가상자산의 착오이체와 배임죄
Mistransfer of virtual assets and the crime of breach of trust
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Supreme Court is dealing with the guilt of the accused who misappropriated bitcoins. This includes the legal evaluation of the virtual asset called Bitcoin, the difference between the crime of embezzlement and the crime of breach of trust, the specific content of the requirement of a ‘manager of other people’s affairs’ as the subject of breach of trust, and the practical meaning of the trust relationship as a criterion for judging betrayal. The Supreme Court holds that even if the accused arbitrarily uses or disposes of the bitcoin transferred to the defendant's electronic wallet, regardless of the legal cause, unlike the case of embezzlement in the case of error remittance, it cannot be punished for breach of trust based on the principle of good faith. . The Supreme Court is of the view that virtual assets or their trading systems should be viewed differently from legal tender on the premise that they are still uncertain and unstable. Transactions using legal and institutional systems, such as virtual asset transactions, seem to take the form of personal property transactions, but they are not simply about trust between individuals, but are based on trust in the social transaction system of transaction participants. In a society where transactions are systematic, the trust relationship is not a form of consignment relationship in which business transactions are exchanged directly between individuals, but rather a relationship based on the principle of trust between transaction participants based on trust in the system. The crime of breach of trust is not intended to protect thesocial transaction system or the public's awareness of it, but rather to protect the trust of the parties to the transaction, that is, the victim's trust in the transaction system. The judgment on the transfer of virtual assets by mistake is an expression of the fact that the relationship of trust in the system or system cannot be recognized to the extent that the criminal law protects it. At that juncture, there is a unique criminal offense called protection of the trust of transaction participants based on the trading system and monetary system. It can be understood from this perspective that public and social system perspectives, which are different from civil illegalities, can drive trust relationships based on the principle of good faith, and that the crimes of breach of trust in the real estate double sales case and the embezzlement are recognized in the wrong remittance case. In this regard, the Supreme Court can be evaluated as additionally charging the independent requirements for judging trustworthiness based on the principle of trust in breach of trust in terms of criminal illegality.
Abstract
The Supreme Court is dealing with the guilt of the accused who misappropriated bitcoins. This includes the legal evaluation of the virtual asset called Bitcoin, the difference between the crime of embezzlement and the crime of breach of trust, the specific content of the requirement of a ‘manager of other people’s affairs’ as the subject of breach of trust, and the practical meaning of the trust relationship as a criterion for judging betrayal. The Supreme Court holds that even if the accused arbitrarily uses or disposes of the bitcoin transferred to the defendant's electronic wallet, regardless of the legal cause, unlike the case of embezzlement in the case of error remittance, it cannot be punished for breach of trust based on the principle of good faith. . The Supreme Court is of the view that virtual assets or their trading systems should be viewed differently from legal tender on the premise that they are still uncertain and unstable. Transactions using legal and institutional systems, such as virtual asset transactions, seem to take the form of personal property transactions, but they are not simply about trust between individuals, but are based on trust in the social transaction system of transaction participants. In a society where transactions are systematic, the trust relationship is not a form of consignment relationship in which business transactions are exchanged directly between individuals, but rather a relationship based on the principle of trust between transaction participants based on trust in the system. The crime of breach of trust is not intended to protect thesocial transaction system or the public's awareness of it, but rather to protect the trust of the parties to the transaction, that is, the victim's trust in the transaction system. The judgment on the transfer of virtual assets by mistake is an expression of the fact that the relationship of trust in the system or system cannot be recognized to the extent that the criminal law protects it. At that juncture, there is a unique criminal offense called protection of the trust of transaction participants based on the trading system and monetary system. It can be understood from this perspective that public and social system perspectives, which are different from civil illegalities, can drive trust relationships based on the principle of good faith, and that the crimes of breach of trust in the real estate double sales case and the embezzlement are recognized in the wrong remittance case. In this regard, the Supreme Court can be evaluated as additionally charging the independent requirements for judging trustworthiness based on the principle of trust in breach of trust in terms of criminal illegality.
