자본시장법상 '포괄적 사기금지규정'의 명확성 원칙상 문제점
Study on the Problems of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act §178(1)-1 from the viewpoint of Void for Vagueness Doctrine
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act(FISCMA) Article 178(1)-1 prohibits the activities utilizing an unfair artifice, scheme, or devices in connection with trading(including public offering, private placement, and sale in case of securities) and anybody who violates this artice shall be punished criminally. This provision is called as 'general anti-fraud clause'. It is established for preventing any securities frauds in the future. Korean Supreme Court has held that this clause doesn't need to be limited to fraud cases(2011. 10. 27. decided, decision number 2011do8109). In the criminal law area, the provision should have the highest definiteness. In this article, the author suggest some ideas about standards of vagueness doctrine in the criminal law area. Applying these standards, this provision is null and void for vagueness, because it cannot give minimal guidelines to the ordinary person and the lawyers. This provision violates 'the principle of nullum crimen sine lege' and the Korean Constitonal law. So this criminal sanction clause should be removed.
Abstract
Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act(FISCMA) Article 178(1)-1 prohibits the activities utilizing an unfair artifice, scheme, or devices in connection with trading(including public offering, private placement, and sale in case of securities) and anybody who violates this artice shall be punished criminally. This provision is called as 'general anti-fraud clause'. It is established for preventing any securities frauds in the future. Korean Supreme Court has held that this clause doesn't need to be limited to fraud cases(2011. 10. 27. decided, decision number 2011do8109). In the criminal law area, the provision should have the highest definiteness. In this article, the author suggest some ideas about standards of vagueness doctrine in the criminal law area. Applying these standards, this provision is null and void for vagueness, because it cannot give minimal guidelines to the ordinary person and the lawyers. This provision violates 'the principle of nullum crimen sine lege' and the Korean Constitonal law. So this criminal sanction clause should be removed.
참고문헌 (17)
- 서보학, "형법총론" (2008), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2013), 홍문사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2013), 법문사
- 임재연, "미국증권법" (2009), 박영사
- 임재연, "자본시장법" (2012), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2011), 박영사
- 한국증권법학회, "자본시장법 주석서I" (2009), 박영사
- 김민교, "구 증권거래법상의 위계 및 자본시장법의 부정거래행위 규정에 대한 연구, KRX Market 주요자료", ~ (2009)
- 김학석, "금융투자상품의 부정거래행위에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2011
- 성희활, "사기적 부정거래에서 ＂위계＂의 적용문제", 증권법연구, 8(1), pp.51~85 (2007), 한국증권법학회
- 赤坂正浩, "日本の最高裁判所の違憲審査60年", 강원법학, 41, pp.1~47 (2014), 비교법학연구소
- 안수현, "'자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률'에서의 불공정거래행위 규제 - 내용과 한계", 홍익법학, 8(2), pp.261~288 (2007), 법학연구소
- 이상돈, "죄형법정주의의 현대적 의의(2)(심재우 선생의 ‘죄형법정주의의 현대적 의의’에 대한 새로운 조명)", 고시계 (1997)
- 이철송, "ELW거래에서의 전용선제공행위의 可罰性 －資本市場法 제178조 제1항 제1호의 適用을 중심으로－", 증권법연구, 12(3), pp.1~27 (2011), 한국증권법학회
- 전종익, "미국 헌법상 명확성 원칙(void for vagueness) 심사 - 미국연방최고법원 판례를 중심으로 -", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.455~481 (2009), 법학연구소
- 채동헌, "전용선을 통한 ELW거래와 자본시장법상 사기적 부정거래 여부", 상장 (2014)
- 최승재, "자본시장법 제178조 제1항 제1호에 대한 연구", 금융법연구, 6(2), pp.3~46 (2009), 한국금융법학회