방조범의 불법구조와 중립적 방조행위의 가벌성판단

Abstract

The behaviors which enable or facilitate the execution of the constituents or strengthen the legal infringement of right by the principal offender may incur an issue of criminal punishment even in the case of so-called ‘neutral behavior’. But it cannot just simply establish aider liability only with the condition of presence of awareness or the possibility of awareness, the liability should be acknowledged only when the intention to facilitate the behavior of the principal offender is objectively confirmed. Otherwise, everyday activity in terms of profession or the activity of invention of new technologies and tools in accordance with the development of science can be very contracted, also there is the greater possibility that the punishment is made by the judicial authorities’ own volition. Therefore, the liability must be strictly limited in terms of the establishment of aider liability compared to the normal conduct of aiding even in the case where it is acknowledged that the routinely performed occupational behavior etc. affected the establishment of the principal offender liability. In the past, the parties involved were limited based on the liability about professional conducts in the issues of aiding by the neutral behaviors. Recently, however, contributing to a criminal act through providing neutral technology is becoming an issue. Some of the examples for it are Soribada case of South Korea, accomplices to Japan, neutral aiding, social reciprocality, Winny case, and the range of liability in Winny case. All of these can be seen as the dangerous behaviors which cause the copyright infringement. Using the products from the development of science and technology for illegal purposes regardless of the intention of the developers is entirely the responsibility of those who directly violate the legal interest. It is not reasonable to recognize the establishment of aider liability only with the fact of recognizing and quoting the principal offender. If the aiding due to neutral behavior is treated the same as the general act of aiding, it results in banning in principle daily professional conducts acknowledged for normal life in the societies of division of labor. Therefore, it should be presumed that what is required to punish neutral behavior of aiding is a conclusive intent unlike the general act of aiding. Even if a conduct is evaluated as seemingly an act of aiding outwardly, it should be excluded from the range of liability in the case the degree of involvement falls short of the levels of criminal penalties in the overall point of view in the law and order, and it should be regarded such that the legal responsibility using this belongs to the range of those who caused direct legal infringement of right. But it may well be possible to punish even the awareness・quotation of criminal acts of principal offender, or the willful negligence that can facilitate the behaviors of principal offender in the case that the behavior, regardless of professional conduct itself or not, can be seen as a part of the criminal act.