본질적 기여를 고려한 공모공동정범
Study on Coprincipals by Conspiracy and Crucial Contribution
2
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Every time the debate about revision of joint principal offender emerges, the legislaton of coprincipals by conspiracy come into question. In the Penal Code we have the Article 30 of Coprincipals who means the person that One of two or more participants in a criminal offense who either perpetrate the crime or aid a person who does so. The theory of coprincipals by conspiracy means that person who conspires but does not engage in acts realistically is coprincipals. The interpretation of the theory is one of the crucial issue. Historically, our Penal Code has been affected from the Revised Penal Code Proposal of Japan in 1931. We have the special expression in the article 30 as that of Japan. Consequently, the establishment of Coprincipals by Conspiracy who only conspire is absurd. In this study I examined the theory and precedent, so I found the unnecessity of the coprincipals by conspiracy. First of all, the according to the Theory of Functional Behavior Control, though there is not practice behavior, if there is essential contribution, it is recognized that the coprincipals is established. Second, from that day of the precedent in 2007, "criminal act to crucial contribution" is essential and necessary to the whole plan of criminal act. Third, the legislation of coprincipals by conspiracy is unnecessary, and to punish crucial coprincipals by conspiracy behind the appearance of the atual doer, we have to apply the article 34 of current Penal Code. We can punish coprincipals by conspiracy by current provision that exists. It is reasonable to resolve by that provision. We have to suppose the intention of the Legislators. Therefore, new legislation about coprincipals by conspiracy is inappropriate. Rather we have to use the provision thar already exists and punish them.
Abstract
Every time the debate about revision of joint principal offender emerges, the legislaton of coprincipals by conspiracy come into question. In the Penal Code we have the Article 30 of Coprincipals who means the person that One of two or more participants in a criminal offense who either perpetrate the crime or aid a person who does so. The theory of coprincipals by conspiracy means that person who conspires but does not engage in acts realistically is coprincipals. The interpretation of the theory is one of the crucial issue. Historically, our Penal Code has been affected from the Revised Penal Code Proposal of Japan in 1931. We have the special expression in the article 30 as that of Japan. Consequently, the establishment of Coprincipals by Conspiracy who only conspire is absurd. In this study I examined the theory and precedent, so I found the unnecessity of the coprincipals by conspiracy. First of all, the according to the Theory of Functional Behavior Control, though there is not practice behavior, if there is essential contribution, it is recognized that the coprincipals is established. Second, from that day of the precedent in 2007, "criminal act to crucial contribution" is essential and necessary to the whole plan of criminal act. Third, the legislation of coprincipals by conspiracy is unnecessary, and to punish crucial coprincipals by conspiracy behind the appearance of the atual doer, we have to apply the article 34 of current Penal Code. We can punish coprincipals by conspiracy by current provision that exists. It is reasonable to resolve by that provision. We have to suppose the intention of the Legislators. Therefore, new legislation about coprincipals by conspiracy is inappropriate. Rather we have to use the provision thar already exists and punish them.
참고문헌 (35)
- 김용세, "공모공동정범과 공범관계 이탈론 : 대법원 판례를 중심으로", 사회과학논문집, 27 (1997), 대전대학교 사회과학연구소
- 김용세, "일본의 공모공동정범론 : 현황과 문제점", 형사법연구, (10) (1998), 한국형사법학회
- 김일수, "한국형법(Ⅱ)〔총론下〕" (1996), 박영사
- 법무부, "형사법개정자료(ⅩⅡ)형법개정공청회 자료집" (1992)
- 법무부, "형사법개정자료(ⅩⅣ)형법개정법률안 제안이유서", ~ (1992)
- 법무부, , 형사법개정특별심의위원회 회의록, 통권 : 2 (1987)
- 법무부, , 형사법개정특별심의위원회 회의록, 통권 : 3 (1987)
- 서거석, "공모공동정범에 관한 소고", 사회과학연구, 8 (1981), 전북대학교 법학연구소
- 신동운, "공범론 조문체계의 성립에 관한 연혁적 고찰, 이수성 선생 화갑기념논문집" (2000)
- 신동운, "판례백선 형법총론 개정증보판" (2006), 경제원
- 신동운, "형법총론 제3판" (2008), 법문사
- 신동운, "효당 엄상섭의 형법논집" (2004), 서울대학교 출판부
- 이승호, "형법총칙 공범분야 개정방안", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.143~178 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 이영우, "공모공동정범이론에 관한 소고", 외법논집, 1 (1994), 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
- 이원경, "기능적 행위지배와 공모공동정범의 정범성", 형사법연구, 22(2), pp.59~86 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 이정원, "소위 공모공동정범과 독일형법에서의 공동정범", 형사법연구, 5 (1992), 한국형사법학회
- 이형국, "공모공동정범에 관한 소고", 고시저널, 11 (1996), 한국고시행정학회
- 천진호, "공모공동정범에 있어서 공모의 정범성", 형사판례연구, (9) (2001), 박영사
- 천진호, "공모공동정범소고, 정성근교수화갑기념논문집" (1997)
- 최만조, "공모공동정범과 총칙상의 범죄", 법학연구, 4 (2000), 한국법학회
- 최호진, "공동의 가공사실과 본질적 기여행위판단", 형사법연구, (21), pp.211~231 (2004), 한국형사법학회
- 최호진, "공동의 가공행위의 존재시점", 경성법학, 13(1) (2004), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 최호진, "기능적 행위지배와 공모공동정범", 법학논고, (32), pp.631~655 (2010), 법학연구원
- 한국형사정책연구원, "형사법령제정자료집(Ⅰ)형법" (1990)
- 한정환, "공동정범, 공모공동정범의 성립요건", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.279~302 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 형법개정요강심의자료 : 제123분과위원회보고서, "형사법개정특별심의위원회 소위원회", ~ (1986)
- 형사법개정특별심의위원회, "형사법개정자료(Ⅲ)형법개정의 제 논점" (1985)
- 형사법개정특별심의위원회, "형사법개정자료(Ⅸ)일본형법개정작업경과와 내용", ~ (1989)
- 久禮多益喜, "昭和15年 改正刑法假案註釋", 法律時報, 32(8) (1960), 日本評論社
- Andrew Ashworth, "Principles of Criminal Law 4th Edition" (2003), Oxford University Press
- A P Simester, "Criminal Law : Theory and Doctrine" (2003), Oxford-Portland Oregon
- Bernd Schünemann, "Absprachen im Strafverfahren? Grundlagen, Gegenstände und Grenzen, Deutscher Juristentag" (1990), C.H.Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
- Claus Roxin, "Täterschaft und Teilnahme, 7.Aufl" (2000), Walter de Gruzter
- Dennis Bock, "Römischrechtliche Ausgangspunkte der strafrechtlichen Beteiligungslehre :Täterschaft und Teilnahme im römischen Strafrecht" (2006), Duncker&Humblot
- Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, "Täterschaft und Teilnahme", ~ (1977)