decision. Recently, the Supreme Court in N.Y.S.R.P.A. v. Bruen held that individuals’ rights to carry guns in public for self-defense purpose should not be restricted by state governments by striking down New York law that had a strict requirement in issuing a license to carry guns in public. Because of Bruen, people residing in one of the stand-your-ground states would be able to carry and use handguns for the purpose of self-defense without a duty to retreat. The main difference on self-defense laws between the U.S. and Korea is that Korea does not have any laws equivalent to the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground law which grant individuals with a lot of privilege and power for self-defense. Also, the requirement of “reasonable or sufficient cause” for the defendant to exercise self-defense in Korea is more narrowly construed than the requirement of “reasonable belief of threat” in the U.S. Despite the fact that the rates of violent crimes in Korea have gone up, thereby necessitating the need for self-defense, the Korean Supreme Court has failed to adequately provide clear standards in determining the legitimacy of “reasonable or sufficient cause” and also failed to evaluate the factual situations of each case in detail while placing more emphasis on the proportionality principle which consequently led to the outcome that only a limited number of self-defense claims have been accepted.

Abstract

The self-defense law in the United States requires a defendant to prove that it was necessary for him to use force in response in order to protect himself from attack. The defendant may use whatever degree of force is necessary—including deadly force (i.e., force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury)—to defend himself if he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm—reasonable belief of threat. In addition, the use of force used by the defendant must be proportional to the attack in kind and degree, not exceeding the force used against him. Under the duty to retreat, the defendant is not permitted to use deadly force if he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating and can retreat with complete safety to himself. As an exception to the duty to retreat, there is the castle doctrine that there is no duty to retreat from his home if he is attacked while being inside his own home or if it is necessary to prevent forcible felony inside the home. In addition, currently the majority of the states—28 states—have enacted laws eschewing the duty to retreat requirement in public places, called the “stand-your-ground” laws. If a defendant has a right to be where he is, there is no duty to retreat under this law. As a handgun is one of the most often-used means for self-defense in the U.S., there are two key issues as to the extent of individual rights for handgun use in self-defense under the Second Amendment. First, the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller held that individuals have a right to possess handguns in the home for self-defense. The availability of castle doctrine would make it easier for defendants to justify the use of handguns after the Heller decision. Recently, the Supreme Court in N.Y.S.R.P.A. v. Bruen held that individuals’ rights to carry guns in public for self-defense purpose should not be restricted by state governments by striking down New York law that had a strict requirement in issuing a license to carry guns in public. Because of Bruen, people residing in one of the stand-your-ground states would be able to carry and use handguns for the purpose of self-defense without a duty to retreat. The main difference on self-defense laws between the U.S. and Korea is that Korea does not have any laws equivalent to the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground law which grant individuals with a lot of privilege and power for self-defense. Also, the requirement of “reasonable or sufficient cause” for the defendant to exercise self-defense in Korea is more narrowly construed than the requirement of “reasonable belief of threat” in the U.S. Despite the fact that the rates of violent crimes in Korea have gone up, thereby necessitating the need for self-defense, the Korean Supreme Court has failed to adequately provide clear standards in determining the legitimacy of “reasonable or sufficient cause” and also failed to evaluate the factual situations of each case in detail while placing more emphasis on the proportionality principle which consequently led to the outcome that only a limited number of self-defense claims have been accepted.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. 공영호, "미국 수정헌법 제2조와 총기 소지 분쟁에 대한 연구 - D.C. v. Heller와 New York State Pistol & Rifle Assoc. v. Bruen 대법원판례를 중심으로 -", 홍익법학, 23(3), pp.105~138 (2022), 법학연구소[DOI]
  2. 김성태, "경찰관의 총기사용 요건(대법원 1999.3.23. 선고 98다63445 판결),행정판례평선(개정판) 한국행정판례 연구회", pp.1119~ (1999), 박영사
  3. 김정환, "정당방위의 기본사상으로서 법질서수호원리?", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.1~30 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  4. 김병수, "싸움에 있어서 정당방위의 확대", 형사법연구, 24(4), pp.47~75 (2012), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
  5. 김태명, "정당방위의 본질에 대한 고찰", 카톨릭법학, (창간), pp.131~132 (2002)
  6. 박상진, "영미형법에 있어 정당방위의 구조", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.169~188 (2009), 법학연구원[DOI]
  7. 조규홍, "정당방위의 상당성의 의미 및 구체적 판단기준", 법조, 60(6), pp.78~118 (2011), 법조협회[DOI]
  8. 하민경, "정당방위에 대한 우리나라와미국의 법문화와 해석정책: 여성의 정당방위권을 중심으로", 이화젠더법학, 12(2), pp.291~324 (2020), 젠더법학연구소[DOI]
  9. 하민경, "국민참여재판사건을 통해 본 정당방위 판단기준 분석", 법학논총, 33(1), pp.259~291 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
  10. "강도가 “미안하다” 빌었다... 흉기로 7차례 찌른 미 가게주인 논란" (2022)[URL]
  11. "‘무죄비율’ 얼마나 될까?" (2022)[URL]
  12. "대법원 1991.9.10. 선고 91다19913 판결", ~
  13. "대법원 1974.2.26. 선고 73도2380 판결", ~
  14. "대법원 종합법률정보 서비스" (2012)[URL]
  15. "민법 제761조(정당방위, 긴급피난)", ~
  16. "서울고등법원 1970.5.19. 선고 70노20 판결", ~
  17. "서울남부지방법원 2019.9.23. 선고 2019고합127 판결; 서울고등법원 2020.4.29.선고 2019노2213판결", ~
  18. "서울서부지방법원 2019.10.21. 선고 2019고합168 판결", ~
  19. "딸 위협 남 죽도로 때린 아버지 무죄...국민참여재판” “정당방위" (2019)[URL]
  20. "춘천지방법원 원주지원 2014.8.13. 선고 2014고단444 판결, 서울고등법원 2016.1.29. 선고 2015노11 판결, 대법원 2016.5.12. 선고 2016도2794 판결", ~
  21. "춘천지방법원 2009.11.4. 선고, 2009고합 62 판결", ~
  23. "폭력행위처벌법 제8조제1항", ~
  24. "형법 제21조(정당방위)", ~
  25. "2020 범죄백서" (2021), 법무연수원
  26. Bernard J. Brown, "The Demise of Chance Medley and the Recognition of Provocation as a Defense to Murder in English Law", Am. J. Legal Hist, 7, pp.312~ (1963)
  27. Brian Enright, "The Constitutional"Terra Incognita"of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws", U. Ill. L. Rev, 2015, pp.909~ (2015)
  28. "The Assassination Shocks a Nearly Gun-Free Japan" (2022)[URL]
  29. Darrell A. H. Miller, "Guns as Smut, Defending the Home-Bound Second Amendment", Colum. L. Rev, 109, pp.1278~1304 (2009)
  30. Eric Ruben, "An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment", Cal. L. Rev, 108, pp.63~85 (2020)
  31. Rebekah Skiba, "Returning to the Roots of the Castle Doctrine: Why Recent Stand Your Ground Laws Are in Line with the Natural Law", Southern Journal of Policy and Justice, 10, pp.71~79 (2016)
  32. Tamara Rice Lave, "Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws", U. Miami L. Rev, 67, pp.827~ (2013)
  33. "Ala. Code 13A-3-23", ~ (2019)
  34. "D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.02(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4) (2001)", ~
  35. "Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 776.012, 776.013 (2019)", ~
  36. "La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:20 (2019)", ~
  37. "Model Penal Code § 3.04(1)", ~
  38. "New York Penal Law 35.15 (2019)", ~
  39. "New York Penal Law Ann. S 400.00(2)(f)", ~
  40. "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409 (1975)", ~
  41. "N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:3-4 (West 1999)", ~
  42. "Ohio Stat. § 2901.09", ~
  43. "Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 63, 65, 66, 76", ~
  44. "Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.48 (2019)", ~
  45. "It’s All About the Guns" (2021)[URL]
  46. Lenore E. Walker, "The Battered Woman", pp.47~ (1979)
  47. "Jury Finds Rittenhouse not Guilty in Kenosha shootings" (2021)[URL]
  48. "Paul Robinson Crim. L. Def. § 132 (2018)", ~
  49. Sanford H. Kadish, "Criminal Law and Its Processes", pp.870~871 (2018)
  50. "Self-defense and Stand Your Ground, National Conference of State Legislatures", ~ (2018)
  51. "Stand Your Ground"[URL]
  52. "Kyle Rittenhouse, Travis McMichael and the Problem of ‘Self-Defense" (2021)[URL]
  53. Wayne R. Lafave, "Substantive Criminal Law § 10.4, 205 at n. 51", ~ (2017)
  54. "Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48 docs.legis.wisconsin.gov", ~
  55. "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)", ~
  56. "Baker v. State, 506 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 1987)", ~
  57. "Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184, 191 (Alaska Ct.App. 1995)", ~
  58. "In re Klenosky, 75 App.Div.2d 793, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256", ~
  59. "Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 94 (2d Cir. 2012)", ~
  60. "McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 775 (2010);", ~
  61. "Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012)", ~
  62. "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022) 2022WL2251305", ~
  63. "State v. Abbott, 174 A.2d 881 (N.J. 1961)", ~
  64. "Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 658 (D.C. Cir. 2017)", ~

