불법원인급여와 사기죄 -한국과 일본의 논의를 중심으로-
Performance for Illegal Cause and Fraud -With a Focus on Discussion between Korea and Japan-
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The property provided for the illegal purpose is not protected by civil code. However, in case that the property is provided for the illegal purpose due to the fraud, it is a problem whether it is fraud or not. For example, if one receives a payment by cheating victims, saying he/she will sell drugs, carry on prostitution, or conduct counterfeiting and murder by contract,then the cases are applicable. In other words, it is the most important issue in performance for illegal cause and fraud whether property that is not protected under civil code should be protected criminally or even if property is protected civilly, then it should be protected criminally or not. This study decides validity of previous discussions on performance for illegal cause and fraud by examining Korean discussions about this issue, Korean fraud clauses, and Japan’s discussions. Korean and Japanese theories and precedents are basically similar. However, specifically Japan’s discussions are mostly positive about performance for illegal cause and fraud but don’t limit the scope of punishment nor interpret denying the unity of legal order itself.On the other hand, Korea’s positive perspective seems to give up the unity of legal order too easily. The property as a subject to be protected by the criminal law should be decided according to the legal and financial property concepts. The financial property concept should be autonomously decided by property protection of criminal law. There is a claim that the unity of legal order has no absoluteness, but according to this opinion, contradiction between standards of behavior may occur and people may don’t know what to do. Criminal law should be implemented and applied comprehensively in light of the spirit of entire legal order to the contradiction. Therefore, if property is provided due to illegal causes, the property cannot be protected under the law and therefore it is reasonable that a case of fraud is not established.
Abstract
The property provided for the illegal purpose is not protected by civil code. However, in case that the property is provided for the illegal purpose due to the fraud, it is a problem whether it is fraud or not. For example, if one receives a payment by cheating victims, saying he/she will sell drugs, carry on prostitution, or conduct counterfeiting and murder by contract,then the cases are applicable. In other words, it is the most important issue in performance for illegal cause and fraud whether property that is not protected under civil code should be protected criminally or even if property is protected civilly, then it should be protected criminally or not. This study decides validity of previous discussions on performance for illegal cause and fraud by examining Korean discussions about this issue, Korean fraud clauses, and Japan’s discussions. Korean and Japanese theories and precedents are basically similar. However, specifically Japan’s discussions are mostly positive about performance for illegal cause and fraud but don’t limit the scope of punishment nor interpret denying the unity of legal order itself.On the other hand, Korea’s positive perspective seems to give up the unity of legal order too easily. The property as a subject to be protected by the criminal law should be decided according to the legal and financial property concepts. The financial property concept should be autonomously decided by property protection of criminal law. There is a claim that the unity of legal order has no absoluteness, but according to this opinion, contradiction between standards of behavior may occur and people may don’t know what to do. Criminal law should be implemented and applied comprehensively in light of the spirit of entire legal order to the contradiction. Therefore, if property is provided due to illegal causes, the property cannot be protected under the law and therefore it is reasonable that a case of fraud is not established.
참고문헌 (46)
- 권오걸, "스마트 형법각론" (2011), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2008), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김일수, "새로쓴 형법각론(제5판)" (2003), 박영사
- 문형섭, "재산범론의 이해" (2006), 전남대학교 출판부
- 박상기, "형법강의" (2010), 법문사
- 배종대, "형법각론(제7전정판)" (2010), 홍문사
- 오영근, "형법각론(제2판)" (2010), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법각론(제6판)" (2009), 박영사
- 임웅, "형법각론(개정판)" (2005), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법각론(제3판)" (2008), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법개론(제3판)" (2009), 박영사
- 김상호, "사기죄에 있어서 재산상 손해", 동아법학, (17) (1994)
- 남상근, "불법원인급여에 관한 형법적 연구", 박사, pp.2008
- 손찬호, "사기죄에 관한 연구 : 객관적 구성요건을 중심으로", 박사, 형사법, pp.2004
- 안경옥, "불법원인급여와 사기죄의 성립 - 대법원 2001도 2291 판결과 관련하여-", 형사법연구, (17), pp.113~130 (2002), 한국형사법학회
- 이정원, "사기죄에 있어서 재산상 손해의 개념에 관한 연구", 비교형사법연구, (2) (2000)
- 임정호, "형법상 재산 개념에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 20(1), pp.499~518 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 한정환, "사기죄에서의 기망과 재산상 이익 취득", 형사법연구, 12 (1999)
- 황만성, "형법상 사기죄 관련규정의 제․개정방안", 형사정책연구, 20(1), pp.471~497 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 大塚仁, "(第3版増補版)" (2005)
- 大谷實, "刑法講義各論(新版第3版)" (2009)
- 川端博, "刑法各論講義", ~ (2007)
- 斎藤信宰, "刑法講義(各論)", ~ (2007)
- 佐久間修, "刑法各論", ~ (2006)
- 曽根威彦, "刑法の重要問題(各論)", ~ (1995)
- 曽根威彦, "刑法各論(第3版補正版)" (2003)
- 滝川幸辰, "刑法各論", ~ (1951)
- 西田典之, "刑法各論(第4版)" (2008)
- 前田雅英, "刑法各論講義(第4版)" (2007)
- 松宮孝明, "刑事立法と犯罪体系", ~ (2003)
- 松宮孝明, "刑法各論講義(第2版)" (2008)
- 山中敬一, "刑法各論(第2版)" (2009)
- 林幹人, "刑法各論(第2版)" (2007)
- 内田文昭, "不法な取引をめぐる詐欺罪の成否", 神奈川法学, 35(3) (2002)
- 川口浩一, "不法原因給付と詐欺罪", 姫路ローㆍジャーナル, (1ㆍ2 병합) (2005)
- 塩見淳, "契約自由と財産犯", 刑法雑誌, 44(2) (2005)
- 島田総一郎, "いわゆる刑法上の所有権について-財産犯における刑事法と民事法の相関の断面-", 現代刑事法, 6(6) (2004)
- 鈴木享子, "財産犯の保護法益, In 刑法基本講座(第5巻)" (1993)
- 豊田兼彦, "不法原因給付と詐欺ㆍ横領, In 刑法の争点" (2007)
- 中川祐夫, "不法原因給付と詐欺罪ㆍ横領罪, In 現代刑法講座第4巻(刑法各論の諸問題)" (1982)
- 西原春夫, "刑法における財産の保護, In 現代刑法講座第4巻(刑法各論の諸問題)" (1982)
- 平澤修, "不法原因給付と詐欺ㆍ横領罪, In 刑法基本講座第5巻" (1993)
- 福田平, "注釈刑法(6)各則(4)" (1966)
- 福田平, "詐欺罪の問題点, In 刑法講座第6巻" (1967)
- 裵美蘭, "詐欺罪における財産上の損害", 法政硏究, 78(4) (2012)
- 宮内裕, "不法原因給付と詐欺罪ㆍ横領罪, In 刑法講座第6巻" (1967)
