본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

위력업무방해죄의 ‘위력’ 개념에 대한 해석론- 대법원 2011.3.17. 선고 2007도482 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -

The Analysis on the Concept of ‘Forcible’ in the Forcible Obstruction of Business

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Constitutional court decided in 2010 that strike is justifiable in principle, but ‘unjustifiable’ strike beyond internal limits commits under 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code(exceptional illegality). So it is important to analysis the concept of ‘forcible’. In general the Supreme Court judged the concept of ‘forcible’ in the 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code by the ‘pressure by violence’(a) or ‘pressure by social and economical and political status’ and ‘pressure by authority’(b). It judged particularly the strike to violate the Labor[Trade] Union Act by (b) and applied the 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code. But it had no comment why the violations could be interpreted by the ‘forcible’ concept in the Obstruction of Business. The ‘forcible’ concept (b) finally used to be criminalize the strike. But the strike is guaranteed by the 1st Section of Article 33 to Korean Constitution, which contains the labor’s rights to strike. This meant a strike guaranteed by the right of collective action excluded the possibility that there can be criminally liable for that. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not materialize a policy of criminal law that would be criminalize to the strike—unless the strike consists of (a).

Abstract

Constitutional court decided in 2010 that strike is justifiable in principle, but ‘unjustifiable’ strike beyond internal limits commits under 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code(exceptional illegality). So it is important to analysis the concept of ‘forcible’. In general the Supreme Court judged the concept of ‘forcible’ in the 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code by the ‘pressure by violence’(a) or ‘pressure by social and economical and political status’ and ‘pressure by authority’(b). It judged particularly the strike to violate the Labor[Trade] Union Act by (b) and applied the 1st Section of Article 314 of the Criminal Code. But it had no comment why the violations could be interpreted by the ‘forcible’ concept in the Obstruction of Business. The ‘forcible’ concept (b) finally used to be criminalize the strike. But the strike is guaranteed by the 1st Section of Article 33 to Korean Constitution, which contains the labor’s rights to strike. This meant a strike guaranteed by the right of collective action excluded the possibility that there can be criminally liable for that. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not materialize a policy of criminal law that would be criminalize to the strike—unless the strike consists of (a).

참고문헌 (17)

  1. 우희숙, "쟁의행위와 위력업무방해죄의 관계 —이론과 판례—", 노동법논총, 20, pp.101~141 (2010), 한국비교노동법학회
  2. 우희숙, "근로자 형법으로서 쟁의행위형법에 대한 연구", 법학연구, 16(1), pp.199~224 (2006), 법학연구소
  3. 박경신, "위력에 의한 업무방해죄의 위헌성", 공익과 인권, (9), pp.1352~358 (2011), 서울대학교 공익인권법센터
  4. 김태명, "업무방해죄의 법적 성질과 결과발생의 요부", 형사판례연구, 18, pp.111~145 (2010), 한국형사판례연구회
  5. 박성민, "업무방해죄의 해석과 쟁의행위 중 파업과의 관계", 형사정책연구, 23(1), pp.85~115 (2012), 한국형사정책연구원[DOI]
  6. 조경배, "형법상 업무방해죄와 쟁의권 ― 헌법재판소 2010.4.29. 선고, 2009헌바168 결정을 중심으로 ―", 민주법학, (44), pp.225~252 (2010), 민주주의법학연구회
  7. 이호중, "노동쟁의와 형법 - 쟁의행의에 대한 형법의 판단구조", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.649~664 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  8. 도재형, "구조조정에 대항하는 쟁의행위의 정당성", 월간 노동법률, pp.19~ (2003), 중앙경제
  9. 이희성, "사용자의 경영권과 근로자의 노동3권의 충돌에 관한 연구", 산업관계연구, 17(2), pp.95~115 (2007), 한국고용노사관계학회
  10. 鄭鎭京, "爭議行爲의 節次的 正當性과 業務妨害罪 - 組合員 贊反投票를 거치지 아니한 爭議行爲를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, 72, pp.201~244 (2003), 한국법학원
  11. 김선수, "쟁의행위의 절차적 정당성", 노동법연구, 12, pp.7~304 (2002), 서울대학교노동법연구회
  12. 유성재, "집단적 노무제공의 거부와 위력업무방해죄", 法學論文集, 34(3), pp.215~242 (2010), 법학연구원
  13. 김순태, "파업과 위력업무방해죄의 관계", 법학논총, 12, pp.367~368 (2000), 국민대학교
  14. 박홍규, "업무방해죄 판례의 비상식성", 영남법학, 5(1ㆍ2), pp.326~ (1999), 영남대학교 법학연구소
  15. 조국, "쟁의행위에 대한 업무방해죄 적용 비판 -대법원 판결 비판을 중심으로-", 비교형사법연구, 12(1), pp.103~128 (2010), 한국비교형사법학회
  16. 도재형, "쟁의행위와 업무방해죄 성립", 노동법학, (38), pp.196~ (2011), 한국노동법학회
  17. 박홍규, "업무방해죄 판례 의 비상식성", 박홍규, 5(1ㆍ2), pp.297~ (1999), 영남대학교 법학연구소

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (29건)