과실의 개념에 관한 연구
Study on the Concept of Negligence
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Similar to the concept of intention, the concept of negligence has both the realistic side and normative side. Because negligence is the failure to exercise the reasonable care, it has its realistic side in terms of psychological tendency. However, it also has normative side in terms of deciding how much psychological tendency should be considered as intentional or negligent when looking at the borderlines such as gross negligence and willful negligence. Regarding the position of negligence in the elements-system of criminal act, monism, dualism and neo-monism have been developed successively. Monism looks at the position only as the element of responsibility. Dualism looks at it as the element of responsibility as well as the element of a crime. And neo-monism sees that the content of negligence is entirely the same whether in the element of a crime stage or in the responsibility stage. Currently, vast majority of Korea supports dualism. Recently, as the concept of risk-society has been brought to many people’s attention, theory of objective allocation based on the theory of allowed risk is attempting to set up the duty to exercise reasonable care. The attempts to crystallize the criterion for the violation of the duty to exercise reasonable care has been made from many different viewpoints. However, they are also common to each other in a sense that they often utilize the concept of the reasonable person, mobilize the special regulation, and refer to the actual circumstances of the general public. The 14th article of Criminal Law, the negligence rule, describes the punishment and therefore should possess the possibility to be clearly interpreted. Otherwise, it will violate the clearness of the principle of legality. The clearness of the Criminal Law is secured when the prohibited action can be identified using the general interpretation methodology. Using the concept of standard reasonable or prudent person as a criterion to define a negligent seems to render difficulty to acquire clearness. Also, while it is true that special regulation covers quite a large domain, it is still hard to say that it has been legalized flawlessly and lacksclearness. The last way to acquire clearness is by referring to the actual circumstances of the general public. This can be done through analysing the precedents that can be referred back to the specific case. Analysing the precedents is familiar to us as it is utilized in everyday interpretation of regulations and allows to take a look at the cases that do occur in the society and apply to the specific events. In that sense, the precedents seem to be the decent source for establishing the appropriate criterion. To sum it all, it will be most appropriate to utilize the precedents-analysis for crystalizing the criterion for duty to exercisea reasonable care.
Abstract
Similar to the concept of intention, the concept of negligence has both the realistic side and normative side. Because negligence is the failure to exercise the reasonable care, it has its realistic side in terms of psychological tendency. However, it also has normative side in terms of deciding how much psychological tendency should be considered as intentional or negligent when looking at the borderlines such as gross negligence and willful negligence. Regarding the position of negligence in the elements-system of criminal act, monism, dualism and neo-monism have been developed successively. Monism looks at the position only as the element of responsibility. Dualism looks at it as the element of responsibility as well as the element of a crime. And neo-monism sees that the content of negligence is entirely the same whether in the element of a crime stage or in the responsibility stage. Currently, vast majority of Korea supports dualism. Recently, as the concept of risk-society has been brought to many people’s attention, theory of objective allocation based on the theory of allowed risk is attempting to set up the duty to exercise reasonable care. The attempts to crystallize the criterion for the violation of the duty to exercise reasonable care has been made from many different viewpoints. However, they are also common to each other in a sense that they often utilize the concept of the reasonable person, mobilize the special regulation, and refer to the actual circumstances of the general public. The 14th article of Criminal Law, the negligence rule, describes the punishment and therefore should possess the possibility to be clearly interpreted. Otherwise, it will violate the clearness of the principle of legality. The clearness of the Criminal Law is secured when the prohibited action can be identified using the general interpretation methodology. Using the concept of standard reasonable or prudent person as a criterion to define a negligent seems to render difficulty to acquire clearness. Also, while it is true that special regulation covers quite a large domain, it is still hard to say that it has been legalized flawlessly and lacksclearness. The last way to acquire clearness is by referring to the actual circumstances of the general public. This can be done through analysing the precedents that can be referred back to the specific case. Analysing the precedents is familiar to us as it is utilized in everyday interpretation of regulations and allows to take a look at the cases that do occur in the society and apply to the specific events. In that sense, the precedents seem to be the decent source for establishing the appropriate criterion. To sum it all, it will be most appropriate to utilize the precedents-analysis for crystalizing the criterion for duty to exercisea reasonable care.
