준강간 불능미수 ― 대법원 2019. 3. 28. 선고 2018도16002 전원합의체 판결 (인정된 죄명: 준강간미수, 변경된 죄명: 준강간) ―
Impossible Attempt of Rape by Intoxication ― Supreme Court of Korea en banc Decision 2018Do16002
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This essay studies the decision of Korean Supreme Court in the year of 2019, the en banc Decision 2018Do16002, which for the first time provides ruling on the issue of impossible attempt of rape by intoxication. According to the article Article 27 of the Korean Criminal Act, even though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted. According to the Article 297 of the Act, a person who has sexual intercourse with another or commits an indecent act on another by taking advantage of the other’s condition of unconsciousness or inability to resist shall be punished in accordance with Article 297(Rape). The ruling of en banc Decision 2018Do16002 is that even if the victim was not in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist, if the defendant made mistakenly recognized the victim was in such state, the defendant committed impossible attempt, which is to be punishable due to its danger of violating the victim’s right to self-determination in sexual matters.
Abstract
This essay studies the decision of Korean Supreme Court in the year of 2019, the en banc Decision 2018Do16002, which for the first time provides ruling on the issue of impossible attempt of rape by intoxication. According to the article Article 27 of the Korean Criminal Act, even though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted. According to the Article 297 of the Act, a person who has sexual intercourse with another or commits an indecent act on another by taking advantage of the other’s condition of unconsciousness or inability to resist shall be punished in accordance with Article 297(Rape). The ruling of en banc Decision 2018Do16002 is that even if the victim was not in a state of unconsciousness or inability to resist, if the defendant made mistakenly recognized the victim was in such state, the defendant committed impossible attempt, which is to be punishable due to its danger of violating the victim’s right to self-determination in sexual matters.
참고문헌 (11)
- 김상오, "준강간 불능미수 판례에 대한 이해와 오해- 대법원 2019. 3. 28. 선고 2018도16002 판결의 논증 분석 -", 홍익법학, 21(1), pp.527~567 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김준혁, "불능미수에 있어서 결과발생불가능성에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, (38), pp.119~145 (2010), 한국법학회
- 김태명, "술에 취해 항거가 곤란한 사람에 대한 준강간죄의 불능미수", 법학연구, 59, pp.37~68 (2019), 부설법학연구소
- 김한균, "비동의 간음죄 입법론의 비판적 검토", 형사법의 신동향, (59), pp.415~443 (2018), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 류화진, "준강간의 불능미수 - 대법원 2019. 3. 28, 2018도16002, 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-", 이화젠더법학, 11(2), pp.31~57 (2019), 젠더법학연구소[DOI]
- 송승현, "준강간죄의 수단 ․ 방법에 있어 심신상실과 음주의 연관성", 강원법학, 55, pp.605~646 (2018), 비교법학연구소[DOI]
- 이은의, "강간과 준강간 사이의 사각지대에 선 피해사건들", 젠더법학, 8(2) (2017), 한국젠더법학회
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2013), 박영사
- 이창섭, "준강간죄의 불능미수에 대한 고찰", 형사정책, 31(4), pp.99~127 (2020), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 하태훈, "준강간죄(형법 제299조)와 성폭법 제8조의 ‘항거불능’의 의미", 고려법학, (49), pp.239~260 (2007), 법학연구원
- Yaffe, Gideon, "Attempts - In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law" (2010), Oxford University Press
