업무방해죄에 있어서 업무의 보호가치에 대한 검토 - 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011도7081 판결을 중심으로 -
A Study on Protecting Values of Affairs in the Affairs Disturbance Crime
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In relation with ‘affairs’ that become protecting objects of the affairs disturbance crime, there are pro and cons discussions about whether public affairs are included in the affairs in the crime centering on relations with ‘public affairs’ at the resisting arrest crime by chances of the harmonization judge in Supreme Court at 2009, but it is in situation of hardly finding out related discussions on ‘protecting values’ of the affairs actually. So, contrary features of judgment about existence of preventing values on the same affairs in practices become to be contacted frequently from lower and higher courts. Based on such awareness of issues, this study tries to look into attitudes of existing theories and judicial precedents on affairs’ protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime first, and then analyze them. And the study accentuates urgency of standard setting-up on affairs’ protecting values with bases of existing discussions, and investigates relations between public affairs and protecting values in the resisting arrest crime and legal nature of affairs disturbance crime for making a presupposition of discussions. After that, this study will review matters that have not to be corresponded to criminality which is prohibited by laws and objected to criminal penalties as affair requirements of becoming protecting objects from the affairs disturbance crime, have not antisocial nature to the extent of not being accepted at all from social norms, and shall take protecting values by the criminal law in relation with object judgments. Above discussions aim at minimizing illegitimacy that affects influences to judgments by contributing to systematic establishment of jurisprudence on affairs which become protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime.
Abstract
In relation with ‘affairs’ that become protecting objects of the affairs disturbance crime, there are pro and cons discussions about whether public affairs are included in the affairs in the crime centering on relations with ‘public affairs’ at the resisting arrest crime by chances of the harmonization judge in Supreme Court at 2009, but it is in situation of hardly finding out related discussions on ‘protecting values’ of the affairs actually. So, contrary features of judgment about existence of preventing values on the same affairs in practices become to be contacted frequently from lower and higher courts. Based on such awareness of issues, this study tries to look into attitudes of existing theories and judicial precedents on affairs’ protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime first, and then analyze them. And the study accentuates urgency of standard setting-up on affairs’ protecting values with bases of existing discussions, and investigates relations between public affairs and protecting values in the resisting arrest crime and legal nature of affairs disturbance crime for making a presupposition of discussions. After that, this study will review matters that have not to be corresponded to criminality which is prohibited by laws and objected to criminal penalties as affair requirements of becoming protecting objects from the affairs disturbance crime, have not antisocial nature to the extent of not being accepted at all from social norms, and shall take protecting values by the criminal law in relation with object judgments. Above discussions aim at minimizing illegitimacy that affects influences to judgments by contributing to systematic establishment of jurisprudence on affairs which become protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime.
참고문헌 (36)
- 강구진, "업무방해죄에 있어서의 업무", 고시계, (289) (1981), 고시계사
- 김형율, "업무방해죄에 있어서 업무의 개념 - 위력에 의한 공무집행방해시 업무방해죄 성립여부", 경찰학연구, 11(2), pp.243~269 (2011), 경찰대학
- 김희성, "단순한 집단적 노무제공거부행위와 위력에 의한 업무방해죄 - 헌재 2010. 4. 29. 2009헌바168 결정;헌재 1998.7.16, 97 헌바 23 결정을 중심으로 -", 노동법논총, 20, pp.143~167 (2010), 한국비교노동법학회
- 권오걸, "형법총론" (2009), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2006), 동현출판사
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
- 도재형, "파업과 업무방해죄 ― 한국에서 단결 금지 법리의 정립 과정 ―", 노동법학, (34), pp.63~107 (2010), 한국노동법학회
- 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" (2011), 박영사
- 박상기, "파업과 업무방해죄", 형사판례연구, 20, pp.368~417 (2012), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 박성민, "업무방해죄의 해석과 쟁의행위 중 파업과의 관계", 형사정책연구, 23(1), pp.85~115 (2012), 한국형사정책연구원[DOI]
- 박찬걸, "간통죄 폐지의 정당성에 관한 고찰", 경희법학, 45(2), pp.41~69 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박찬걸, "낙태죄의 합리화 정책에 관한 연구", 법학논총, 27(1), pp.199~222 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박찬걸, "성매매죄의 합리화 방안에 관한 연구", 박사, 형사법, pp.2010
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2006), 홍문사
- 백원기, "쟁의행위로서 파업의 업무방해죄 성립여부에 관한 고찰", 형사판례연구, 20, pp.350~385 (2012), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 손동권, "형법각론" (2006), 율곡출판사
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2010), 박영사
- 유기천, "형법학(각론강의 상)" (1978), 일조각
- 유기천, "형법학(각론강의 하)" (1982), 일조각
- 유성재, "집단적 노무제공의 거부와 위력업무방해죄", 法學論文集, 34(3), pp.215~242 (2010), 법학연구원
- 윤종행, "파업과 부작위에 의한 위력업무방해죄 - 대법원 2011.3.17. 선고 2007도482 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 13(2), pp.337~364 (2011), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이근우, "노동쟁의행위에 대한 업무방해죄 성립에서 ‘전격성’의 의미 - 대법원 전원합의체 판결(2007도482)에 대한 비판적 검토", 가천법학, 4(2), pp.201~224 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이근우, "노동쟁의에 대한 업무방해죄 적용의 축소 가능성", 비교형사법연구, 12(2), pp.25~48 (2010), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이영란, "형법학(각론강의)" (2008), 형설출판사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2012), 박영사
- 이형국, "업무방해죄", 고시연구, (258) (1995), 고시연구사
- 임웅, "형법각론" (2011), 법문사
- 임지봉, "업무방해죄의 적용에 관한 헌법적 고찰 ― 헌법재판소 결정의 규범적 이해 ―", 노동법학, (34), pp.109~134 (2010), 한국노동법학회
- 우희숙, "쟁의행위와 위력업무방해죄의 관계 —이론과 판례—", 노동법논총, 20, pp.101~141 (2010), 한국비교노동법학회
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2008), 삼지원
- 정영화, "헌법상 단체행동권과 업무방해죄 법리에 대한 대법원 판례의 비판 (대법원 2011.3.17. 선고 2007도 482 전원합의체 판결)", 세계헌법연구, 17(2), pp.269~297 (2011), 세계헌법학회한국학회
- 정영일, "개정판 형법각론" (2008), 박영사
- 조경배, "형법상 업무방해죄와 쟁의권 ― 헌법재판소 2010.4.29. 선고, 2009헌바168 결정을 중심으로 ―", 민주법학, (44), pp.225~252 (2010), 민주주의법학연구회
- 조국, "쟁의행위에 대한 업무방해죄 적용 비판 -대법원 판결 비판을 중심으로-", 비교형사법연구, 12(1), pp.103~128 (2010), 한국비교형사법학회
- 진계호, "형법각론" (2008), 대왕사