공동정범의 구성요건과 본질적 기여에 대한 새로운 검토
Newly reviewing corpus delicti of co-principal and essential contribution
1
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recent Supreme Court ruling is that the elements of decision on crime of co-principal(Mittäterschaft) are subjective requirement of joint aid and abet intention and objective requirement of functional act domination (funktionelle Tatherrschaft). Most of theories also support this ruling. However, though the resolution for joint offense has close relation with the subjective intention of the participant, the resolution itself is the objective form of the subjective intention; therefore, it belongs to objective elements of crime(Tatbestand). Accordingly, this study did a new analysis on the matter by classifying the constituting requirements of co-principal into objective requirement and subjective requirement. At this time, the fulfillment of elements of crime mark, resolution for joint offense, causal contribution of each participant and fulfillment of principal offender qualification by each participant are objective requirement; while the intention and awareness of each participant, which become the basis for the objective requirement mark and co-principal, belong to subjective requirement. The resolution for joint offense is strict elements of crime and the resolution should be on the ‘co-principals act’; while the resolution should have been agreed by talk among the participants, in principle. However, the proof of the resolution can be acknowledged either by explicit intention or an act implying such intention. The subjective illegal mark of each participant should be also sufficiently proved as strict elements of crime in addition to the resolution for joint offense. Essential contribution(wesentlicher Tatbeitrag) of each participant in the offense is elements of crime for the co-principal. This study explored the extent of essential contribution as elements of crime for co-principal by classifying them into principal offense mark and causal contribution. The principal offense sign co-principal consequently becomes act domination or act strength. This study did a new analysis on this act strength by examining the studies on the evaluation and measurement of influence, which are discussed in psychology, social psychology and social anthropo- sophy. Through this analysis, the matters and evaluation elements, which should be considered in the judgment of principal offense mark, were drawn. In order to establish co-principal, a causality(Kausalzusammenhang) should be established. This causality can be seen as ‘result-anti-value’; while the principal offense mark above can be seen as ‘act-anti-value’ in co-principal. Based on this analysis, the limit cases of additional/ alternative co-principals were newly analyzed and the causality issue related to group resolution, which is being discussed in Germany in relation to this matter now, has been reviewed.
Abstract
Recent Supreme Court ruling is that the elements of decision on crime of co-principal(Mittäterschaft) are subjective requirement of joint aid and abet intention and objective requirement of functional act domination (funktionelle Tatherrschaft). Most of theories also support this ruling. However, though the resolution for joint offense has close relation with the subjective intention of the participant, the resolution itself is the objective form of the subjective intention; therefore, it belongs to objective elements of crime(Tatbestand). Accordingly, this study did a new analysis on the matter by classifying the constituting requirements of co-principal into objective requirement and subjective requirement. At this time, the fulfillment of elements of crime mark, resolution for joint offense, causal contribution of each participant and fulfillment of principal offender qualification by each participant are objective requirement; while the intention and awareness of each participant, which become the basis for the objective requirement mark and co-principal, belong to subjective requirement. The resolution for joint offense is strict elements of crime and the resolution should be on the ‘co-principals act’; while the resolution should have been agreed by talk among the participants, in principle. However, the proof of the resolution can be acknowledged either by explicit intention or an act implying such intention. The subjective illegal mark of each participant should be also sufficiently proved as strict elements of crime in addition to the resolution for joint offense. Essential contribution(wesentlicher Tatbeitrag) of each participant in the offense is elements of crime for the co-principal. This study explored the extent of essential contribution as elements of crime for co-principal by classifying them into principal offense mark and causal contribution. The principal offense sign co-principal consequently becomes act domination or act strength. This study did a new analysis on this act strength by examining the studies on the evaluation and measurement of influence, which are discussed in psychology, social psychology and social anthropo- sophy. Through this analysis, the matters and evaluation elements, which should be considered in the judgment of principal offense mark, were drawn. In order to establish co-principal, a causality(Kausalzusammenhang) should be established. This causality can be seen as ‘result-anti-value’; while the principal offense mark above can be seen as ‘act-anti-value’ in co-principal. Based on this analysis, the limit cases of additional/ alternative co-principals were newly analyzed and the causality issue related to group resolution, which is being discussed in Germany in relation to this matter now, has been reviewed.
