방조범의 인과관계

Abstract

In the past, Supreme Court precedents did not explicitly mention the causal of accomplice. The majority opinion of academia judged that the Supreme Court was in a position of unnecessary theory in relation to the causal of accomplice. Therefore, academia pointed out the problem of the Supreme Court, which easily recognizes aiding abetter if only aiding act is recognized. In other words, it was argued that caution should be exercised in establishing an accomplice by clearly distinguishing the causal between an facilitating behaviour. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that a causal between the accomplice is necessary in response to the academic criticism. Now, the remaining task of the Supreme Court is to create detailed requirements for acknowledging an facilitating behaviour in relation to the establishment of an accomplice. By continuing to provide specific criteria for acknowledging the causal of accomplice aggressors, it is to prevent human rights violations from being recognized too easily.