미국 형법상 중립적 행위에 의한 방조의 가벌성
Accomplice Liability through Neutral Behavior in the US Criminal Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently there has been a growing debate in Korea on criminal accomplice liability through neutral behavior. Several well written articles on this theme have already been published. However these articles are based primarily on German references. Thus, the author of this article strives to expand the boundaries of the debate by introducing to a Korean audience the court decisions and theories of American criminal law on the subject. A special mens rea problem in U.S. criminal law involves suppliers of innocent goods or services who act with the knowledge that the goods or services will be used to commit a crime. The main issue is the question of whether knowledge that one's behavior facilitates someone else's criminal conduct is enough to establish criminal liability, or if purpose should be required. Courts differ sharply over whether such knowledge suffices to impose accomplice culpability. In United States v. Peoni, the Second Circuit ruled that nothing less than true purpose suffices for accomplice liability. After the Peoni case, the majority of US courts have followed the approach of the Peoni court. The Model Penal Code also limits accomplice liability to instances in which there exists the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense. During the U.S. debate various compromises have been suggested. Rather than changing their complicity standards, some jurisdictions including New York have responded by enacting criminal facilitation statutes that penalize knowing assistance as a separate crime. The author of this article argues for a test that balances the conflicting interests of the vendors to freely engage in gainful activities without policing their vendees, and the interest of the community in preventing behavior that facilitates the commission of crimes. The author agrees with the opinion that the freedom to engage in legal business enterprises should be protected. Thus, for example, a seller or provider of innocent goods or value-neutral services capable of legal and illegal usage should, arguably, be able to rely on each vendee/user to independently decided on whether to use them for legal or illegal activities or purposes, and such vendors should, therefore, not be punished as accomplices.
Abstract
Recently there has been a growing debate in Korea on criminal accomplice liability through neutral behavior. Several well written articles on this theme have already been published. However these articles are based primarily on German references. Thus, the author of this article strives to expand the boundaries of the debate by introducing to a Korean audience the court decisions and theories of American criminal law on the subject. A special mens rea problem in U.S. criminal law involves suppliers of innocent goods or services who act with the knowledge that the goods or services will be used to commit a crime. The main issue is the question of whether knowledge that one's behavior facilitates someone else's criminal conduct is enough to establish criminal liability, or if purpose should be required. Courts differ sharply over whether such knowledge suffices to impose accomplice culpability. In United States v. Peoni, the Second Circuit ruled that nothing less than true purpose suffices for accomplice liability. After the Peoni case, the majority of US courts have followed the approach of the Peoni court. The Model Penal Code also limits accomplice liability to instances in which there exists the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense. During the U.S. debate various compromises have been suggested. Rather than changing their complicity standards, some jurisdictions including New York have responded by enacting criminal facilitation statutes that penalize knowing assistance as a separate crime. The author of this article argues for a test that balances the conflicting interests of the vendors to freely engage in gainful activities without policing their vendees, and the interest of the community in preventing behavior that facilitates the commission of crimes. The author agrees with the opinion that the freedom to engage in legal business enterprises should be protected. Thus, for example, a seller or provider of innocent goods or value-neutral services capable of legal and illegal usage should, arguably, be able to rely on each vendee/user to independently decided on whether to use them for legal or illegal activities or purposes, and such vendors should, therefore, not be punished as accomplices.
