독일⋅한국⋅일본의 정당방위 판례의 차이점과 그의 법문화적 배경
The Difference in German, Korean, and Japanese Precedents of Self-Defence and its Legal Cultural Backgrounds
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In judging whether one’s use of force was an act of self-defence, German law does not go through interest balancing and acknowledges all the acts that are needed to defend one’s self or others from an immediate unreasonable threat as self-defence. On the other hand, Korean and Japanese laws do go through the balancing. Accordingly, the range of the behaviors that are acknowledged as self-defence seems to be narrower in Korean and Japan than in Germany. The reason why Germany acknowledged wide range of self-defence criteria can be traced to the establishment and settlement of liberalistic law and order. The individual’s domain which is free from government interference gradually expanded. This change in law and order was also reflected on the self-defence law:The clauses that limit the range of self-defence criteria were abolished one-by-one. By abolishing the regulations that limit thebenefit and protection of the self-defence law as well as the clauses that demanded balancing, all the necessary defensive behaviors are now acknowledged as self-defence. On the other hand, Korea and Japan did not go through the establishment and settlement of liberalistic law and order. After Western society had established the liberalistic law and order, Korea and Japan obtained the resulting legal system but their societies’law and order did not fundamentally change as Western societies did. Consequently, the liberalistic law and order only exists in the textbook.This broken reality was reflected on the precedents and people have limited rights to freely defend themselves from immediate unreasonable threat. In this point of view, Korea and Japan are alike. However, Korea acknowledges relatively wider range of defensive acts as self-defence when they are conducted against offensive acts that are morally condemnable. This is believed to be due to the Korean legal culturewhere the power of social condemnation strongly and explosively aggregates at morally condemnable acts.
Abstract
In judging whether one’s use of force was an act of self-defence, German law does not go through interest balancing and acknowledges all the acts that are needed to defend one’s self or others from an immediate unreasonable threat as self-defence. On the other hand, Korean and Japanese laws do go through the balancing. Accordingly, the range of the behaviors that are acknowledged as self-defence seems to be narrower in Korean and Japan than in Germany. The reason why Germany acknowledged wide range of self-defence criteria can be traced to the establishment and settlement of liberalistic law and order. The individual’s domain which is free from government interference gradually expanded. This change in law and order was also reflected on the self-defence law:The clauses that limit the range of self-defence criteria were abolished one-by-one. By abolishing the regulations that limit thebenefit and protection of the self-defence law as well as the clauses that demanded balancing, all the necessary defensive behaviors are now acknowledged as self-defence. On the other hand, Korea and Japan did not go through the establishment and settlement of liberalistic law and order. After Western society had established the liberalistic law and order, Korea and Japan obtained the resulting legal system but their societies’law and order did not fundamentally change as Western societies did. Consequently, the liberalistic law and order only exists in the textbook.This broken reality was reflected on the precedents and people have limited rights to freely defend themselves from immediate unreasonable threat. In this point of view, Korea and Japan are alike. However, Korea acknowledges relatively wider range of defensive acts as self-defence when they are conducted against offensive acts that are morally condemnable. This is believed to be due to the Korean legal culturewhere the power of social condemnation strongly and explosively aggregates at morally condemnable acts.
참고문헌 (39)
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김성천, "정당방위와 법문화", 형사법연구, (6) (1993)
- 김성천, "한국전통사회의 법문화와 정당방위, 현대의 형사법학 (익헌 박정근박사 회갑기념논문집)" (1990)
- 김성천, "형법총론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
- 김일수, "형법총론" (2004), 박영사
- 김정환, "정당방위의 기본사상으로서 법질서수호원리?", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.1~30 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김태명, "정당방위의 본질에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 1(1) (2002), 가톨릭대학교 법학연구소
- 박강우, "정당방위의 상당성", 형사정책연구, 46 (2001)
- 박상기, "형법총론(제8판)" (2009), 박영사
- 배종대, "도발에 의한 정당방위의 제한에 관한 연구", 판례연구, 5 (1991), 고려대 법학연구원
- 배종대, "정당방위의 이론과 현실", 고려법학, (49), pp.33~59 (2007), 법학연구원
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2009), 홍문사
- 성시택, "쟁투(싸움)와 정당방위", 서울대학교 법학, 11(1) (1970)
- 성유리, "일반인의 정당방위 판단에 대한 법문화의 영향", 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 27(2), pp.69~83 (2013), 한국사회및성격심리학회
- 심재우, "강제키스에 대한 혀 절단사건은 정당방위인가 과잉방위인가", 판례연구, 7 (1995), 고려대 법학연구원
- 손동권, "형법총론" (2004), 율곡출판사
- 양화식, "도발된 침해에 대한 정당방위", 법조, 47(6) (1998)
- 양화식, "정당방위에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 법조, 32(8) (1983)
- 양화식, "정당방위에 관한 역사적 고찰", 법조, 35(1) (1986)
- 오영근, "형법총론" (2009), 대명출판사
- 이재상, "정당방위의 제한", 경희법학, 23(1) (1988)
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2010), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법총론" (2003), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2011), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론" (2011), 삼지원
- 정현미, "싸움과 정당방위", 법학논집, 5(1), pp.167~182 (2000), 법학연구소
- 조규홍, "정당방위의 상당성의 의미 및 구체적 판단기준", 법조, 60(6), pp.78~118 (2011), 법조협회
- 최석윤, "정당방위의 근본사상에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 21(3), pp.259~280 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 최석윤, "정당방위의 상당성과 사회윤리적 제한", 비교형사법연구, 4(1) (2002)
- Arzt, Gunter, "Notwehr, Selbsthilfe, In Schaffstein - FS" (1975)
- Courakis, Nestor-Constantin, "Zur sozialethischen Begründung der Notwehr. Die sozialethischen Schranken des Notwehrrechts nach deutschem und griechischem Strafrecht" (1978), Baden-Baden
- Gall, Lothar, "Liberalismus und bürgerliche Gesellschaft In Liberalismus" (1976), Köln
- Grimm, Dieter, "Recht und Staat der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft" (1987), Frankfurt
- Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, "Lehrbuch des Strafrecht" (1988), Allgemeiner Teil
- Kim, Seong-Cheon, "Notwehrrecht und Rechtskultur. Eine Studie zur Rechtsentwicklung in Korea", pp.1993
- Langewiesche, Dieter, "Liberalismus und Bürgertum in Europa In Bürgertum im 19" (1988), Jahrhundert
- Marxen, Klaus, "Die “sozialethischen” Grenzen der Notwehr, Frankfurt 1979 Schönke In Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar" (2012)
- Schroeder, Friedrich-Christian, "Die Notwehr als Indikator politischer Grundanschauungen In Festschrift für Reinhart Maurach" (1972), Karlsruhe
- Suppert, Hartmut, "Studien zur Notwehr und notwehrähnlichen Lage" (1973), Bonn