관련 논문AI추천

가정폭력피해자의 정당방위에 관한 미국과의 비교법적 검토 - 후퇴의무(Duty to Retreat)를 중심으로 -김슬기젠더법학연구소 · 이화젠더법학2017 · 제9권 제3호정당방위에 대한 우리나라와미국의 법문화와 해석정책: 여성의 정당방위권을 중심으로하민경젠더법학연구소 · 이화젠더법학2020 · 제12권 제2호미국 연방헌법 수정조항 제2조 -무기소지권에 대한 논쟁과 자기방어의 기본권-손영호한국아메리카학회 · 미국학 논집2013 · 제45권 제2호살인이 정당방위가 될 수 있는가 - 수사기관이 인정한 정당방위 사례에 대한 실증적 분석을 중심으로 -김준호사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2025 · 제74권 제2호주거방위법리 및 그 수용 가능성의 검토권영법대검찰청 · 형사법의 신동향2014 · 제43호비대면상황에서의 피학대자의 학대자 살해행위와 정당방위의 성립가능성 - 미국의 매 맞는 여성 기준의 도입가능성 및 그에 대한 대안의 검토 -김호기한국경찰법학회 · 경찰법연구2011 · 제9권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)

제헌헌법이 정한 근로자 이익균점법 제정의 좌절 또는 침묵황승흠pp. 9-46주거권과 주거복지에 관한 헌법적 연구서지연, 김상겸pp. 47-79주민자치와 마을기금신용인pp. 81-118대중예술인에 대한 병역특례문제와 병역법개정김성배pp. 119-150혼인외 자녀의 출생등록제도의 문제점과 개선방안조은희pp. 151-188
원문 보기