참고문헌 (47)
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2018)
- 신동운, "형법각론" (2018)
- 이용식, "형법각론" (2019)
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2021)
- 연성진, "가상화폐 관련 범죄 및 형사정책연구", KIC, ~ (2017)
- 2021 한국 부자 보고서, "황원경", KB금융지주 경영연구소, ~ (2021)
- Alexander Bräunig, "Untreue in der Wirtschaft: Eine funktionale Interpretation des Untreuestrafrechts" (2011), Duncker & Humblot
- "Virtuelle Währungen/Virtual Currency (VC)" (2020)[URL]
- "Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) for SME Financing" (2019)[URL]
- 강수진, "동산양도담보권 설정자의 담보물 관리의무와 배임죄에서의 타인의 사무 - 대법원 2020. 2. 20. 선고 2019도9756 판결에 관한 비판적 검토 -", 고려법학, (100), pp.225~266 (2021), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 강수진, "배임죄의‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 관한 최근 대법원 해석론에 대한 비판적 검토", 형사법의 신동향, (56), pp.134~172 (2017), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 강수진, "부동산 대물변제예약의 채무자와 배임죄에서의 타인의 사무처리자 - 대법원 2014. 8. 21. 선고 2014도3363 판결", 고려법학, (76), pp.227~271 (2015), 법학연구원
- 강수진, "부동산 이중매매를 배임죄로 처벌하는 것은 타당한가? - 배임죄 불성립론에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -", 형사법의 신동향, (49), pp.343~378 (2015), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 김종구, "부동산이중매매의 형사책임에 관한 최근 대법원 판례의 고찰", 일감부동산법학, (18), pp.67~104 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김태명, "재물 및 재산상 이익의 개념과 횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계", 형사법연구, 31(4), pp.295~326 (2019), 한국형사법학회
- 김혜정, "4차 산업혁명시대에 블록체인기술에 기반을 둔 암호화폐의 형사정책적 함의에 대한 연구 - 암호화폐 관련범죄에 대한 규제방안을 중심으로 -", 형사정책, 31(4), pp.183~209 (2020), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 김혜정, "부동산 이중매매에서 배임죄의 성립여부에 대한 판단- 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결 -", 법조, 67(6), pp.809~850 (2018), 법조협회[DOI]
- 나황영, "가상화폐의 진정성 확인 방법", 법과학의 신동향, (4), pp.34~81 (2021)
- 류부곤, "횡령죄와 배임죄에 대한 최근 대법원 판결의 검토 - 민사상 계약관계에 위배되는 처분행위를 중심으로", 형사법연구, 34(1), pp.29~61 (2022), 한국형사법학회
- 류전철, "배임죄에서 ‘타인의 사무’의 해석과 민사법리의 관계", 형사판례연구, 24, pp.431~456 (2016), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 문채규, "배임죄의 주체에 관한 판례이론의 분석과 검토", 법학연구, 57(4), pp.107~140 (2016), 법학연구소
- 박찬걸, "부동산 이중매매가 과연 형사처벌의 대상인가?", 형사정책, 30(1), pp.7~40 (2018), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 선종수, "가상화폐의 몰수․추징에 관한 형사법적 검토 - 대법원 2018.5.30. 선고 2018도3619 판결 -", IT와 법연구, (18), pp.225~251 (2019), IT와 법연구소[DOI]
- 손동권, "배임죄 성립에 있어 동산과 부동산 사이의 차이문제", 형사법연구, 25(4), pp.303~324 (2013), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 송진경, "착오로 송금된 금전을 임의로 소비한 경우와 재산범죄", 형사법연구, 23(1), pp.385~406 (2011), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 안경옥, "배임죄의 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’의 의미 :동산·부동산의 이중매매·이중양도 등을 중심으로 - 대법원 2015. 3. 26. 선고 2015도1301 판결 -", 법조, 65(9), pp.574~607 (2016), 법조협회[DOI]
- 안경옥, "사실상의 신임관계에 기초한 배임죄 처벌의 한계", 형사판례연구, 9, pp.279~298 (2001)
- 윤광균, "지급결제시스템과 착오·사기이체 자금의 귀속", 법조, 68(2), pp.90~117 (2019), 법조협회[DOI]
- 윤동호, "담보물유지의무와 배임죄", 형사법연구, 31(3), pp.153~171 (2019), 한국형사법학회
- 윤태석, "배임죄가 성립하는 부동산이중매매에 있어서 이익과 손해에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결에 대한 비판적 견해 -", 법조, 69(3), pp.331~349 (2020), 법조협회[DOI]
- 이근우, "착오송금 받은 돈의 임의소비와 횡령죄 - 대법원 2010. 12. 9. 선고 2010도891 판결 -", 형사법연구, 26(1), pp.265~290 (2014), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 이승준, "원인관계 없이 착오로 송금된 금전의 임의인출과 횡령죄의 성부", 법학논고, (53), pp.133~153 (2016), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 이용식, "대물변제예약 부동산의 이중매매와 배임죄의 형사불법적 구조", 형사판례연구, 23, pp.223~259 (2015), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 이정훈, "블록체인과 가상화폐의 형사법적 문제와 전망-대법원 2018. 5. 30. 선고 2018도3619 판결을 중심으로-", 홍익법학, 20(1), pp.57~88 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 장성원, "경영판단행위에 대한 배임죄의 적용 - 중소기업사례를 중심으로 -", 법과정책연구, 13(3), pp.871~905 (2013), 한국법정책학회[DOI]
- 장성원, "차입매수(LBO)에서 배임죄 객관적 구성요건의 적용 －이른바 신한사건과 한일합섬사건에서의 대법원 판단을 중심으로－", 한양법학, (34), pp.341~371 (2011), 한양법학회
- 정다희, "부동산의 이중매매에 관한 형사책임", 성균관법학, 29(4), pp.463~484 (2017), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 정다희, "부동산의 임의처분과 형사처분에 관한 연구", 성균관법학, 29(1), pp.453~475 (2017), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 조기영, "재산범죄와 ‘보호할 가치 있는 신뢰관계’", 형사법연구, 26(1), pp.91~123 (2014), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 조지은, "증여 목적물에 대한 근저당권설정 행위와 배임죄 - 대법원 2018. 12. 13. 선고 2016도19308 판결 -", 법조, 69(2), pp.598~626 (2020), 법조협회[DOI]
- 최호진, "비트코인에 대한 몰수 가능성", 비교형사법연구, 20(3), pp.57~82 (2018), 한국비교형사법학회[DOI]
- 하태인, "배임죄의 본질과 타인의 사무 - 대법원 2017. 2. 3. 선고 2016도3674 판결 -", 법조, 67(1), pp.765~801 (2018), 법조협회[DOI]
- 하태인, "형법에서 동산양도담보의 법리", 비교형사법연구, 19(1), pp.139~168 (2017), 한국비교형사법학회[DOI]
- 한성훈, "가상화폐 관련 형사법적 문제에 관한 소고", 법학연구, 27(2), pp.125~147 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- "국내 가상자산 실태는 … ‘1억원 이상’ 보유 10만명 육박" (2022), 연합뉴스[URL]
- "몸값 커진 가상자산 시대...비트코인 ‘투기’→‘투자’로 진화 중" (2022), 이코노미스트[URL]