참고문헌 (63)
- 김성돈, "형법총론", 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김성천, "형법총론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
- 김일수, "형법총론" (2000), 박영사
- 김일수, "형법총론" (2002), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론" (2004), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2004), 홍문사
- 성낙현, "형법총론" (2010), 동방문화사
- 손동권, "형법총론" (2004), 율곡출판사
- 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
- 신동운, "형법총론" (2001), 법문사
- 오영근, "형법총론" (2005), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법총론"
- 이정원, "형법총론" (1999), 법지사
- 이형국, "형법총론" (1992), 법문사
- 임웅, "형법총론" (2003), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법총론" (2005), 삼지원
- 정영일, "형법총론" (2010), 박영사
- Beck, Ulrich, "Risikogesellschaft" (1986), Frankfurt am Main
- Bilger, Harald R, "Die Menschheit im Umbruch" (1993), Zur Notwendigkeit neuer Lebensgestaltungen
- Binding, Karl, "Die Normen und ihre Übertretung. Eine Untersuchung über die rechtmässige Handlung und die Arten des Delikts, Band IV" (1919), Die Fahrlässigkeit
- Brossette, Josef, "Der Wert der Wahrheit im Schatten des Rechts auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung" (1991), Diss
- Duttge, Gunnar, "Zur Bestimmtheit des Handlungsunwerts von Fahlässigkeitsdelikten" (2001)
- Engisch, Karl, "Beiträge zur Rechtstheorie, hrsg. von Paul Bockelmann" (1984), Arthur Kaufmann und Ulrich Klug
- Engisch, Karl, "Untersuchungen über Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit im Strafrecht" (1930)
- Ernst, Marcus A, "Verarbeitung und Zweckbindung von Informationen im Strafprozeß" (1993), Diss
- Freund, Georg, "Erfolgsdelikt und Unterlassen" (1992)
- Freund, Georg, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" (1998), Personale Straftatlehre
- Haft, Fritjof, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" (1998)
- Hilgendorf, Eric, "Strafrechtliche Produzentenhaftung in der Risikogesellschaft" (1993)
- Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, "Lehrbuch des Strafrechts" (1996), Allgemeiner Teil
- Neumann, Ulfrid, "Nomos Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch" (2000)
- Schönke, Adolf, "Strafgesetzbuch" (1997), Kommentar
- Wezel, Hans, "Fahrlässigkeit und Verkehrsdelikte" (1961), Zur Dogmatik der fahrälssigen Delikte
- Zoll, Rainer, "Alltagssolidarität und Individualismus" (1993), Zum soziokulturellen Wandel
- 김성돈, "과실개념에서 주의의무위반성과 예견가능성", 형사정책연구, 6(4) (1995)
- 김성환, "과실의 체계적 지위에 대한 일고찰", 손해목교수 화갑기념논문집 (1993)
- 김재윤, "위험사회에 있어 형법의 팽창현상에 대한 비판적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 7(1), pp.29~52 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김재희, "위험사회와 과실의 공동정범", 성균관법학, 23(3), pp.271~296 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김학태, "현대위험사회에서의 형법상 귀속구조의 변호", 비교형사법연구, 3(1) (2001)
- 박강건, "위험사회와 형법의 변화", 형사정책연구, 8(4) (1997)
- 박광민, "위험사회의 등장에 따른 형법의 대응", 성균관법학, 18(3), pp.513~534 (2006), 법학연구소
- 서보학, "과실범에 있어서 주의의무위반의 체계적 지위와 판단기준", 형사법연구, 15 (2001)
- 이용식, "과실범에 있어서 주의의무의 객관적 척도와 개인적 척도", 서울대 법학, 30(3) (1998)
- 이용식, "위험사회에서의 법익보호와 적극적 일반예방", 형사정책, 13(1) (2001)
- 이호중, "과실범의 예견가능성", 형사법연구, 11 (1999)
- 조상제, "과실범론의 체계적 재구성", 고시계, 10 (1995)
- 류전철, "위험사회와 위험형법", 법률행정논총, 18 (1998), 전남대 법학연구소
- 류전철, "주의의무위반성의 척도로서 “사려깊은 일반인”의 비판적 검토", 비교형사법연구, 4(1), pp.5~134 (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
- 임광주, "형법에 있어서 과실의 개념", 형사법연구, (16) (2001)
- 하태훈, "결함제조물로 인한 법익침해와 그 형사책임", 형사법연구, 17(17), pp.187~210 (2002), 한국형사법학회
- 한정환, "정상의 주의태만？ 주의의무위반과 과실", 형사법연구, (20), pp.141~161 (2003), 한국형사법학회
- 허일태, "위험사회의 출현과 법의 기능변화", 비교형사법연구, 3(2) (2001)
- Boldt, Gottfried, "Zur Struktur der Fahrlässigkeits- Tat, in: ZStW 68" (1956)
- Burkhardt, Björn, "Tatbestandsmäßiges Verhalten und ex-andte-Betrachtung - Zugleich ein Beitrag wider die Versirrung zwischen dem Subjektiven und dem Objektiven -, In Straftat, Strafzumessung und Strafpozeß im gesamten Strafrechtssystem" (1996)
- Geppert, Klaus, "Zur Abgrenzung von bedingtem Vorsatz und bewußter Farlässigkeit" (1986), Jura
- Herzberg, Rolf Dietrich, "Das vollendete vorsätzliche Begehungsdelikt als qualifiziertes Versuchs-, Fahrlässigkeits- und Unterlassungsdelikt" (1996), JuS
- Kindhäuser, Urs, "Sicherheitsstrafrecht. Gefahren des Strafrechts in der Risikogesellschaft" (1992), Universitas
- Kindhäuser, Urs, "Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 2" (1994)
- Pitschas, Rainer, "Staatliches Management für Risikoinforation zwischen Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung und gesetzlichem Kommunikations- vorbehalt, In Privatrecht im Risikostaat" (1997)
- Schünemann, Bernd, "Über die objektive Zurechnung" (1999), GA
- Spendel, Günter, "Zum Begriff des Vorsatzes" (1987), Lackner-Festschr
- Struensee, Eberhard, "Objektive Zurechnung und Fahrlässigkeit" (1987), GA
- Wolter, Jürgen, "Tatbestandsmäßiges Verhalten und Zurechnung des Erfolges" (1991), GA