착오에 의한 승낙과 긴급상황 착오에서의 유효성
Consent by Misunderstanding and Misunderstanding of Emergent Situation
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Personal legal interest shall not be principally punished when victim consents to infringement upon his own legal interest. The consent that has been made by either violence and threat or deception and misunderstanding may have problem of legal effect because it has not been made based on truly free will of legal interest entity. The paper has discussed legal effect of the consent made by misunderstanding. Theories are divided into three: theory of serious misunderstanding(theory of subjective real intention), theory of misunderstanding of the motives and theory of legal interest related misunderstanding, depending upon situation that an misunderstanding has been made. The consent based on misunderstanding of ‘legal interest itself’ of legal interest entity shall be null and void, and the consent made by misunderstanding of ‘incidental circumstances such as motives and purposes’ shall be effective according to theory of legal interest related misunderstanding that is thought to be the most appropriate. However, theory of legal interest related misunderstanding may be difficult to consistently explain specific case such as ‘misunderstanding of emergent situation’. Some of scholars admit of an exception that theory of legal interest related misunderstanding cannot solve all of the cases: However, different theory construction of each case that can maintain theoretical structure of theory of legal interest related misunderstanding is thought to be desirable. So called ‘the case of killing of wild beasts’ has shown that objective value of wild beasts can be lowered under emergent situation to decrease needs of legal interest protection. Therefore, a breeder who has consented killing of wild beasts by deceptive behavior may have misunderstanding of legal interest relations to nullify consent. So called ‘the case of corneal transplant’, however, does not deteriorate legal interest values even at existence of emergent situation to let legal interest entity have freedom of disposal of legal interest so that it may be different from the case of killing of wild beasts. The resolution may have many opinions: But the opinion nullifying consent that an error of ‘general value system’ is regarded to be that of legal interest relations is thought to be the most appropriate considering maintenance of theory of legal interest related misunderstanding.
Abstract
Personal legal interest shall not be principally punished when victim consents to infringement upon his own legal interest. The consent that has been made by either violence and threat or deception and misunderstanding may have problem of legal effect because it has not been made based on truly free will of legal interest entity. The paper has discussed legal effect of the consent made by misunderstanding. Theories are divided into three: theory of serious misunderstanding(theory of subjective real intention), theory of misunderstanding of the motives and theory of legal interest related misunderstanding, depending upon situation that an misunderstanding has been made. The consent based on misunderstanding of ‘legal interest itself’ of legal interest entity shall be null and void, and the consent made by misunderstanding of ‘incidental circumstances such as motives and purposes’ shall be effective according to theory of legal interest related misunderstanding that is thought to be the most appropriate. However, theory of legal interest related misunderstanding may be difficult to consistently explain specific case such as ‘misunderstanding of emergent situation’. Some of scholars admit of an exception that theory of legal interest related misunderstanding cannot solve all of the cases: However, different theory construction of each case that can maintain theoretical structure of theory of legal interest related misunderstanding is thought to be desirable. So called ‘the case of killing of wild beasts’ has shown that objective value of wild beasts can be lowered under emergent situation to decrease needs of legal interest protection. Therefore, a breeder who has consented killing of wild beasts by deceptive behavior may have misunderstanding of legal interest relations to nullify consent. So called ‘the case of corneal transplant’, however, does not deteriorate legal interest values even at existence of emergent situation to let legal interest entity have freedom of disposal of legal interest so that it may be different from the case of killing of wild beasts. The resolution may have many opinions: But the opinion nullifying consent that an error of ‘general value system’ is regarded to be that of legal interest relations is thought to be the most appropriate considering maintenance of theory of legal interest related misunderstanding.
참고문헌 (38)
- 김성돈, "형법총론(제2판)" (2009), 성균관대학교출판부
- 김성천, "형법총론" (2002), 동현출판사
- 김일수, "새로쓴형법총론(제10판)" (2004), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론(제7판)" (2007), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론(제6판)" (2003), 홍문사
- 손동권, "형법총론(제2개정판)" (2007), 율곡출판사
- 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
- 신동운, "형법총론(제2판)" (2006), 법문사
- 안동준, "형법총론" (1998), 학현사
- 오영근, "형법총론(보정판)" (2005), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법총론(제5판 보정판)" (2006), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법총론연구Ⅰ" (1988), 법문사
- 이정원, "형법총론(공개 제1판)" (2008)
- 이형국, "형법총론연구Ⅱ" (1988), 법문사
- 임 웅, "형법총론(개정판)" (2003), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론(제3판)" (2006), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법총론(제3판)" (2010), 박영사
- 진계호, "형법총론(제6판)" (2000), 대왕사
- 井田良, "刑法総論の理論構造" (2005), 成文堂
- 大塚仁, "刑法槪說(総論)(第3版)" (1997), 有斐閣
- 大谷實, "刑法講義総論(新版)" (2000), 成文堂
- 小林憲太郎, "刑事帰責論" (2007), 弘文堂
- 松宮孝明, "刑法総論講義(第3版)" (2004), 成文堂
- 강동욱, "기망이나 착오 등에 의한 피해자의 승낙의 법적 효과에 관한 고찰", 법과정책연구, 4(2), pp.571~593 (2004), 한국법정책학회
- 강동욱, "피해자의 승낙과 위장심중", 고시연구, pp.95~103 (2003)
- 이용식, "피해자의 승낙에 관한 소고. in: 형사법학의 현대적 과제(손해목교수 화갑기념논문집)", pp.163~185 (1993), 법문사
- 이용식, "하자있는 피해자의 동의", 고시계, pp.163~172 (1998)
- 전지연, "착오에 의한 피해자의 승낙. in: 현대 형사법의 쟁점과 과제(동암 이형국교수 화갑기념논문집)", pp.229~251 (1998), 법문사
- 황태정, "형법상 동의의 법적 효과와 한계", 형사법연구, 19(2), pp.63~86 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 浅田和茂, "被害者の同意の体系的地位について", 産大法学, 34(3), pp.1~18 (2000), 京都産業大学法学会
- 北川敦子, "錯誤に基く被害者の承諾", 法研論集, (125), pp.109~130 (2008), 早稲田大学大学院法学研究科
- 佐伯仁志, "被害者の錯誤について", 神戶法学年報, (1), pp.51~123 (1985), 神戶大学法学部
- 佐伯仁志, "被害者の承諾の取扱いをめぐって", 現代刑事法, 6(3), pp.4~18 (2004), 現代法律出版
- 塩谷毅, "被害者の同意と錯誤理論", 刑法雑誌, 43(1), pp.128~146 (2003), 日本刑法学会
- 林美月子, "錯誤に基づく「被害者」の同意. in: 刑事法學の現代的狀況(内藤謙先生古稀祝賀)", pp.21~54 (1994), 有斐閣
- 山口厚, "欺罔に基づく「被害者」の同意. in: 田宮裕博士追悼論集(上)", pp.321~335 (2001), 信山社
- 山中敬一, "被害者の同意における意思の欠缺", 関西大学法学論集, 33(3), pp.918~1006 (1983), 関西大学法学会
- 森永眞網, "被害者の承諾における欺罔·錯誤(1)", 関西大学法学論集, 52(3), pp.199~253 (2002), 関西大学法学会