위임범위를 초과하여 예금을 인출한 경우의 죄책
A Study on the Criminal Liability of the Delegated Person's Excess Withdrawal
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Three Supreme Court's rulings are reviewed in this paper. They are all about the similar cases. Someone asked the other person to withdraw a specific sum of money from his account, but the latter(the delegated person) withdrew an excess and took it. What sort of crime should be assigned to him? The ruling A presents the view of fraud by electronic instrument. It says that defendant took illegal gain through inputting unauthorized data into ATM. Another judgement, the ruling B, sets forth the different view. It declares the breach of trust, saying that defendant violated his duty. The final judgement, the ruling C, also deals with the case alike. However it supports the decision of the lower court to give defendant the embezzlement verdict. To sum up, there are contradicted rulings on the same case! What solution could be made to handle such confusion. It is the task of this paper. The conclusion is the crime of embezzlement, it means that the ruling C is appropriate. This paper presents its grounds and arguments and hopes for readjusting The Supreme Court's ruling forward.
Abstract
Three Supreme Court's rulings are reviewed in this paper. They are all about the similar cases. Someone asked the other person to withdraw a specific sum of money from his account, but the latter(the delegated person) withdrew an excess and took it. What sort of crime should be assigned to him? The ruling A presents the view of fraud by electronic instrument. It says that defendant took illegal gain through inputting unauthorized data into ATM. Another judgement, the ruling B, sets forth the different view. It declares the breach of trust, saying that defendant violated his duty. The final judgement, the ruling C, also deals with the case alike. However it supports the decision of the lower court to give defendant the embezzlement verdict. To sum up, there are contradicted rulings on the same case! What solution could be made to handle such confusion. It is the task of this paper. The conclusion is the crime of embezzlement, it means that the ruling C is appropriate. This paper presents its grounds and arguments and hopes for readjusting The Supreme Court's ruling forward.
참고문헌 (8)
- 김성룡, "위임을 초과한 현금인출행위의 형사법적 죄책", 형사판례연구, 16 (2008)
- 김태명, "재물과 재산상 이익의 개념과 양자의 교착", 형사법연구, 26(2), pp.65~95 (2014), 한국형사법학회
- 오영근, "신용카드 관련 재산범죄에 대한 판례이론의 비판적 검토", 법학논총, 26(3), pp.103~124 (2009), 법학연구소
- 안성조, "위임금액을 초과한 현금인출의 형사책임 - 컴퓨터등사용사기죄의 성립여부(대법원 2006.3.24.선고 2005도3516판결) -", 경찰법연구, 7(1), pp.167~186 (2009), 한국경찰법학회
- 이동신, "예금주인 현금카드 소유자로부터 일정액의 현금을 인출해 오라는부탁과 함께 현금카드를 건네받아 그 위임받은 금액을 초과한 현금을인출한 행위가 컴퓨터 등 사용사기죄를 구성하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (62) (2006)
- 조국, "위임범위를 초과한 타인의 현금카드 사용 현금인출의 형사적 죄책", 형사판례연구, 16 (2008)
- 조현욱, "위임받은 금액을 초과한 현금인출과 컴퓨터등사용사기죄", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.407~426 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 한영수, "절도죄와 강도죄의 경합", 형사판례연구, 16 (2008)