상상적 경합의 유형, 효과에 대한 재검토와 형법 제40조의 입법론
Compound Crimes in Korea: Sorts, Effect, and Reform Suggestion of Art. 40 of Criminal Code
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper explores the Sorts and Effect of Compound Crimes in Korean Criminal Code, and suggests a reform bill of Art. 40 of Criminal Code. Article 40 (Compound Crimes) of the Korean Criminal Code provides that "When a single act constitutes several crimes, punishment provided for the most severe crime shall be imposed." According to this provision number of crimes committed by a single act is punished only by the most severe punishment. This result is sometimes unsatisfactory, when the committed crimes have nothing in common and the interests inflicted belong to different individuals. In this case it would be regarded as appropriate and just to enhance the maximum punishment to the extent that Art. 38 (concurrent crimes) would apply to. In addition, there has been a controversy over the treatment of so called the compound crime through a connecting crime, which involves a question whether it is proper to punish as a compound crime when two different crimes become a compound crime with help of a third connecting act. The so far suggested solutions vary from the a denial of a compound crime to partial acceptance with many variations of theories. On this problem this paper suggests that although a compound crime should recognised like the decision of the Supreme Court of Korea, its punishment, however, should be aggravated. A revised bill to this provision is proposed.
Abstract
This paper explores the Sorts and Effect of Compound Crimes in Korean Criminal Code, and suggests a reform bill of Art. 40 of Criminal Code. Article 40 (Compound Crimes) of the Korean Criminal Code provides that "When a single act constitutes several crimes, punishment provided for the most severe crime shall be imposed." According to this provision number of crimes committed by a single act is punished only by the most severe punishment. This result is sometimes unsatisfactory, when the committed crimes have nothing in common and the interests inflicted belong to different individuals. In this case it would be regarded as appropriate and just to enhance the maximum punishment to the extent that Art. 38 (concurrent crimes) would apply to. In addition, there has been a controversy over the treatment of so called the compound crime through a connecting crime, which involves a question whether it is proper to punish as a compound crime when two different crimes become a compound crime with help of a third connecting act. The so far suggested solutions vary from the a denial of a compound crime to partial acceptance with many variations of theories. On this problem this paper suggests that although a compound crime should recognised like the decision of the Supreme Court of Korea, its punishment, however, should be aggravated. A revised bill to this provision is proposed.
참고문헌 (57)
- 강구진, "형법강의 각론 1" (1983)
- 강구진, "형사소송법원론" (1984)
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2008)
- 김성천, "형법" (2009)
- 김일수, "형법각론, 6판" (2004)
- 김일수, "형법총론, 11판" (2006)
- 김종원, "형법각론(상), 3정판" (1973)
- 노명선, "형사소송법" (2009)
- 박상기, "형법각론, 7판" (2008)
- 박상기, "형법총론, 8판" (2009)
- 배종대, "형법각론, 7판" (2010)
- 배종대, "형법총론, 9개정판" (2008)
- 배종대, "신형사소송법, 2판" (2009)
- 백형구, "형법각론" (1999)
- 손동권, "형법각론" (2004)
- 손동권, "형법총론, 2개정판" (2007)
- 손동권, "형사소송법" (2008)
- 손해목, "형법총론" (1996)
- 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2008)
- 신동운, "형법총론, 4판" (2009)
- 신양균, "형사소송법, 신판" (2009)
- 신현주, "형사소송법, 신정2판" (2002)
- 심희기, "형사소송법 쟁점강의" (2009)
- 안동준, "형법총론" (1998)
- 오영근, "형법각론, 2판" (2009)
- 오영근, "형법총론, 2판" (2009)
- 이재상, "신형사소송법, 2판" (2008)
- 이재상, "형법각론, 5판" (2004)
- 이재상, "형법총론, 5판(보정판)", 2008
- 이정원, "형법각론, 증보판" (2000)
- 이정원, "형법총론, 3판" (2004)
- 이형국, "형법각론" (2007)
- 이형국, "형법총론, 3판" (2003)
- 임동규, "형사소송법, 5판" (2008)
- 임 웅, "형법각론, 개정판" (2003)
- 임 웅, "형법총론, 개정판 제2보정" (2009)
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2002)
- 정성근, "형법총론, 4판" (2008)
- 정영일, "형법각론, 개정판" (2008)
- 정영일, "형법총론, 개정판" (2007)
- 정웅석, "형법강의, 전정1판" (2008)
- 하태훈, "사례중심 형법총론, 전정판" (2002)
- 김성돈, "연결효과에 의한 상상적 경합", 영남법학, 3(1) (1997)
- 김성돈, "이중평가금지와 연결효과에 의한 상상적 경합", 형사판례연구, 10 (2002)
- 김용욱, "경합론의 체계적 구조. in: 현대형사법의 쟁점과 과제(동암이형국교수화갑기념논문집)" (1998), 법문사
- 민유숙, "허위진단서작성죄와 허위공문서작성죄의 관계", 대법원판례해설, (50) (2004)
- 이경렬, "상상적 경합의 바른 이해. in: 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평(유일당오선주교수정년기념논문집)", pp.216~ (2001), 형설출판사
- 이승호, "실체적 경합과 상상적 경합이 혼합된 경우의 해결방법 - 소위 연결효과이론에 대한 검토를 중심으로", 고시연구 (2002)
- 한상훈, "상상적 경합의 명시기능과 이중평가금지의 상충 여부", 비교형사법연구, 9(1), pp.97~120 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 한상훈, "형법 및 형사특별법상 재산범죄 가중처벌규정의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, (26), pp.139~168 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 大塚 仁, "형법개설(총론), 3판" (2000)
- Sch·Sch, "Strafgesetzbuch : Kommentar, 27. Aufl" (2006)
- Jescheck, "Lehrbuch des Strarfrechs, AT., 5. Aufl", ~ (1996)
- "Entwurf eines StGB, BT-Drucks. IV", 650, 1962, pp.191~
- Rissing-van Saan, "StGB Leipziger Kommentar, 11. Aufl" (2003)
- Altenhain, "Verwirklichung mehrerer Tatbestandsalternativen: Einzelverbrechen oder Idealkonkurrenz?", ZStW, 107 (1995)
- Stuckenberg, "Zur Konkurrenz im US-amerikanischen Recht", ZStW, 113 (2001)