참고문헌 (61)
- 김일수, "새로쓴 형법총론(제11판)" (2008), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" (2012), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론(제6판)" (2012), 법문사
- 배종대, "형법총론(제11판)" (2013), 홍문사
- 오영근, "형법총론(제2판)" (2011), 박영사
- 이상돈, "형법강의" (2013), 법문사
- 이영란, "형법학: 총론강의(제3판)" (2011), 형설출판사
- 정성근, "형법총론(전정판)" (2012), SKKUP
- 정영일, "형법강의(총론)" (2013), 학림
- 한규석, "사회심리학의 이해(제3판)" (2012), 학지사
- 김봉수, "방조에서의『결과』개념과 인과관계 판단- 공범의 처벌근거를 통한 방조의 결과개념 도출", 형사법연구, 20(2), pp.23~48 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 김봉수, "승계적 공범에 관한 연구 －『승계(承繼)』의 의미와 한계에 대한 이론적 검토－", 법학논총, 31(3), pp.359~385 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김종구, "정범의 형태와 그 구별에 관한 소고", 연세법학연구, 8(1) (2001)
- 김종구, "영미법상 공범체계와 공범종속성 원칙의 변천 - 우리 형법상 공범체계와 관련하여 -", 형사법연구, 21(2), pp.249~272 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 김종원, "공범규정에 대한 형법개정의 일고찰", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.291~320 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 백정민, "공동정범에서의 이탈에 관한 연구", 형사법연구, 24(1), pp.63~100 (2012), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 손지영, "형법 제30조 ｢공동｣의 의미와 공동정범의 본질", 법학논총, 24, pp.47~73 (2010), 법학연구소
- 원형식, "공모공동정범", 일감법학, 16 (2009)
- 임광주, "공동정범의 행위주체와 형법 제33조의 본문", 법학논총, 26(4), pp.201~219 (2009), 법학연구소
- 이성대, "조직내 배후자의 형사책임과 형법 제34조의 재음미", 형사법연구, 24(2), pp.45~72 (2012), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 이원경, "공모공동정범에 관한 연구", 법학논집, 14(1), pp.349~366 (2009), 법학연구소
- 이원경, "기능적 행위지배와 공모공동정범의 정범성", 형사법연구, 22(2), pp.59~86 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 이용식, "부작위 상호간에 있어서 정범과 공범의 구별 및 공동정범의 성립 가능성", 서울대학교 법학, 52(1), pp.147~203 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이정원, "가벌적 방조행위의 한계에 관한 연구 - 소위 중립적 행위에 의한 방조를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (118), pp.214~233 (2010), 한국법학원
- 이창섭, "공모공동정범이론 유감(遺憾)", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.337~364 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이형국, "공모공동정범에 관한 소고", 법학연구, 4 (1986)
- 장영민, "형법총칙상 공범 규정의 개정방향", 법학논집, 14(4), pp.155~208 (2010), 법학연구소
- 전지연, "부작위에 의한 정범과 공범-대법원 1997. 3. 14. 선고 96도1639 판결-", 저스티스, (76) (2003)
- 정승환, "인식 있는 과실과 과실의 공동정범", 비교형사법연구, 11(1), pp.387~408 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
- 정지훈, "공모공동정범이론을 둘러싼 논쟁들의 현주소", 법학연구, 15(2), pp.205~229 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 조기영, "예비단계에서의 관여행위와 공동정범", 형사법연구, 25(4), pp.73~102 (2013), 한국형사법학회
- 천진호, "<형사법연구 20년>을 통해서 본 공범론의 변화와 발전", 형사법연구, 20(4), pp.65~84 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 최호진, "공동의 가공사실과 본질적 기여행위판단", 형사법연구, (21), pp.211~231 (2004), 한국형사법학회
- 최호진, "행위지배 개념에 대한 비판적 분석", 법학연구, 16(9) (2008)
- 최호진, "정범ㆍ공범구별기준에 있어서 주관설에 대한 체계적 분석 －독일 연방대법원 판결을 중심으로－", 법학논총, 33(2), pp.553~580 (2009), 법학연구소
- 최호진, "기능적 행위지배와 공모공동정범", 법학논고, (32), pp.631~655 (2010), 법학연구원
- 한정환, "공동정범, 공모공동정범의 성립요건", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.279~302 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- Adolf Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch Kommertar, 28. Aufl." (2010), C. H. Beck
- 신현정, "두뇌로부터 문화에 이르는 사회인지" (2010), 박학사
- Gropp Walter, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 3. Aufl." (2005), Springer
- Günther Jakobs, "Strafrecht Allgmeiner Teil, 2. Aufl." (1991), Walter de Gruzter
- Hardman David, "판단과 결정의 심리학" (2012), 시그마프레스
- Jescheck Heinrich Hans, "Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 3. Aufl." (1982), Ducker & Humbolt
- Köhler Michael, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" (1997), Springer
- Roxin Claus, "Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, 9. Aufl." (2006), De Gruyter Recht
- Stratenwerth Günter, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 6, Aufl." (2011), Franz Vahlen
- Bottke Kilfried, "Täterschaft und Teilnahme im deutschen Wirtschafts kriminalrecht-de lege late und de lege ferenda", JuS (2002)
- Hanns Ulrich Frhr. v. Spiegel, "Mittelbare Täterschft bei deliktisch handelndem Werkzeug", NJW (1984)
- Jan Schlösser, "Zur Strafbarkeit des Betriebsrates nach § 119 BetrVG - ein FAll straffreier notwendiger Teilnahme?", NStZ (2007)
- Kienapfel Diethelm, "Zur Einheitstäterschaft im Ordungswidrigkeitsrecht", NJW (1983)
- Mahner Martin, "Function and Functionslism: A Synthetic Perspective", Philosophy of Science, 68(1) (2001)
- Marlie Marcus, "Voransetzungen der Mittäterschaft-Zur Fallbearbeitung in der Klausur", JA (2006)
- Marlie Marcus, "Voraussetzungen der Mittäterschaft-Zur Fallbearbeitung in Klausur", JA (2006)
- Murmann Uwe, "Grundwissen Zur mittelbaren Täterschaft"(§25 Ⅰ2. Alt. StGB)", JA (2008)
- Rotsch Thomas, "Neues Zur Organizationsherrschaft", NStZ (2005)
- Rönnau Thomas, "Grundwissen-Strafrecht: Mittäterschaft in Abgrenzung zur Beihilfe", JuS (2007)
- Renigier Rudolf, "Täterschaft und Teilnahme-Unverändert aktuelle Streitpunkte", JuS (2010)
- Seher Gerhard, "Vorsatz und Mittäterschaft-zu einem verschwiegenen Problem der strafrechtlichen Beteilungslehre", JuS (2009)
- Seher Gerhard, "Grundfälle zur Mittäterschaft", JuS (2009)
- Sippel Kurt, "Mittelbare Täterschft bei deliktisch handelndem Werkzeug", NJW (1983)
- Shimanda Soichiro, "Die sogennate Mittäterschaft durch Verabredung - ein effectives- Mittel zur Bekämpfung gefen organisierte Kriminalität", 청주법학, 32(1) (2010)