부작위에 의한 살인죄의 공동정범의 성립요건
Complicity in Homicide by Omission
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On Nov.12. 2015, the Suprem Court of Korea has given out an judgement on the Sewol Ferry incident that convicted the captain of a Homicide by Omission who escaped the ship abandoning more than 300 passengers and crews trapped in the sinking ship. On the contrary it denied the first navigation officer and the second of the charge a complicity in homicide by omission. The Court said that a conviction shall not be made because it was hard to admit that they were in collusion with the captain and omitted their obligations out of willful negligence or dolus eventualis. However they, as the executive members of the ship, had duty to protect the passengers and the other crews on the Sewol Ferry from the danger of death in the ship in distress. They knew that they were in a tense situation and the captain didn’t organize his response appropriately, and they could have rescued most of the people who couldn’t escape from the sinking ship if they tried to fulfill their obligation. It can be said that they took charge in the crisis with the captain, and there was implied communication between them to omit their obligation when they abandoned the passengers and crews escaping the ship with no action to rescue them. This article deals with the practical and theoretical possibility that the executive navigation officers of the Sewol Ferry can be convicted of a complicity in homicide by omission.
Abstract
On Nov.12. 2015, the Suprem Court of Korea has given out an judgement on the Sewol Ferry incident that convicted the captain of a Homicide by Omission who escaped the ship abandoning more than 300 passengers and crews trapped in the sinking ship. On the contrary it denied the first navigation officer and the second of the charge a complicity in homicide by omission. The Court said that a conviction shall not be made because it was hard to admit that they were in collusion with the captain and omitted their obligations out of willful negligence or dolus eventualis. However they, as the executive members of the ship, had duty to protect the passengers and the other crews on the Sewol Ferry from the danger of death in the ship in distress. They knew that they were in a tense situation and the captain didn’t organize his response appropriately, and they could have rescued most of the people who couldn’t escape from the sinking ship if they tried to fulfill their obligation. It can be said that they took charge in the crisis with the captain, and there was implied communication between them to omit their obligation when they abandoned the passengers and crews escaping the ship with no action to rescue them. This article deals with the practical and theoretical possibility that the executive navigation officers of the Sewol Ferry can be convicted of a complicity in homicide by omission.
참고문헌 (12)
- 김성돈, "세칭 보라매병원사건에 대한 1심법원 판결과 2심법원 판결의 비교분석", 법조 (2003)
- 김성룡, "부진정부작위범의 한국적 해석으로서 단일정범개념", 비교형사법연구, 5(1), pp.5~136 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김성룡, "치료중단에 있어서 작위와 부작위의 구별", 형사판례연구, (13) (2005)
- 김성룡, "부작위범 사이의 공동정범", 형사판례연구, 17, pp.25~63 (2009), 한국형사판례연구회
- 김혜경, "진정부작위범의 법리적 구성", 형사판례연구, 23, pp.87~141 (2015), 한국형사판례연구회
- 연합뉴스, "‘세월호 증선’ 비리 연루 항만청 간부 등 무죄 확정", ~ (2016)
- 이용식, "부작위 상호간에 있어서 정범과 공범의 구별 및 공동정범의 성립 가능성", 서울대학교 법학, 52(1), pp.147~203 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이정원, "부진정부작위범에서의 정범과 공범", 비교형사법연구, 2(2) (2000)
- 이정원, "의학적 권고에 반한 퇴원으로 사망한 환자에 대한 형사책임 - 대판 2004.6.24, 2002도995: 소위 보라매병원사건 -", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.361~388 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 전지연, "부작위에 의한 정범과 공범–대법원 1997. 3. 14. 선고 96도1639 판결", 저스티스, (76) (2003)
- 전지연, "부작위범에서 정범과 공범의 구별", 형사판례연구, (13) (2005)
- 허일태, "의학적 충고에 반하는 퇴원조치와 의사의 형사책임", 비교형사법연구, 4(2) (2002)