『공동정범의 과잉』에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 준강도 및 (준)강도상해죄의 공동정범 성립에 관한 대법원의 태도를 중심으로 -
A Critical Study on the Excess of Co-principals
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korean Penal Code prescribes that “When two or more persons have jointly committed a crime, each of them shall be punished as a principal offender for the crime committed” in Article 30. To be realized ‘Co-principals', the Supreme Court and doctrines expound that it is necessary to satisfy two required conditions : (1) two or more persons have jointly determined to commit a crime, (2) take a share in the act of committing a crime. But This general rule is not kept in connection with the robbery. In particular, this relaxation of conditions to be realized co-principals become visible remarkably in the ‘Quasi-Robbery' and its ‘offense aggravated by results of a crime'. In Article 30 of the Korean Penal Code, it is provided that “A thief who uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to obliterate a trace of the crime, shall be punished in accordance with the preceding two Articles”. However in “the excess of co-principals” case, that is one[A] of the two persons who had jointly determined to commit a crime uses violence or intimidation, the other person[B] do not it, the Supreme Court charge with the Co-principals of ‘Quasi-Robbery' in Article 335 or ‘Bodily Injury resulting from Robbery' in Article 337 to [B] on condition that B could have foreseen [A]'s violence at that time. But it is not appropriate that the Supreme Court call [B] for the Co-principals' liability of robbery only on condition with the possibility of foresight, because (1) [B] didn't take part in the violence of [A], (2) the second conditions to be realized co-principals which is to take a share in the act of committing a crime is not satisfied.
Abstract
The Korean Penal Code prescribes that “When two or more persons have jointly committed a crime, each of them shall be punished as a principal offender for the crime committed” in Article 30. To be realized ‘Co-principals', the Supreme Court and doctrines expound that it is necessary to satisfy two required conditions : (1) two or more persons have jointly determined to commit a crime, (2) take a share in the act of committing a crime. But This general rule is not kept in connection with the robbery. In particular, this relaxation of conditions to be realized co-principals become visible remarkably in the ‘Quasi-Robbery' and its ‘offense aggravated by results of a crime'. In Article 30 of the Korean Penal Code, it is provided that “A thief who uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to obliterate a trace of the crime, shall be punished in accordance with the preceding two Articles”. However in “the excess of co-principals” case, that is one[A] of the two persons who had jointly determined to commit a crime uses violence or intimidation, the other person[B] do not it, the Supreme Court charge with the Co-principals of ‘Quasi-Robbery' in Article 335 or ‘Bodily Injury resulting from Robbery' in Article 337 to [B] on condition that B could have foreseen [A]'s violence at that time. But it is not appropriate that the Supreme Court call [B] for the Co-principals' liability of robbery only on condition with the possibility of foresight, because (1) [B] didn't take part in the violence of [A], (2) the second conditions to be realized co-principals which is to take a share in the act of committing a crime is not satisfied.
참고문헌 (40)
- 이용식, "공동자 중 1인의 실행착수 이전 범행이탈 -공동정범의 처벌한계-", 형사판례연구, 11, pp.81~111 (2003)
- 김성돈, "형법총론", pp.588~ (2008)
- 김종원, "승계적 공동정점", 사법행정, pp.25~ (1969)
- 이보영, "승계적 공동정범, In 김종원교수화갑논문집", pp.489~ (1991)
- 정대관, "승계적 공동정범, In 정성근교수화갑논문집", pp.83~ (1997)
- 오영근, "형법총론 보정판", pp.33~42 (2005)
- 임웅, "형법총론 개정판", pp.406~ (2003)
- 정성근, "형법총론 제2판", pp.536~ (2005)
- 신동운, "형법총론 제2판", pp.566~ (2006)
- 배종대, "형법총론 제8전정판", pp.588~ (2005)
- "대법원 1997.6.27, 선고 97도163 판결", ~ (1997)
- "대법원 1982.6.8, 선고 82도884", ~ (1982)
- "대법원 1982.11.23, 선고 82도2024 판결", ~ (1982)
- 손동권, "형법총론 제2개정판", pp.517~519 (2005)
- "대법원 1984.2.28, 선고 83도3162 판결", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 1990.11.27, 선고 90도2262 판결", ~ (1990)
- "대법원 1978.1.17, 선고 77도2193 판결", ~ (1978)
- 김봉수, "방조의 인과관계", 박사, pp.2008
- 이용식, "공동정범의 초과실행과 결과적 가중범의 성립", 서울대학교 법학, 48(3), pp.29~59 (2007), 법학연구소
- 김일수, "준강도의 불법과 책임의 구조", 고려법학, (44), pp.1~24 (2005)
- 한상훈, "결합범의 구조와 신분범과의 관계 - 준강도죄와 강도강간죄를 중심으로 -", 법조, 54(1), pp.96~133 (2005), 법조협회
- "대법원 1984.2.28, 선고 83도3321 판결", ~ (1984)
- 이재상, "특수절도범의 1인의 폭행과 강도치상죄의 성부", 경희법학, 23(1), pp.91~ (1988)
- "대법원 1973.11.13. 선고 73도1", ~ (1973)
- "대법원 2004.11.18. 선고 2004도5074", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 1984.12.26. 선고 84도2552 판결", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 1984.10.10, 선고 84도1887 판결", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 1984.2.28. 선고 83도3321 판결", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 1982.7.13. 선고 82도1352 판결", ~ (1982)
- "대법원 1998.4.14. 선고 98도356 판결", ~ (1998)
- 배종대, "사법개혁과 판례개혁 -결과적 가중범 공동정범의 경우를 예로 하여-", 고려법학, (47), pp.4~5 (2006)
- "대법원 1984.10.5, 선고 84도1544", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 2000.5.12. 선고 2000도745 판결", ~ (2000)
- 서보학, "강도공범중 1인이 범행중 살인을 한 경우 다른 공범의 죄책 -대상판결: 대법원 2000.12.8, 선고 2000도4459 판결-", 판례월보, (368), pp.21~28 (2000)
- "대법원 1991.11.12. 선고 91도2156 판결", ~ (1991)
- "대법원 1988.9.13, 선고 88도1046 판결", ~ (1988)
- 이용식, "공동정범의 초과실행과 결과적 가중범의 성립", 41~47
- "대법원 1984.2.28. 선고 83도3321 판결", ~ (1984)
- "대법원 1982.7.13. 선고 82도1352 판결", ~ (1982)
- "대법원 1984.12.26. 선고 84도2552 판결", ~ (1984)