강도상해죄의 행위주체와 미수와 기수의 판단기준 - 준강도죄와의 비교를 통한 비판적 검토 -
The Subject and Judgmental Standard of Attempt and Completion of Robbery Resulting in a Bodily Injury - Critical Review by the Comparison with Quasi-Robbery -
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the logical interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code as well as dictionary definition of a robber, a robber in robbery resulting in a bodily injury means only the completed one except an attempted one. Hence, either the attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury depends on whether the result of a bodily injury occurs or not. The above-mentioned propositions put forward the following four inferences: Firstly, when a completed robber causes a bodily injury, the robber is responsible for completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury because a completed one is the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Secondly, when a completed robber causes no bodily injury, the robber is responsible for attempt of robbery resulting in a bodily injury because a completed one is the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Thirdly, when an attempted robber causes a bodily injury, despite powerful offences, the robber isn't responsible for attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury but responsible for accumulative crimes of both the attempted robbery and completed bodily injury, because an attempted robber isn't the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Fourthly, when an attempted robber causes no bodily injury, despite powerful offences that may cause a bodily injury, the robber isn't responsible for the attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury but responsible for accumulative crimes of both the attempted robbery and attempted bodily injury, because an attempted robber isn't the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury.
Abstract
According to the logical interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code as well as dictionary definition of a robber, a robber in robbery resulting in a bodily injury means only the completed one except an attempted one. Hence, either the attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury depends on whether the result of a bodily injury occurs or not. The above-mentioned propositions put forward the following four inferences: Firstly, when a completed robber causes a bodily injury, the robber is responsible for completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury because a completed one is the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Secondly, when a completed robber causes no bodily injury, the robber is responsible for attempt of robbery resulting in a bodily injury because a completed one is the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Thirdly, when an attempted robber causes a bodily injury, despite powerful offences, the robber isn't responsible for attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury but responsible for accumulative crimes of both the attempted robbery and completed bodily injury, because an attempted robber isn't the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury. Fourthly, when an attempted robber causes no bodily injury, despite powerful offences that may cause a bodily injury, the robber isn't responsible for the attempt or completion of robbery resulting in a bodily injury but responsible for accumulative crimes of both the attempted robbery and attempted bodily injury, because an attempted robber isn't the subject of robbery resulting in a bodily injury.
참고문헌 (49)
- 권오걸, "형법총론, 제3판" (2009), 형설출판사
- 권오걸, "형법각론" (2009), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법각론, 제2판" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김성천, "형법" (2009), 소진
- 김일수, "한국형법, 개정판" (1997), 박영사
- 김일수, "형법각론, 제7판" (2009), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법각론, 제7판" (2008), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법각론, 제7전정판" (2010), 홍문사
- 백형구, "형법각론, 개정판" (2002), 청림출판
- 손동권, "형법각론, 제3개정판" (2010), 율곡출판사
- 오영근, "형법총론, 제2판" (2009), 박영사
- 오영근, "형법각론, 제2판" (2009), 박영사
- 이영란, ", 개정판" (2010), 형설출판사
- 이재상, "형법각론, 제7판" (2010), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법각론, 제2판" (2000), 법지사
- 이태언, "형법각론, 제4판" (2009), 형설출판사
- 이형국, "형법각론" (2007), 법문사
- 임석원, "결과적 가중범의 쟁점" (2007), 한국학술정보(주)
- 임 웅, "형법총론, 제3정판" (2010), 법문사
- 임 웅, "형법각론, 개정판 제2보정" (2009), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법각론, 제3판" (2008), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법총론, 제3판" (2010), 박영사
- 정영일, "형법각론, 개정판" (2008), 박영사
- 정웅석, "형법강의, 전정제1판" (2008), 대명출판사
- 조준현, "형법각론, 개정판" (2005), 법원사
- 진계호, "형법각론, 제6판" (2008), 대왕사
- 하태훈, "판례중심 형법총·각론" (2006), 법원사
- 권오걸, "준강도의 불법구조와 실행의 착수시기", 형사법연구, 21(3), pp.339~366 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 김성규, "법익을 통한 기수와 미수의 구별에 대한 비판적 검토 - 주거침입죄의 기수와 미수의 구별에 관한 법익론적 사고방식을 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 10(1), pp.51~70 (2008), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김일수, "준강도죄의 불법과 책임의 구조", 고려법학, (44) (2005), 고려대학교 법학연구원
- 문채규, "준강도죄의 법적 성격과 주체", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.83~108 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 박달현, "준강도죄의 기수와 미수의 판단기준에 대한 검토", 형사법연구, (26), pp.697~710 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 변종필, "준강도죄의 범행주체 - 판례 및 학설의 이론적 정합성에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 3(2) (2001), 한국비교형사법학회
- 서보학, "절도가 미수인 경우 준강도죄의 기수·미수 여부, 「법률신문」, 제3318호, 법률신문사, 2004. 11. 29", ~ (2004)
- 성낙현, "강도죄에서의 몇 가지 논점", 비교형사법연구, 5(1) (2003)
- 심재무, "준강도죄의 본질과 기수시기", 형사법연구, (26), pp.321~342 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 안동준, "준강도죄의 기수 판단 기준에 대한 대법원 판결의 의문점 - 指鹿爲馬?", 법학논총, 24 (2004), 전남대학교 법학연구소
- 이용식, "준강도죄의 예비와 기수시기. in: 한국 형사법학의 신 전개: 이재상교수정년기념논문집" (2008), 박영사
- 이창섭, "준강도죄에 관한 소고", 형사정책연구, 17(1), pp.211~238 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이천현, "준강도죄의 기수 및 미수의 판단기준", 형사판례연구, 14 (2006)
- 임석원, "結合犯의 本質과 不眞正 結果的 加重犯", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.175~200 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 임석원, "결합범의 미수에 관한 문제점과 해석 및 정비방향", 형사정책연구, 20(2), pp.93~123 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 정웅석, "준강도죄에 관한 고찰", 고시연구, 32(1) (2005), 고시연구사
- 조현욱, "준강도죄의 행위주체와 기수와 미수의 판단기준", 법학연구, (29), pp.243~266 (2008), 한국법학회
- 하태훈, "최신형사판례분석", 고시연구, 32(2) (2005), 고시연구사
- 한상훈, "형법상 결합범의 유형과 입법론적 검토", 형사법연구, (22) (2004), 한국형사법학회
- 한상훈, "준강도의 미수와 기수", 고시연구, 33(12) (2006), 고시연구사
- 황정익, "준강도죄의 성격에 따른 법적용상의 문제점", 한국공안행정학회보, 18(4), pp.609~638 (2009), 한국공안행정학회
- "국립국어원 표준국어대사전"[URL]