본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

결과적 가중범의 미수에 관한 소고

Consideration on An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Before describing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, First, The type of An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be explicitly established. That is, This type is only limited as one case; Basic crime merely extended to the stage of An attempted crime but has finally caused heavy effects. Second, Two prerequisites should be clearly set; a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy b) The Punishment of Basic Crime. a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy means that The Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes can be contained in arguing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime but The Result-related Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be excluded from debating An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. b) The Punishment of Basic Crime means that if the basic crime is not unpunishable it should be thought that there is not the basic crime. therefore, the general and typical danger which is immediately linked to heavy effects(mostly injury or death) doesn`t exist in the basic crime. After all, 'Unpunishable Basic Crime' - this term represents that the basic crime not actually exist. I have an evident opinion that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can only be meaningful to the Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes which have the punishable basic crimes. Also, there are usually two theories concerning An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. One is the affirmative view which supports that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built, The other is the negative view which denies that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built. The negative view is the position which both the Supreme court and most scholars advocate. so to speak, The negative view has been regarded as the majority opinion. so far, they have insisted that all the punishment regulations of An attempted crime regarding Consequentially Aggravated Crime only resulted from legislator's mistakes. Considering the substance of Consequentially Aggravated Crime; In special, Principle of Immediacy, I think that the affirmative view is far more rational than the negative view. In current criminal law, Not only the basis of aggravated punishment but also the extent of aggravated punishment should we consider. In examining our regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, In terms of the sentence, we can notice that the regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime are much heavier than those of the Simple Combination Form(a deliberate offense and a criminal negligence) or even the deliberate offense of heavy effects(death or injury). Appropriate reduction of sentences are certainly needed. With the proper revisions, The regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can correspond to the principle of responsibility.

Abstract

Before describing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, First, The type of An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be explicitly established. That is, This type is only limited as one case; Basic crime merely extended to the stage of An attempted crime but has finally caused heavy effects. Second, Two prerequisites should be clearly set; a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy b) The Punishment of Basic Crime. a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy means that The Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes can be contained in arguing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime but The Result-related Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be excluded from debating An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. b) The Punishment of Basic Crime means that if the basic crime is not unpunishable it should be thought that there is not the basic crime. therefore, the general and typical danger which is immediately linked to heavy effects(mostly injury or death) doesn`t exist in the basic crime. After all, 'Unpunishable Basic Crime' - this term represents that the basic crime not actually exist. I have an evident opinion that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can only be meaningful to the Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes which have the punishable basic crimes. Also, there are usually two theories concerning An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. One is the affirmative view which supports that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built, The other is the negative view which denies that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built. The negative view is the position which both the Supreme court and most scholars advocate. so to speak, The negative view has been regarded as the majority opinion. so far, they have insisted that all the punishment regulations of An attempted crime regarding Consequentially Aggravated Crime only resulted from legislator's mistakes. Considering the substance of Consequentially Aggravated Crime; In special, Principle of Immediacy, I think that the affirmative view is far more rational than the negative view. In current criminal law, Not only the basis of aggravated punishment but also the extent of aggravated punishment should we consider. In examining our regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, In terms of the sentence, we can notice that the regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime are much heavier than those of the Simple Combination Form(a deliberate offense and a criminal negligence) or even the deliberate offense of heavy effects(death or injury). Appropriate reduction of sentences are certainly needed. With the proper revisions, The regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can correspond to the principle of responsibility.

