위임금액을 초과한 현금인출의 형사책임 - 컴퓨터등사용사기죄의 성립여부(대법원 2006.3.24.선고 2005도3516판결) -
Computerfraud or Theft?
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the decision of Korean Supreme Court, in the case that a man who was authorized to withdraw money from a cash dispenser in fact overdrew money, he would be convicted not of a theft but of a computerfraud. The reason is that firstly the overdrawn money is not property but profit of fortune, and secondly the Korean Penal Code Art.347-2(computerfraud) prohibits only infringement of the profit of fortune whereas the Code Art.329(theft) prohibits only infringement of the property. There are many who raise a question why overdrawn money is not property but profit of fortune. This is crucial issue in order to understand the decision in question. Although several legal scholars argues that the money overdrawn from a cash dispenser is property as well as the money withdrawn from a cash dispenser by a thief, however there is a very important difference between them. When a thief withdraw money with a card, he would possess it all immediately. But when a man who was authorized to withdraw money from a cash dispenser overdrew money, he would possess the overdrawn rates of the money not immediately but after giving back the rest of the money. Therefore, the overdrawn rates of money should be treated as just potential profit, not real property. From these view, we can conjecture that the Court regarded the overdrawn rates of the money not as property but as profit of fortune. The decision is right in that the man was convicted not of a theft but of a computerfraud within our criminal law system
Abstract
According to the decision of Korean Supreme Court, in the case that a man who was authorized to withdraw money from a cash dispenser in fact overdrew money, he would be convicted not of a theft but of a computerfraud. The reason is that firstly the overdrawn money is not property but profit of fortune, and secondly the Korean Penal Code Art.347-2(computerfraud) prohibits only infringement of the profit of fortune whereas the Code Art.329(theft) prohibits only infringement of the property. There are many who raise a question why overdrawn money is not property but profit of fortune. This is crucial issue in order to understand the decision in question. Although several legal scholars argues that the money overdrawn from a cash dispenser is property as well as the money withdrawn from a cash dispenser by a thief, however there is a very important difference between them. When a thief withdraw money with a card, he would possess it all immediately. But when a man who was authorized to withdraw money from a cash dispenser overdrew money, he would possess the overdrawn rates of the money not immediately but after giving back the rest of the money. Therefore, the overdrawn rates of money should be treated as just potential profit, not real property. From these view, we can conjecture that the Court regarded the overdrawn rates of the money not as property but as profit of fortune. The decision is right in that the man was convicted not of a theft but of a computerfraud within our criminal law system
참고문헌 (14)
- 강동범, "타인신용카드 부정사용의 형사책임에 관한 판례의 검토", 형사재판의 제문제, 3 (2000)
- 구모영, "신용카드 부정사용행위에 대한 형사책임", 형사재판의 연구, I (2003)
- 김성돈, "형법총론", ~ (2006)
- 김일수, "새로쓴 형법각론", ~ (2004)
- 문형섭, "재산범죄론의 이해" (2006), 전남대학교 출판부
- 배종대, "형법각론", ~ (2006)
- 오영근, "형법각론", ~ (2006)
- 이동신, "예금주인 현금카드 소유자로부터 일정액의 현금을 인출해 오라는 부탁과 함 께 현금카드를 건네받아 그 위임받은 금액을 초과한 현금을 인출한 행위가 컴퓨터등사용사기죄를 구성하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 62 (2006)
- 이재상, "형법각론", ~ (2006)
- 임웅, "형법각론", ~ (2005)
- 장동혁, "위임 권한을 넘은 타인 신용카드 사용의 죄책", 대청법학, (2) (2009)
- 조국, "위임범위를 초과한 타인의 현금카드 사용 현금인출의 형사적 죄책", 법률신문, (3550) (2007)
- Eisele, "Strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit beim Missbrauch kartengestüzter Zahlungssysteme" (2002), Jura
- Shönke, "Strafgesetzbuch", Aufl., 27 (2006)