불능미수범의 위험성
Dangerousness of Impossible Crime
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Article 27(Impossible Crime) of Korean Criminal Code provides, Even though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted. There have been many controversies over whether or not Article 27 should contain the concept of danger. Recently, there have been some arguments that the concept of danger in Article 27 does not have any particular meaning in defining impossible attempted crimes. People with this view said that all attempted crimes involve danger. They also insisted that danger of impossible attempted crimes does not differ from that of other attempted crimes, and that the “Eindruckstheorie”, which defines danger as disturbing the stability of legal order thereby causing trust deficit in the law, can explain this danger. There are many theories to define the dangerousness in Article 27. In them, the concrete danger theory and the abstract danger theory are thought to be the two most proper theories in interpreting Article 27. According to the concrete theory, a case for impossibility crimes is formed only when the conducts involve concrete danger. The abstract danger theory, however, explains that even if there is only an abstract danger in a person’s behavior, there is a case for impossibility crimes. In my opinion, the abstract danger theory is much more reasonable in that it puts more importance on the intention and the awareness of the criminal himself. According to the results, it is reasonable abstract danger theory.
Abstract
Article 27(Impossible Crime) of Korean Criminal Code provides, Even though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted. There have been many controversies over whether or not Article 27 should contain the concept of danger. Recently, there have been some arguments that the concept of danger in Article 27 does not have any particular meaning in defining impossible attempted crimes. People with this view said that all attempted crimes involve danger. They also insisted that danger of impossible attempted crimes does not differ from that of other attempted crimes, and that the “Eindruckstheorie”, which defines danger as disturbing the stability of legal order thereby causing trust deficit in the law, can explain this danger. There are many theories to define the dangerousness in Article 27. In them, the concrete danger theory and the abstract danger theory are thought to be the two most proper theories in interpreting Article 27. According to the concrete theory, a case for impossibility crimes is formed only when the conducts involve concrete danger. The abstract danger theory, however, explains that even if there is only an abstract danger in a person’s behavior, there is a case for impossibility crimes. In my opinion, the abstract danger theory is much more reasonable in that it puts more importance on the intention and the awareness of the criminal himself. According to the results, it is reasonable abstract danger theory.
참고문헌 (50)
- 권오걸, "형법총론" (2011), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2014), 성균관대출판부
- 김성천, "형법총론" (2014), 소진
- 김일수, "형법총론" (2014), 박영사
- 도중진, "형법총론" (2013), 충남대 출판문화원
- 류병진, "한국형법총론" (1956), 고시학회
- 박상기, "형법학" (2013), 집현재
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2012), 홍문사
- 법무부, "형법(총칙)일부개정법률안 제안 이유서", ~ (2011)
- 성낙현, "형법총론 제2판" (2011), 동방문화사
- 손동권, "형법총론" (2011), 율곡출판사
- 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
- 신동운, "형법총론" (2012), 법문사
- 오영근, "형법총론 제3판" (2014), 박영사
- 이상돈, "형법강의" (2010), 법문사
- 이영란, "형법총론" (2011), 형설출판사
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2011), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법총론" (2012), 신론사
- 이형국, "형법총론" (2007), 법문사
- 이형국, "형법총론연구Ⅱ" (1990), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2012), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론" (2011), 삼영사
- 정영일, "형법강의(총론)" (2013), 학림
- 정웅석, "형법강의" (2014), 大明出版社
- 진계호, "형법총론" (2007), 대왕사
- 김성규, "불능미수범의 실행행위성과 「형법」 제27조의 해석론", 외법논집, 36(2), pp.177~191 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김종구, "미국 형법상 불능미수의 가벌성", 형사법연구, 25(1), pp.3~34 (2013), 한국형사법학회
- 김종수, "형법 제27조(불능범)을 논함", 법정, 20(8) (1965), 법정사
- 김준혁, "불능미수범의 판단단계에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, (32), pp.319~338 (2008), 한국법학회
- 김태명, "형법 제27조(불능범)의 위험성 요건의 독자성과 구체적 의미", 형사법연구, (26), pp.223~252 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 김호기, "불능미수에서의 착오, 결과발생의 불가능, 위험성", 비교형사법연구, 9(1), pp.73~96 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김호기, "살인죄에 있어서 불능미수와 장애미수의 구별", 형사법연구, 19(3-하), pp.569~586 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 류부곤, "부진정부작위범의 불능미수범 성립 가능성", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.193~216 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 문정민, "不能未遂에 있어서 危險性 判斷", 법학연구, (30), pp.235~255 (2008), 한국법학회
- 문채규, "형법 제27조(불능범)의 ＂위험성＂ 표지", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.31~58 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 박동률, "판례를 통해 본 불능미수 - 결과발생의 불가능을 중심으로-", 법학논고, (27), pp.195~221 (2007), 법학연구원
- 박정근, "흠결미수", 고시계, 15(1) (1969), 국가고시학회
- 오영근, "불능미수의 위험성", 법학논총, 27(4), pp.7~26 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이세화, "불능미수에 관한 형법 제27조의 해석상 문제점과 해결방안", 중앙법학, 9(3), pp.221~242 (2007), 중앙법학회
- 이승준, "형법 제27조(불능범) 논의의 재검토", 형사정책연구, 18(4), pp.29~60 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이용식, "부작위범의 불능미수 - 미수범의 객관적 구성요건 정립을 위한 생각의 작은 단초 -", 서울대학교 법학, 47(4), pp.240~267 (2006), 법학연구소
- 이정원, "불능미수에서 범죄실현의 불가능과 위험성", 형사정책연구, 18(4), pp.5~28 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 임광주, "미수범의 유형에 대한 근본적인 재검토", 법학논총, 26(3), pp.125~141 (2009), 법학연구소
- 정영일, "불능미수의 불법구조에 관한 재검토", 형사정책연구, 20(3), pp.61~85 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 조기영, "불능미수와 객관주의 미수론", 법학연구, 40, pp.297~325 (2013), 부설법학연구소
- 천진호, "불능미수범의 위험성 판단-해석상의 오류를 중심으로-", 비교형사법연구, (창간) (1999), 한국비교형사법학회
- 한상훈, "불능미수(형법 제27조)의 “위험성”에 대한 재검토: 행동법경제학적 관점을 포함하여", 형사정책연구, 24(1), pp.39~78 (2013), 한국형사정책연구원
- 한상훈, "불능범(형법 제27조)의 처벌근거와 성립요건", 법률신문 제3700호, ~ (2008)
- 한상훈, "형법 제27조(불능범)에서 “결과발생의 불가능”과 “위험성”표지의 구별기준", 형사법연구, 20(3), pp.79~109 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 허일태, "형사판례연구(8)" (2001), 박영사