타인의 예금통장으로 예금을 무단인출하고 바로 반환한 사람의 형사책임
The Critical Review on the Korean Supreme Court's Attitude toward the Theft of a Bankbook and That of a Cash Card - The Criminal Case of the Korean Supreme Court 2010. 5. 27. 2009 Do 9008 -
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Through the criminal case 2010. 5. 27. 2009 Do 9008, the Korean Supreme Court decides that if a person has stolen another's bankbook and withrawn a cash by using it at a bank and returned it immediately, he is guilty of the crime of the bankbook theft. In the several criminal cases before, however, the Korean Supreme Court have been in a position that if a person has stolen another's cash card or credit card and withrawn a cash by using it at the automatic machine(ATM) and returned it immediately, he has not been guilty of the cash card or the credit card theft. This paper reviews the attitude of the Korean Supreme Court toward the bankbook theft and the cash card of credit card theft critically and suggests some reasonable solutions. The contents of this paper is as follows; [The Process of the Case][The Summary of the Judgement][Review]I. Introduction II. The Comparison between the 'Zueingung' of a bankbook and that of a Cash Card III. The Criminal Theoretical Meaning of the Immediate Return of a Bankbook or a Cash Card. IV. Some Reasonable Solutions V. The Relating Issues
Abstract
Through the criminal case 2010. 5. 27. 2009 Do 9008, the Korean Supreme Court decides that if a person has stolen another's bankbook and withrawn a cash by using it at a bank and returned it immediately, he is guilty of the crime of the bankbook theft. In the several criminal cases before, however, the Korean Supreme Court have been in a position that if a person has stolen another's cash card or credit card and withrawn a cash by using it at the automatic machine(ATM) and returned it immediately, he has not been guilty of the cash card or the credit card theft. This paper reviews the attitude of the Korean Supreme Court toward the bankbook theft and the cash card of credit card theft critically and suggests some reasonable solutions. The contents of this paper is as follows; [The Process of the Case][The Summary of the Judgement][Review]I. Introduction II. The Comparison between the 'Zueingung' of a bankbook and that of a Cash Card III. The Criminal Theoretical Meaning of the Immediate Return of a Bankbook or a Cash Card. IV. Some Reasonable Solutions V. The Relating Issues
참고문헌 (39)
- 장준현, "타인의 예금통장을 무단사용하여 예금을 인출한 후 예금통장을 반환한 경우 예금통장에 대한 절도죄가 성립하는지 여부(한정 적극)", 대법원판례해설, (84), pp.667~676 (2010)
- "대법원 1998. 11. 10. 선고 98도2642 판결", ~
- "대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 99도857 판결", ~
- 최관식, "신용카드에 대한 절도죄 성립여부", 법률신문 3027호, 15~ (2001)
- "대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005도7819 판결", ~
- 성낙현, "직불카드 부정사용행위와 관련한 영득의 객체문제", 법조, 56(6), pp.291~324 (2007), 법조협회
- 유용봉, "절취한 타인 명의의 예금통장과 불법영득의사, In 한국 형사법학의 이론과 실천(정암 정성진박사 고희기념논문집)", pp.500~502 (2010)
- "대법원 1983. 3. 8. 선고 83도54 판결", ~
- "대법원 2006. 3. 24. 선고 2005도8081 판결", ~
- "대법원 1996. 5. 10. 선고 95도3057 판결", ~
- 강동범, "신용카드 부정취득행위의 형사책임에 대한 검토, In 한국형사법학의 오늘(정온 이영란교수 화갑기념논문집)", pp.529~ (2008)
- 김일수, "형법각론", pp.295~
- 배종대, "형법각론"
- 손동권, "형법각론"
- 이재상, "형법각론"
- 임웅, "형법각론", pp.290~
- 정영일, "형법각론", pp.263~
- 박상기, "형법각론", pp.266~
- 이정원, "자기신용카드 부정사용에 대한 형사책임- 대법원 2005.8.19, 2004도6859 -", 비교형사법연구, 7(2(2)), pp.163~180 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 유기천, "형법각론", pp.213~
- 정성근, "형법각론", pp.295~
- 진계호, "형법각론", pp.257~
- 김일수, "형법총론", pp.189~
- 배종대, "형법총론"
- 성낙현, "형법총론", pp.170~171
- 이상돈, "형법강의", pp.133~134
- Lacknrer, "StGB, §267 7., §268 6", ~
- 오영근, "형법총론"
- 김성돈, "형법총론", pp.238~
- Lackner, "StGB, §242 5d dd", ~
- "대법원 2005. 8. 25. 선고 2005도3410 판결", ~
- "대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003도7878 판결", ~
- "2004. 7. 9. 선고 2004도810 판결", ~
- Lackner, "StGB, §246 5", ~
- Lackner, "StGB, §242 5", ~
- "대법원 2002. 7. 12. 선고 2002도2134 판결", ~
- "대법원 2007. 3. 15. 선고 2006도2704 판결", ~
- 하태훈, "형법사례연습", pp.243~ (2004)
- "대법원 2004. 3. 12. 선고 2004도134 판결", ~