미국 형법상 위법성조각사유의 전제사실의 착오
Mistake of Justificatory Facts in US Criminal Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The problem of mistake of justificatory facts has been one of the most controversial topics in both Korean criminal law and German criminal law. Putative self-defense, a typical case of mistake of justificatory facts, is used to describe a situation when an individual reasonably believes that he is in danger but in fact is not. A number of very scholastic and sophisticated theories have been suggested about how to deal with this topic in both Korea and Germany. Most US courts adopt the reasonable person standard when they decide whether a claim of putative self-defense is a valid defense. Current case law in the majority of US jurisdictions provides that defendants who act unreasonably in self-defense should not be exculpated. There is an objective and subjective dichotomy in determining whether the defendant's self defense was reasonable. In mistake of justificatory facts the test should balance subjectivity and objectivity. Some US courts reason that the factfinder must hold the accused to the standard of a reasonable person in the defendant's situation. However, other courts argue that defendant's liability should be judged objectively. Unlike Korean and German theories that deal with a mistake of justificatory facts, US courts opinions are based on flat legal thinking because they rely on the simple concept of reasonableness. However, Korean and German theories about a mistake of justificatory facts are based on structured legal thinking and are very scholastic and sophisticated. Korean and German legal theories are more systematic and contribute to proper punishment in a criminal case. However, US courts opinions are relatively simple and easy for a lay person to understand. The author of this article argues that Korean criminal law scholars have to pay attention to US case law for the purpose of harmonizing Korean law with Anglo-American law and establishing a unique criminal law system of Korea.
Abstract
The problem of mistake of justificatory facts has been one of the most controversial topics in both Korean criminal law and German criminal law. Putative self-defense, a typical case of mistake of justificatory facts, is used to describe a situation when an individual reasonably believes that he is in danger but in fact is not. A number of very scholastic and sophisticated theories have been suggested about how to deal with this topic in both Korea and Germany. Most US courts adopt the reasonable person standard when they decide whether a claim of putative self-defense is a valid defense. Current case law in the majority of US jurisdictions provides that defendants who act unreasonably in self-defense should not be exculpated. There is an objective and subjective dichotomy in determining whether the defendant's self defense was reasonable. In mistake of justificatory facts the test should balance subjectivity and objectivity. Some US courts reason that the factfinder must hold the accused to the standard of a reasonable person in the defendant's situation. However, other courts argue that defendant's liability should be judged objectively. Unlike Korean and German theories that deal with a mistake of justificatory facts, US courts opinions are based on flat legal thinking because they rely on the simple concept of reasonableness. However, Korean and German theories about a mistake of justificatory facts are based on structured legal thinking and are very scholastic and sophisticated. Korean and German legal theories are more systematic and contribute to proper punishment in a criminal case. However, US courts opinions are relatively simple and easy for a lay person to understand. The author of this article argues that Korean criminal law scholars have to pay attention to US case law for the purpose of harmonizing Korean law with Anglo-American law and establishing a unique criminal law system of Korea.
