청탁금지법의 허용된 금품수수의 규정체계와 이에 대한 형법해석학적 방향
The system for regulation on the receipt of moneys in the improper solicitation and graft act and the direction of interpretation of the criminal law theory
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It is advisable to understand the regulations on the prohibition of solicitation in the improper solicitation and graft act for reasons that exclude the applicability of the constituent requirements. The content and system of the punishment regulations have placed the prohibited list and the allowance in equal positions, expressing that the law does not punish, and expressing it in a form that does not correspond to the prohibited action. Considering that it can be regarded as belonging to the free domain of the act without substantial substance of prohibition under the criminal law, it is reasonable to consider that it is a reason for exclusion of compositional requirements, not a reason for illegality fragmentation. Extensive interpretation is possible in interpretation. This is because it narrows the scope of punishment of actors. However, the reason for exclusion of constructive requirements can be more actively analyzed in terms of ‘the principle allowed behavior type’, and the reason for the fragmentation of illegality is that the prerequisite constituent requirement is ‘the principle prohibited behavior type’. Relatively expanded analysis is limited.
Abstract
It is advisable to understand the regulations on the prohibition of solicitation in the improper solicitation and graft act for reasons that exclude the applicability of the constituent requirements. The content and system of the punishment regulations have placed the prohibited list and the allowance in equal positions, expressing that the law does not punish, and expressing it in a form that does not correspond to the prohibited action. Considering that it can be regarded as belonging to the free domain of the act without substantial substance of prohibition under the criminal law, it is reasonable to consider that it is a reason for exclusion of compositional requirements, not a reason for illegality fragmentation. Extensive interpretation is possible in interpretation. This is because it narrows the scope of punishment of actors. However, the reason for exclusion of constructive requirements can be more actively analyzed in terms of ‘the principle allowed behavior type’, and the reason for the fragmentation of illegality is that the prerequisite constituent requirement is ‘the principle prohibited behavior type’. Relatively expanded analysis is limited.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김성돈, "한국 형법의 사회상규조항의 기능과 형법학의 과제", 성균관법학, 24(4), pp.247~285 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 김성돈, "대법원 형사판결과 법률구속성원칙", 형사판례연구, 26, pp.1~45 (2018), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 김영환, "한국에서의 법학방법론의 문제점 - 법발견과 법형성: 확장해석과 유추, 축소해석과 목적론적 축소 간의 관계를 중심으로 -", 법철학연구, 18(2), pp.133~166 (2015), 한국법철학회
- 김영환, "법률해석의 목표: 주관적 해석이론과 객관적 해석이론 간의 논쟁에 관해", 법철학연구, 21(1), pp.367~400 (2018), 한국법철학회[DOI]
- 도재형, "쟁의행위에 대한 업무방해죄 적용 법리에 관한 검토", 성균관법학, 20(3), pp.123~141 (2008), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 신동룡, "인터넷상에서의 비영리적 저작권침해에 관한 형사처벌 연구", 연세법학연구, 8(1) (2001)
- 신동일, "소극적 구성요건 표지이론", 인천법학논총, 4 (2001)
- 심재우, "구성요건의 본질", 연세대학교 법학연구, 2 (1982)
- 심헌섭, "법으로부터 자유로운 영역의 이론과 형법, 현대형사법론, 김기두교수화갑기념" (1980), 박영사
- 이용식, "형법해석의 방법", 서울대학교 법학, 46(2), pp.36~69 (2005), 법학연구소
- 이원상, "형법적 관점에서의 청탁금지법에 대한 소고", 법학논총, 29(2), pp.381~416 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 이지은, "청탁금지법의 적용과 사회상규", 부패방지법연구, 1(1) (2018)
- 이천현, "부정청탁 금지행위와 제재에 관한 소고", 한양법학, 26(3), pp.309~333 (2015), 한양법학회
- 정호경, "「부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률」의 구조와 쟁점", 행정법연구, (47), pp.63~90 (2016), 행정법이론실무학회
- 천진호, "사회적 상당성 이론에 대한 재고", 경북대학교 법학논고, 13
- 국민권익위원회, "청탁금지법 해설집", pp.136~ (2018)
- 국민권익위원회, "부정청탁 및 금풍 등 수수의 금지에 관한법률", 시행령 제정을 위한 공개토론회 자료집 (2015)