“횡령”개념에 관한 고찰
A Study on the Concept of “Embezzlement”
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A person who has the custody of another’s property shall be punished as embezzlement, if he embezzles and refuses to return it〔Articles 355 (1), 356, 359 of the Korean Criminal Act〕. The legally protected interest in embezzlement is another’s ownership of property. This ownership means a right on the civil law, because the criminal law does not have his own concept of ownership. As a rule, another’s ownership is not deprived in our legal system, even though the custodian commits an embezzlement. So embezzlement is not to be interpreted as an depriving offense. Embezzlement is an endangering offense, especially an abstract endangering offense. By the way, embezzlement has a meaning of an unlawful acquisition. If this acquisition signifies what causes the transfer of ownership〔legal acquisition〕, the custodian cannot consumate his crime. Embezzlement does not bring about the deprivation of another’s ownership in principle. Therefore, the acquisition that the concept of “embezzlement” involves must be figured out in practical sense〔practical acquisition〕. In this context, embezzlement is to be grasped as an act which realizes an intent to acquire unlawful ownership, and attempts to commit an embezzlement is to be acknowledged when an intent to acquire unlawful ownership is expressed objectively〔theory of realization〕.
Abstract
A person who has the custody of another’s property shall be punished as embezzlement, if he embezzles and refuses to return it〔Articles 355 (1), 356, 359 of the Korean Criminal Act〕. The legally protected interest in embezzlement is another’s ownership of property. This ownership means a right on the civil law, because the criminal law does not have his own concept of ownership. As a rule, another’s ownership is not deprived in our legal system, even though the custodian commits an embezzlement. So embezzlement is not to be interpreted as an depriving offense. Embezzlement is an endangering offense, especially an abstract endangering offense. By the way, embezzlement has a meaning of an unlawful acquisition. If this acquisition signifies what causes the transfer of ownership〔legal acquisition〕, the custodian cannot consumate his crime. Embezzlement does not bring about the deprivation of another’s ownership in principle. Therefore, the acquisition that the concept of “embezzlement” involves must be figured out in practical sense〔practical acquisition〕. In this context, embezzlement is to be grasped as an act which realizes an intent to acquire unlawful ownership, and attempts to commit an embezzlement is to be acknowledged when an intent to acquire unlawful ownership is expressed objectively〔theory of realization〕.
참고문헌 (41)
- 권오걸, "스마트 형법각론" (2011), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "침해범·위험범, 결과범·거동범, 그리고 기수·미수의 구별기준", 형사판례연구, 17, pp.1~24 (2009), 한국형사판례연구회
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2010)
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2012)
- 김일수, "(새로쓴) 형법각론" (2007), 博英社
- 김태명, "횡령죄의 기수시기와 장물죄의 성립여부", 형사법연구, (23), pp.111~136 (2005), 한국형사법학회
- 노태악, "주석 형법〔각칙(6)〕" (2006)
- 박상기, "형법각론" (2011)
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2013)
- 성낙현, "횡령의 객관적 구성요건의 실체", 법조, 54(10), pp.19~46 (2005), 법조협회
- 손동권, "형법각론" (2010)
- 신동운, "부동산에 대한 횡령행위와 횡령죄의 본질 – 1996. 11. 29. 96도1755, 공보 1997, 264 -", 고시연구, pp.135~ (1996)
- 신동운, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계, 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평: 유일당오선주교수정년기념논문집" (2001)
- 김봉수, "횡령죄의 미수범 성립여부", 형사판례연구, 21, pp.225~251 (2013), 한국형사판례연구회
- 신동운, "형법 제`개정 자료집" (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 안원하, "형법상의 위험 개념", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.709~726 (2007), 법학연구소
- 엄상섭, "형법요강해설(2․완)", 법정, 3(10) (1948)
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2009)
- 원혜욱, "횡령죄에 있어서의 위탁관계", 형사판례연구, 14 (2006)
- 유기천, "형법학〔각론강의 상〕" (1995)
- 유기천, "형법학〔각론강의 하〕" (1995)
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2011)
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2013)
- 이정원, "우리 형법과 독일 형법의 횡령죄에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 4(2), pp.11~298 (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이정원, "형법각론" (2012), 신론사
- 이창섭, "배임죄의 본질에 관한 소고(小考)", 비교형사법연구, 14(2), pp.23~48 (2012), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이창섭, "횡령죄의 성격과 실행의 착수 및 기수시기- 대법원 2012. 8. 17. 선고 2011도9113 판결을 대상으로 -", 법학연구, 54(3), pp.81~105 (2013), 법학연구소
- 이헌섭, "주석 형법〔각칙(5)〕" (2006)
- 임웅, "형법각론" (2012)
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2011)
- 정영석, "형법각론" (1984)
- 조현욱, "부동산횡령죄의 미수- 대법원 2012.8.17. 선고 2011도9113 판결 -", 법학논총, 36(2), pp.335~359 (2012), 법학연구소
- Fischer, "Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze" (2011)
- Jähnke, "StGB, Leipziger Kommentar" (1994)
- Joecks, "Strafgesetzbuch" (2001)
- Kindhäuser, "Nomos Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 2" (2005)
- Lackner, "StGB" (2004)
- Maurach, "Strafrecht Besonderer Teil" (2003)
- Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch" (2001)
- Wessels, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" (2000)
- Wessels, "Strafrecht Besondere Teil" (2002)