참고문헌 (54)
- 권오걸, "형법총론" (2007), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2009), 성균관대출판부
- 김형준, "형법총론(3판)" (2005), 동현출판사
- 서보학, "형법총론" (2006), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" (2012), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2007), 홍문사
- 성낙현, "형법총론 제2판" (2011), 동방문화사
- 손동권, "형법총론" (2006), 율곡출판사
- 신동운, "유병진 법률논집 재판관의 고민" (2008), 법문사
- 신동운, "신 판례백선 형법총론" (2009), 경세원
- 안동준, "형법총론강의" (2009), 형설출판사
- 오영근, "형법총론" (2012), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법총론" (2012), 신론사
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2011), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법총론" (2007), 법문사
- 이형국, "형법총론연구Ⅰ" (1984), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2009), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론" (2011), 삼영사
- 정영일, "제3판 형법총론" (2010), 박영사
- 김태명, "경찰관의 무기사용에 대한 정당방위의 성립여부", 형사판례연구, (15) (2007)
- 이형국, "현대 한국형법에 대한 법사학적 소고 - 특히 1953년의 형법제정 이후의 변화를 중심으로 -, In 동암형법논문선" (2008), 삼우사
- 신양균, "정당화사유의 전제사실에 대한 착오", 법학연구(전북대), 12 (1985)
- 신영호, "경찰관직무집행법상 무기의 사용과 긴급한 정당행위", 비교형사법연구, 7(1)
- 오경식, "출판물에 의한 명예훼손", 형사판례연구, 6 (1998)
- 정성근, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 대한 착오, 형사법학의 과제와 전망 성시탁교수화갑기념논문집" (1993)
- 김종원, "정당화사정의 착오에 관한 일고찰", 고시연구 (1993)
- 성시탁, "위법성의 착오와 형법 제16조, 현대의 형사법학, 박정근박사화갑기념논문)" (1990)
- 李勳東, "正當化事情의 錯誤에 관한 硏究", 박사, 법학, pp.1991
- 허일태, "오상과잉방위와 형법 제21조 제3항", 형사법연구, (26), pp.569~596 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 손미숙, "미국 형법교수가 본 독일 형법과 미국 형법의 특징", 동아법학, (55), pp.401~422 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Boyce, "Criminal Law and Procedure" (1999), Foundation Press
- George E. Dix, "Criminal Law" (2002), West Group
- Joshua Dressler, "Understanding Criminal Law" (2009), LexisNexis
- Markus D. Dubber, "American Criminal Law" (2009), Foudation Press
- Richard G. Singer, "Criminal Law" (2007), Aspen Publishers
- Wayne R, "LaFave" (2003), West
- Elaine Chiu, "Confronting the Agency in Battered Mothers", S. Cal. L. Rev, 74, pp.1223~ (2001)
- Gregory A. Diamond, "To Have Nut Not to Hold: Can "Resistance against Kidnapping" Justify Lethal Self-Defense Against Incapacitated Batterers?", Colum. L. Rev, 103, pp.729~ (2002)
- Stephen J. Schulhofer, "The Feminist Challenge in Criminal Law", U. Pa. L. Rev, 143, pp.2151~ (1995)
- Caroline Forell, "What's Reasonable?: Self-Defense and Mistake in Criminal and Tort Law", Lewis & Clark L. Rev, 14, pp.1401~1409 (2010)
- Cynthia Kwei Yung Lee, "Race and Self-Defense: Towards a Normative Conception of Reasonableness", Minn. L. Rev, 81, pp.367~432 (1996)
- Stephen P. Garvey, "Self-Defense and the Mistaken Racist", New Crim. L. Rev, 11, pp.119~ (2008)
- Stephen L. Carter, "When Victims Happen to be Black", Yale L. J, 97, pp.420~ (1988)
- Aron Goldstein, Note, "Race, Reasonableness, and the Rule of Law", S. Cal. L. Rev, 76, pp.1189~1190 (2003)
- Nadine Klansky, "Bernard Goetz, A Reasonable Man: A Look at New York's Justification Defense", Brook. L. Rev, 53, pp.1149~ (1988)
- Jody D. Armour, "Race Ipsa Loquitur: Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes", Stan. L. Rev, 46, pp.781~ (1994)
- Naomi R. Cahn, "The Looseness of Legal Language: The Reasonable Woman Standard in Theory and in Practice", Cornell L. Rev, 77, pp.1398~ (1992)
- Stephen P. Garvey, "Self-Defense and the Mistaken Racist", New Crim. L. Rev, 11, pp.119~ (2008)
- Racism, Unreasonable Belief, and Bernhard Goetz, "Stephen P. Garvey", Cornell Law School, ~ (2007)
- Mark Kelman, "Reasonable Evidence of Reasonableness", Critical Inquiry, 17, pp.798~ (1991)
- V.F. Nourse, "A Common on Switching, Inequality, and the Idea of the Reasonable Person", Ohio St. J. Crim. L, 2, pp.361~ (2004)
- Richard G. Singer, "The Resurgence of Mens Rea Ⅱ: Honest but Unreasonable Mistake of Fact in Self-Defense", B.C.L.Rev, 28, pp.459~ (1987)
- Marianne Giles, "Self-Defense and Mistake: A Way Forward", Mod. L. Rev, 53, pp.187~ (1990)
- Andrew Simester, "Mistake in Defense", Oxford J. Leg. Stud, 12, pp.295~ (1991)