위계업무방해죄 적용상의 문제점 및 제언 — 관련 판례들의 비교검토를 중심으로 —
The Controversy over the 'Offense of Obstructing Operation by trickery' and its Solutions
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to article 314 of the Korean Criminal Code, a person who obstructs others' operation by such means as circulating false information, trickery, or coercion is punished by imprisonment of less than 5 years or by a fine less than 15,000,000 won. This can be divided into 'obstructing operations by trickery' and 'obstructing operations by coercion', and this research is focused on the controversy over the former and its solutions. Several Supreme Court decisions of Korea, related to the obstructing operations by trickery, seem to be not consistent with one another, with his attempt to prohibit the excessive application overpunishment. It is apparent that the requirements of the offense, such as the term 'operations,' are too broad in its definition. Moreover, the Court defines such offense as 'offense provoking general danger,' which consequently enlarges the spectrum of activities governed by the article 314. The Court’s interpretation of article 314 accompanied by the people’s growing consciousness of constitutional rights will subsequently result in including activities that were formerly excluded from the requirements of article 314 as the subject governed by the article. This will only result in more oppression on people’s right of action. In order to overcome the problems innate in the article itself, the requirements of the offense must be clarified and made stricter. The ways to do so are as follows. First, the offense of obstructing operations must be understood as an offense provoking specific danger rather than general danger. The conducts that obstruct the operations of others, therefore, should be punished only if specific risk of danger was caused by such conduct. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases of obstructing 'financial' operations.
Abstract
According to article 314 of the Korean Criminal Code, a person who obstructs others' operation by such means as circulating false information, trickery, or coercion is punished by imprisonment of less than 5 years or by a fine less than 15,000,000 won. This can be divided into 'obstructing operations by trickery' and 'obstructing operations by coercion', and this research is focused on the controversy over the former and its solutions. Several Supreme Court decisions of Korea, related to the obstructing operations by trickery, seem to be not consistent with one another, with his attempt to prohibit the excessive application overpunishment. It is apparent that the requirements of the offense, such as the term 'operations,' are too broad in its definition. Moreover, the Court defines such offense as 'offense provoking general danger,' which consequently enlarges the spectrum of activities governed by the article 314. The Court’s interpretation of article 314 accompanied by the people’s growing consciousness of constitutional rights will subsequently result in including activities that were formerly excluded from the requirements of article 314 as the subject governed by the article. This will only result in more oppression on people’s right of action. In order to overcome the problems innate in the article itself, the requirements of the offense must be clarified and made stricter. The ways to do so are as follows. First, the offense of obstructing operations must be understood as an offense provoking specific danger rather than general danger. The conducts that obstruct the operations of others, therefore, should be punished only if specific risk of danger was caused by such conduct. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases of obstructing 'financial' operations.
참고문헌 (33)
- 노동사건에 대한 형벌적용 실태조사(판결을 중심으로), "김기덕", 국가인권위원회, ~ (2007)
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), 성균관대학교출판부
- 김순태, "파업에 대한 업무방해죄적용불가론 및 업무방해죄의 위헌성-업무방해죄의 연혁 및 적용사례에 대한 검토를 중심으로-", 민주법학, (12) (1997)
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2004), 박영사
- 김중권, "행정소송에서 대학의 당사자능력에 관한 소고", 법률신문, ~ (2012)
- 김태명, "업무방해죄의 법적 성질과 결과발생의 요부, In 형사판례연구(18)" (2010), 박영사
- 류지태, "행정법신론" (2009), 박영사
- 박길성, "지방공기업법에 의해 설립된 공사의 신규직원 채용 업무의 주체, 그 사장이 시험업무 담당자들의 양해 하에 부정한 행위를 한 경우 위계에 의한 업무방해죄의 성립 여부, In 「대법원판례해설」, 2008, 74호" (2008)
- 박동률, "판례를 통해 본 위계공무집행방해죄 -법적 성격과 위계의 범위를 중심으로-", 법학논고, (29), pp.175~198 (2008), 법학연구원
- 박상기, "소위「위장취업」과 업무방해죄", 법률신문, 제2268호, 15~ (1993)
- 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)" (2008), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2011), 홍문사
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2010), 홍문사
- 손동권, "노동쟁의행위의 가벌성에 관한 연구", 일감법학, 3 (1998), 건국대학교 법학연구소
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2010), 박영사
- 오영근, "형법총론" (2012), 박영사
- 유기천, "전정신판 형법학(각론강의)" (2012), 법문사
- 유기천, "형법학-각론강의 상-,(박상기, “소위 「위장취업」과 업무방해죄", 법률신문, 제2268호, 15~ (1993)
- 윤종행, "업무방해죄의 입법론적 검토", 형사법연구, (22) (2004)
- 이상덕, "영조물의 개념과 이론" (2010), 경인문화사
- 쟁의행위의 정당성과 형법적용에 대한 연구, "이승욱", 노동부, ~ (2008)
- 이윤승, "대학교 총장이 입학사정위원들에게 허위로 작성된 사정부에 따라 입학사정을 하게 한 행위가 위계에 의한 업무방해죄를 구성하는지 여부, In 「대법원판례해설」, 1993, 제19-2호" (1993)
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2010), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법각론" (2003), 법지사
- 이형국, "형법각론" (2007), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법각론" (2003), 법문사
- 노동쟁의행위와 업무방해죄의 관계, "장영민", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1996)
- 정영석, "형법각론" (1985), 법문사
- 주승희, "현행 형법상 ‘위력’에 의한 업무방해죄의 문제점 및 개선방안", 안암법학, (34), pp.175~205 (2011), 안암법학회
- Lehle, Thomas, "Der Erfolgsbegriff und die deutsche Strafrechtzuständigkeit im Internet" (1999), Konstanz
- Martin, Jörg, "Strafbarkeit grenzüberschreitender Umweltbeeinträchtigungen" (1989)
- Schönke, Adolf, "Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar" (2001), München
- Volz, Manfred, "Unrecht und Schuld abstrakter Gefährdungsdelikte" (1968), Göttingungen
