본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

배임수재죄에 있어서 ‘사무의 내용’에 관한 고찰 - ‘재산상 사무’로 제한해야 하는가? -

A Review on the content of “another's business” in the crime of “Receiving Bribe by Breach of Trust”

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

In the Korean Criminal Act Article 355 ②, it is provided that a person who, administering another’s business, obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to do so from another in violation of ones duty,thereby causing loss to such person, shall be punished by penal servitude for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million Won. On the one hand, in Article 357 ①, it is specified that a person who, administering another’s business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Two crimes have one thing in common with reference to principal agent of each crime. But the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② is one thing, the “another’s business” in Article 357① is quite another. The reason is as follows. (1) while the former is property crimes, the latter is a kind of bribery crimes, (2) The crime of Article 355② is required a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions such as the protecting benefit, act, result. Thus, the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② must be a business appertaining to the property. But, as regards an interpretation of the “another’s business” in Article 357 ①, there is no necessity for restricting that content to a business appertaining to the property, because it doesn’t exist a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions in Article 357 ①.

Abstract

In the Korean Criminal Act Article 355 ②, it is provided that a person who, administering another’s business, obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to do so from another in violation of ones duty,thereby causing loss to such person, shall be punished by penal servitude for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million Won. On the one hand, in Article 357 ①, it is specified that a person who, administering another’s business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Two crimes have one thing in common with reference to principal agent of each crime. But the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② is one thing, the “another’s business” in Article 357① is quite another. The reason is as follows. (1) while the former is property crimes, the latter is a kind of bribery crimes, (2) The crime of Article 355② is required a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions such as the protecting benefit, act, result. Thus, the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② must be a business appertaining to the property. But, as regards an interpretation of the “another’s business” in Article 357 ①, there is no necessity for restricting that content to a business appertaining to the property, because it doesn’t exist a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions in Article 357 ①.

참고문헌 (14)

  1. 이재상, "형법총론" (2012), 박영사
  2. 이재상, "형법각론" (2011), 박영사
  3. 문형섭, "재산범죄론의 이해" (2006), 전남대학교출판부
  4. 강동욱, "배임죄의 본질과 주체에 관한 고찰 - 상법상의 특별배임죄와 관련하여 -", 법과정책연구, 10(1), pp.229~247 (2010), 한국법정책학회
  5. 문형섭, "횡령죄와 배임죄-명확한 구별을 위한 제언-", 법조, 52(5) (2003)
  6. 文亨涉, "背任罪의 本質과 主體의 範圍", 법조, 51(1), pp.5~41 (2002), 법조협회
  7. 신용석, "배임수증재죄의 부정한 청탁-유형화의 시도", 형사판례연구, (12) (2004)
  8. 안경옥, "배임죄에 있어서 손해발생의 위험-대법원 1999. 6. 22. 선고 99도 1095판결 등-", 비교형사법연구, (2) (2000)
  9. 이승호, "배임수증재죄의 본질과 ‘부정한 청탁’의 판단기준", 법조, 56(11) (2007)
  10. 이재상, "배임죄의 주체", 사법행정, 26(1)통권 : 289 (1985)
  11. 임정호, "배임죄의 본질에 관한 연구 - 배임죄의 성립범위와의 관련성을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 18(2), pp.173~207 (2008), 법학연구원
  12. 우영기, "증뢰죄와 배임증재죄의 재검토: 부정부패의 효율적 방지를 위한 제언", 법제, 49(4) (2000)
  13. 천종철, "배임죄에 있어서 임무위배행위", 연세법학연구, 3(1) (1995)
  14. 허일태, "배임죄에서의 행위주체와 손해의 개념", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.137~158 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (18건)