참고문헌 (49)

  1. 권오걸, "형법총론" (2009), 형설출판사
  2. 권오걸, "스마트 형법각론" (2011), 형설출판사
  3. 김성돈, "형법총론" (2008), 성균관대학교 출판부
  4. 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
  5. 김성천, "형법각론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
  6. 김일수, "한국형법Ⅰ(총론 상)" (1996), 박영사
  7. 서보학, "형법총론" (2006), 박영사
  8. 김일수, "새로쓴 형법각론" (2009), 박영사
  9. 박상기, "형법총론(제8판)" (2009), 박영사
  10. 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" (2011), 박영사
  11. 배종대, "형법총론" (2008), 홍문사
  12. 배종대, "형법각론" (2007), 홍문사
  13. 백형구, "형법각론" (1999), 청림출판사
  14. 성낙현, "형법총론 제2판" (2011), 동방문화사
  15. 손동권, "형법각론 제3개정판" (2010), 율곡출판사
  16. 김재윤, "새로운 형법총론" (2011), 율곡출판사
  17. 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 법문사
  18. 오영근, "형법총론" (2009), 박영사
  19. 이영란, "형법각론강의" (2010), 형설출판사
  20. 이재상, "형법총론" (1995), 박영사
  21. 이재상, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
  22. 이정원, "형법총론" (2012), 신론사
  23. 이정원, "형법각론" (2012), 신론사
  24. 이형국, "형법총론 연구(Ⅱ)" (1986), 법문사
  25. 이형국, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
  26. 임웅, "형법각론" (2012), 법문사
  27. 임웅, "형법총론" (2012), 법문사
  28. 정성근, "형법총론" (2005), 삼지원
  29. 정성근, "형법각론" (2011), 삼영사
  30. 정영일, "제3판 형법각론" (2011), 박영사
  31. 진계호, "형법각론" (2008), 대왕사
  32. 진계호, "형법총론" (2007), 대왕사
  33. 김선복, "결과적 가중범의 미수", 비교형사법연구, (창간) (1999), 한국비교형사법학회
  34. 김용욱, "부진정 결과적 가중범의 비판적 고찰, 박양빈 교수 회갑기념논문집" (1996)
  35. 김형준, "기본범죄가 미수에 그친 결과적 가중범", 고시연구사, 29(4) (2002)
  36. 김혜정, "결과적 가중범의 미수에 관한 소고", 법학논총, 19(1), pp.393~413 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]
  37. 류전철, "결과적 가중범의 의의와 미수범 성립여부", 법학논총, 7(1) (2001), 조선대학교 법학연구소
  38. 박강우, "결과적 가중범의 인과관계와 미수범처벌", 저스티스, 34(5) (2001), 한국법학원
  39. 박광민, "결과적 가중범의 본질과 직접성의 원칙", 저스티스, (94), pp.128~147 (2006), 한국법학원
  40. 변종필, "결과적 가중범의 정비방안", 형사법연구, (22) (2004), 한국형사법학회
  41. 성낙현, "결과적 가중범의 미수에 관한 한국과 독일형법의 비교", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.153~174 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  42. 손동권, "결과적 가중범에서의 기본범죄유형―「성폭력범죄처벌 및 피해자 보호 등에 관한 법률」에 관한 입법론을 중심으로―", 형사정책, 20(1), pp.111~125 (2008), 한국형사정책학회
  43. 신양균, "결과적 가중범의 미수", 고시연구, 31(3) (2004), 고시연구사
  44. 조상제, "결과적 가중범과 중지미수에 대한 토론문", 형사법연구, (26) (2006), 한국형사법학회
  45. 이용식, "결과적 가중범에 관한 연구 ― 전형적 위험의 실현과 미수의 인정여부에 관한 하나의 문제제기 ―", 서울대학교 법학, 46(1), pp.155~192 (2005), 법학연구소
  46. 임석원, "결과적 가중범의 미수", 형사법연구, (23), pp.87~110 (2005), 한국형사법학회
  47. 천종철, "결과적 가중범의 미수의 문제", 사회과학연구, 16 (2003), 서원대학교 사회과학연구소
  48. 천진호, "결과적 가중범의 중지미수", 형사법연구, (26), pp.47~72 (2006), 한국형사법학회
  49. Hirsch, "Zur Problematik des erfolgsqualifizierte Delikt", GA, pp.75~ (1972)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)