참고문헌 (44)
- 권오걸, "형법총론(제2판)" (2007), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법총론(2판)" (2009), 성균관대출판부
- 김성천, "형법총론(제3판)" (2005), 동현출판사
- 서보학, "형법총론" (2006), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" (2012), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론(제8전정판)" (2007), 홍문사
- 성낙현, "형법총론(제2판)" (2011), 동방문화사
- 손동권, "형법총론(제2개정판)" (2006), 율곡출판사
- 신동운, "형법총론(제3판)" (2008), 법문사
- 안동준, "형법총론강의" (2009), 형설출판사
- 오영근, "형법총론(제2판 보정판)" (2012), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법총론" (2012), 신론사
- 이재상, "형법총론(제7판)" (2011), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법총론(제4판)" (2007), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법총론(개정판 제2보정)" (2009), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론(5판)" (2011), 삼영사
- 정영일, "형법총론(제3판)" (2010), 박영사
- 김종구, "영미법상 공범체계와 공범종속성 원칙의 변천 - 우리 형법상 공범체계와 관련하여 -", 형사법연구, 21(2), pp.249~272 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 신양균, "중립적 행위에 의한 방조", 형사법연구, (26), pp.1~24 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 오경식, "저작권침해와 온라인서비스제공자의 형사책임", 형사정책, 21(2), pp.123~157 (2009), 한국형사정책학회
- 이상문, "중립적 행위에 의한 방조와 객관적 귀속론", 경찰법연구, 9(1), pp.205~226 (2011), 한국경찰법학회
- 이용식, "일상적ㆍ중립적 행위와 방조", 서울대학교 법학, 48(1), pp.302~337 (2007), 법학연구소
- 이정원, "가벌적 방조행위의 한계에 관한 연구 - 소위 중립적 행위에 의한 방조를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (118), pp.214~233 (2010), 한국법학원
- 이훈종, "소리바다 항소심판결에 관한 연구", 비교사법, 12(3), pp.93~119 (2005), 한국비교사법학회
- 원형식, "방조범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속", 형사법연구, 21(3), pp.209~228 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 조균석, "중립적인 파일공유 프로그램의 개발․제공행위와 방조범의 성립 여부, In 한국형사법학의 신전개(지송 이재상교수 정년기념논문집)" (2008), 박영사
- Boyce, "Criminal Law and Procedure(제8판)", pp.1999, Ronald M. Perkins
- George E. Dix, "Criminal Law" (2002), West Group
- Joshua Dressler, "Understanding Criminal Law(fifth edition)" (2009), LexisNexis
- Markus D. Dubber, "American Criminal Law(second edition)", pp.658~ (2009), Foudation Press
- Richard G. Singer, "Criminal Law(fourth edition)" (2007), Aspen Publishers
- Wayne R., "LaFave(fourth edition)" (2003), West
- Joris Tolsma, "Beihilfe durch neutrale Handlungen" (2007), GRIN Verlag
- Jasmin Fischer, "Strafbarkeit der sogenannten neutralen Beihilfe in Unternehmen" (2007), GRIN Verlag
- Audrey Rogers, "Accomplice Liability for Unintentional Crimes:Remaining within the Constraints of Intent", Loy. L.A. L. Rev, 31, pp.1351~ (1998)
- Mark Norferi, "Towards Attenuation: A New Due Process Limit on Pinkerton Conspiracy Liability", Am. J. Crim. L, 33, pp.91~ (2006)
- Markus D. Dubber, "Criminalizing Complicity - A Comparative Analysis", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, pp.980~ (2007)
- Michael S. Moore, "Causing, Aiding, and the Superflucity of Accomplice Liability", U. Pa. L. Rev, 156, pp.395~ (2007)
- Markus D. Dubber, "American Criminal Law(second editiion)" (2009), Foundation Press
- Nathan R. Sobel, "Anticipatory Offense in the New Penal Law: Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt and Facilitation", Brooklyn Law Review, 32, pp.257~ (1966)
- Patrick Doherty, "A New Crime: Criminal Facilitation", Loyola Law Review, 18, pp.103~ (1972)
- Westerfield, "The Mens Rea Requirement of Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law-Knowledge or Intent", Miss.L.J, 51, pp.155~ (1980)
- 小島陽介, "ファイル交換ソlフトWinnyの開発・提供を行った者が 著作権法違反幇助罪に問われた事例", 立命館法学, 320(4) (2008)
- 小野上 真也, "ファイル共有ソフトの提供につき 衆送信権侵害罪の幇助が否定された事例-Winny提供事件控訴審判決-", 早稲田法学, 85(4) (2010)