야간주거침입절도죄에서 야간의 상황이 요구되는 시기
The Meaning of 'at night' in Compound Larceny
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A people who steals another's property by trespassing upon residence, guarded dwelling house, structure or occupied room at night shall be punished for compound larceny(§ 330). But it's not clear whether a person who broke into a house in the daytime and stole another' property at night shall be punished for compound larceny or concurrent crimes of Intrusion upon Habitation(§ 319①) and Larceny(§ 329). On April 14. 2011, Korean Supreme Court upheld that the accused who entered a motel room at 15:30 and lifted a LCD monitor at 21:00 could not be punished for compound larceny, because the §330 requires the circumstance of night at the time when the burglar intrudes a occupied room and it's application could not be expanded to the a people who trespassed upon residence in the daytime and stole another' property at night. But sense of instability and danger of extension of damage which caused by the trespassing from daytime to night are not smaller than that which brought by intrusion at night. And the translation of words in the criminal code couldn't be limited to the literary meaning but it should be done based on the consideration from various angles such as the spirit of legislation, system of the provisions etc. So the § 330 should be interpreted that it requires night as a condition of time and another's residence a condition of place when the accused steals another' property. When the bugler intrudes a house in the daytime and lifted a steals another's possession at night, the necessary conditions of time and place which requires the provision of compound larceny(§ 330) is fulfilled. So the accused this decision could be punished for compound larceny.
Abstract
A people who steals another's property by trespassing upon residence, guarded dwelling house, structure or occupied room at night shall be punished for compound larceny(§ 330). But it's not clear whether a person who broke into a house in the daytime and stole another' property at night shall be punished for compound larceny or concurrent crimes of Intrusion upon Habitation(§ 319①) and Larceny(§ 329). On April 14. 2011, Korean Supreme Court upheld that the accused who entered a motel room at 15:30 and lifted a LCD monitor at 21:00 could not be punished for compound larceny, because the §330 requires the circumstance of night at the time when the burglar intrudes a occupied room and it's application could not be expanded to the a people who trespassed upon residence in the daytime and stole another' property at night. But sense of instability and danger of extension of damage which caused by the trespassing from daytime to night are not smaller than that which brought by intrusion at night. And the translation of words in the criminal code couldn't be limited to the literary meaning but it should be done based on the consideration from various angles such as the spirit of legislation, system of the provisions etc. So the § 330 should be interpreted that it requires night as a condition of time and another's residence a condition of place when the accused steals another' property. When the bugler intrudes a house in the daytime and lifted a steals another's possession at night, the necessary conditions of time and place which requires the provision of compound larceny(§ 330) is fulfilled. So the accused this decision could be punished for compound larceny.
참고문헌 (45)
- 김일수, "형법각론(제6판)", pp.303~ (2009)
- 손동권, "형법각론(제3판)", pp.298~ (2010)
- 정영일, "형법각론(개정판)", pp.265~
- 유기천, "형법학 각론강의상(전정신판)", pp.214~ (1995)
- 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)", pp.268~ (2008), 박영사
- 김성돈, "형법각론(제2판)", pp.275~ (2009)
- 배종대, "형법각론(제6판)", pp.381~ (2006)
- 오영근, "형법각론", pp.334~ (2005)
- 임웅, "형법각론(제3판)", pp.315~ (2011)
- 정성근, "형법각론(제3판)", pp.305~ (2008)
- Engisch, "Einführung in das juristischen Denken, 7. Aufl", pp.249~
- 김영환, "형법해석의 한계", 형사판례연구, 4, pp.12~
- 신동운, "형법제·개정 자료집" (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 신동운, "효당엄상섭 형법논집" (2003)
- 久禮多益喜, "昭和 15年, “改正刑法假案 譯註”", 法律時報, 401~ (1960)
- 신동운, "형벌법규의 흠결과 해석에 의한 보정의 한계", 판례월보, (294), pp.24~ (1994)
- "헌법재판소 2003. 4. 24. 2002헌바71, 86(병합) 전원재판부결정【지방세법제111조제5항위헌소원】", ~
- 김대휘, "형법해석의 한계와 법방법론", 법철학연구, 1(1), pp.385~ (1998)
- 김일수, "형법해석의 한계-허용된 해석과 금지된 유치의 상관관계, In 형사판례의 연구Ⅰ(지송 이재상교수 화갑기념)", pp.61~ (2003)
- "대법원 2002.2.21. 선고 2001도2819 판결", ~
- "2003.1.10. 선고 2002도2363 판결", ~
- "국립국어원 표준국어대사전"[URL]
- 최재정, "계속범에 관하여", 사법연수원 논문집, 1, pp.321~ (2004)
- 유기천, "형법학 총론강의(개정판)", pp.323~ (1996)
- 권오걸, "형법각론", pp.403~ (2009)
- 이영란, "형법학(각론강의)", pp.282~ (2008)
- 이재상, "형법각론(제6판)", pp.279~ (2009)
- 김일수, "형법총론(제11판)", pp.522~ (2006)
- 성낙현, "형법총론(제2판)", pp.492~ (2011)
- 오영근, "형법총론", pp.479~ (2005)
- 임웅, "형법총론(제3판)", pp.348~ (2010)
- 정성근, "형법총론(제3판)", pp.386~ (2006)
- "대법원 1992.7.28. 선고 92도917 판결", ~
- 유기천, "형법학 각론강의(전정신판)", pp.213~ (1995)
- 법무부, "형법개정법률안 제안이유서", 126~ (1992)
- "헌법재판소도 2004.12.16. 2003헌가12 결정【폭력행위등처벌에관한법률 제3조제2항 위헌제청】", ~
- 김경락, "야간주거침입절도죄의 실행의 착수시기", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.331~364 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 백원기, "미수론연구", pp.44~ (1995)
- 성시탁, "실행의 착수", 고시계, pp.34~ (1985)
- "대법원 1991.11.22.선고 91도2296판결", ~
- 최진갑, "특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기", 대법원판례해설, (16), pp.744~ (1991)
- 여훈구, "특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기", 형사판례연구, (7), pp.355~ (1994)
- 김경락, "특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기", 성균관법학, 18(2), pp.369~392 (2006), 법학연구소
- 박동률, "소위 야간주거침입강도죄의 실행의 착수시기 -결합범인지 여부와 관련하여-", 법학논고, (26), pp.219~239 (2007), 법학연구원
- 김봉수, "형법 제334조 제1항 ‘야간주거침입강도죄’의 실행착수 시기", 법학논총, 30(1), pp.157~175 (2010), 법학연구소