개정형법상 강간죄의 객체 및 행위태양의 변경가능 여하
A Study on objects and type of rape by Amendment Criminal Code
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Legal status of transsexuals has changed as social perception toward gender changed and medical technologies developed. The Supreme Court's judgement in 2009 (2009Do3580), reversing the judgement in 1996(1996Do791), concluded that a transsexual can be the object of rape. Since the judgement in 2009 transsexuals can be protected by criminal law. Meanwhile, Article 297 in criminal law revised in December, 2012 changed the object of rape from “women” to “person”, which includes not only a transsexual but also a male person as the object of rape. Regardless of legal gender, now, transsexual can be always the object of rape, which is surely welcomed. The revised Article 297, however, conflicts with the newly established Article 297-2 which regulates “imitative rape”. A person who raped a transsexual shall be punished by Article 297-2 of “imitative rape” as well as by Article 297 of “rape.”In order to solve this conflict, criminal act regulated in Article 297-2 should be sub-divided into two types: one is quasi-rape coming close to rape defined in Article 297, the other is an imitative rape between rape in Article 297 and indecent act by compulsion in Article 298. By this sub-division, a person who raped transsexual shall be punished by same legal penalty regardless he committed the crime of “rape” in Article 297 or “inserting his/her sexual organ into another's bodily part (excluding a genital organ)” in Article 297-2. This solution accords with feelings and logic of law.
Abstract
Legal status of transsexuals has changed as social perception toward gender changed and medical technologies developed. The Supreme Court's judgement in 2009 (2009Do3580), reversing the judgement in 1996(1996Do791), concluded that a transsexual can be the object of rape. Since the judgement in 2009 transsexuals can be protected by criminal law. Meanwhile, Article 297 in criminal law revised in December, 2012 changed the object of rape from “women” to “person”, which includes not only a transsexual but also a male person as the object of rape. Regardless of legal gender, now, transsexual can be always the object of rape, which is surely welcomed. The revised Article 297, however, conflicts with the newly established Article 297-2 which regulates “imitative rape”. A person who raped a transsexual shall be punished by Article 297-2 of “imitative rape” as well as by Article 297 of “rape.”In order to solve this conflict, criminal act regulated in Article 297-2 should be sub-divided into two types: one is quasi-rape coming close to rape defined in Article 297, the other is an imitative rape between rape in Article 297 and indecent act by compulsion in Article 298. By this sub-division, a person who raped transsexual shall be punished by same legal penalty regardless he committed the crime of “rape” in Article 297 or “inserting his/her sexual organ into another's bodily part (excluding a genital organ)” in Article 297-2. This solution accords with feelings and logic of law.
참고문헌 (41)
- 김방호, "강간죄 객체에 대한 새로운 시각", 법률신문, 제3780호, 법률신문사, ~ (2009)
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), SKKUP
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2013), 성균관대학교출판부
- 김성돈, "성폭력범죄의 행위유형에 대한 비판적 형법도그마틱", 성균관법학, 23(2), pp.161~184 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2006), 동현출판사
- 김일수, "합동강간치상죄의 불능미수 -대법 1996. 6. 11, 96 도 791-", 판례연구, 8, pp.91~ (1996), 고려대학교 법학연구원
- 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법각론" (2004), 박영사
- 金台明, "性轉換을 둘러싼 法的 問題點에 대한 檢討", 저스티스, 71, pp.26~51 (2003), 한국법학원
- 김혜정, "시대의 변화에 따른 강간죄의 객체 및 행위태양에 관한 재구성", 비교형사법연구, 9(1), pp.187~208 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 박동찬, "성전환자의 법적지위", 법제현안, 국제사무처 법제실, ~ (2002)
- 박재윤, "주석 형법각칙 4" (2006), 한국사법행정학회
- 박찬걸, "성폭력범죄 대처를 위한 최근(2012. 12. 18.)의 개정 형법에 대한 검토", 한양법학, 24(2), pp.167~196 (2013), 한양법학회
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2010), 홍문사
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2013), 홍문사
- 법무부, "프랑스 형법" (2008)
- (7)형법각칙, "법률신문, 법률신문사", 2010
- 오미영, "성전환자의 성별정정 허가에 관한 고찰― 각국의 입법례 및 판례의 분석을 중심으로 ―", 미국헌법연구, 24(3), pp.143~177 (2013), 미국헌법학회
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2009), 박영사
- 유진승, "형법상 '부녀'의 의미 및 강간죄 성립 범위에 대한 재검토 - 대법원 2009.9.10. 선고 2009도3580 판결을 중심으로-", 형사법의 신동향, (25), pp.277~298 (2010), 대검찰청
- 이상돈, "여성과 법" (2003)
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2013), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법각론" (2008)
- "형법 일부개정법률안 (서병수의원 대표발의) 검토보고"[URL]
- 임웅, "형법각론" (2008), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2011), 삼영사
- 정영일, "형법각론" (2008), 박영사
- 정준섭, "현행 강간죄 규정에 대한 재검토", 성균관법학, 22(3), pp.347~374 (2010), 법학연구소
- 정현미, "성정환수술자의 강간죄의 객체 여부", 형사판례연구, 6 (1998), 박영사
- 조대현, "성전환 수술과 호적정정", 법률신문, 법률신문사, ~ (1990)
- 최성경, "성전환자의 성별정정 허가기준과 그 입법적 제안 — 대상결정: 대법원ﾠ2011.9.2.자 2009스117 전원합의체결정 —", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.373~412 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 최정학, "성전환의 법적 문제", 민주법학, (14), pp.211~ (1998), 민주주의법학연구회
- 형사법개정연구회, "형사법개정연구(IV). 형법각칙개정안", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2009)
- 홍춘의, "성적 소수자의 인권", pp.89~ (2002), 사람생각
- "대법원 1996. 6. 11. 선고 96도791 판결", ~ (1996)
- "대법원 1996. 11. 22. 선고 96도1395 판결", ~ (1996)
- "대법원 2006. 6. 22.자 2004스42 전원합의체 결정", ~ (2006)
- "대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2009도3580 판결", ~ (2009)
- "대법원 2011. 9.2.자 2009스117 전원합의체 결정", ~ (2011)
- "서울지방법원 1995. 10. 11. 선고 95고합516 판결", ~ (1995)
- "헌법재판소 2001. 11. 29.자 2001헌가16 결정", ~ (2001)
- "헌법재판소 2011. 11. 24.자 2011헌바54 결정", ~ (2011)