도주선박죄의 적용범위와 몇 가지 문제점
The Applicable Scope and Several Problems of Crimes of Escape from Ships
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Article 5(12) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was enacted as the tendency of failure subject to the duty of measures spread out, even if the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides it in the case of the accidents in order to eliminate urgent dangers and disasters quickly with one's life and body resulting from any accidents. However, a precedent study of Crimes of Escape from Ships under Article 5(12) of the Act is still inadequate so that this paper examines the problems as follows under the interpretation with elements of the crime of escape from ships. First, the crime of escape from ships shall occur from 'the traffic of ships'. In this regard, it is natural that the traffic shall consider the definition of traffic as an act which is related with the movement of ships in oder to interpret it literally since it is not expressly stipulated in the Act. However, no substantive enactment has a controversial question and it shall be stipulated more clearly. For instance, if the scope becomes clear as 'during sailing a ship' or 'operating a ship' is revised, the applicable scope of crimes of escape from ships can be cleared so that a predictability is guaranteed. Second, in order to constitute the crime of escape from ships, the offense under Article 268 of the Criminal Act shall be committed. In other words, it shall generate the result of death and injury by occupational or gross negligence by negligence. However, it is a problem that the crime of escape from ships is established only if a result is generated by negligence, which makes the imbalance of penalty that the crime is punished additionally higher than a person who causes an accident intentionally. Therefore, it is reasonable to revise the provision proportionate with quantity of liability after distinguishing the case of generating an accident intentionally from negligently. Third, the scope of 'measures to rescue victims under the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act shall be interpreted faithfully under the benefit and protection of the law and literal meaning of terms of the Act. The benefit and protection of escape shall be seen as the safety of victim's life and body who has death and injury resulting from an accident and the measure under the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act is the one to rescue victims, which shall be seen as a series of the measures in order to protect victim's life and body.
Abstract
Article 5(12) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was enacted as the tendency of failure subject to the duty of measures spread out, even if the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides it in the case of the accidents in order to eliminate urgent dangers and disasters quickly with one's life and body resulting from any accidents. However, a precedent study of Crimes of Escape from Ships under Article 5(12) of the Act is still inadequate so that this paper examines the problems as follows under the interpretation with elements of the crime of escape from ships. First, the crime of escape from ships shall occur from 'the traffic of ships'. In this regard, it is natural that the traffic shall consider the definition of traffic as an act which is related with the movement of ships in oder to interpret it literally since it is not expressly stipulated in the Act. However, no substantive enactment has a controversial question and it shall be stipulated more clearly. For instance, if the scope becomes clear as 'during sailing a ship' or 'operating a ship' is revised, the applicable scope of crimes of escape from ships can be cleared so that a predictability is guaranteed. Second, in order to constitute the crime of escape from ships, the offense under Article 268 of the Criminal Act shall be committed. In other words, it shall generate the result of death and injury by occupational or gross negligence by negligence. However, it is a problem that the crime of escape from ships is established only if a result is generated by negligence, which makes the imbalance of penalty that the crime is punished additionally higher than a person who causes an accident intentionally. Therefore, it is reasonable to revise the provision proportionate with quantity of liability after distinguishing the case of generating an accident intentionally from negligently. Third, the scope of 'measures to rescue victims under the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act shall be interpreted faithfully under the benefit and protection of the law and literal meaning of terms of the Act. The benefit and protection of escape shall be seen as the safety of victim's life and body who has death and injury resulting from an accident and the measure under the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act is the one to rescue victims, which shall be seen as a series of the measures in order to protect victim's life and body.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2000), 동현출판사
- 김형준, "음주운전과 형사책임" (2007), 진원사
- 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" (2011), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2006), 홍문사
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2008), 성균관대학교출판부
- 손기식, "교통형법" (2000), 한국사법행정학회
- 오영근, "형법각론 제3판" (2014), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2012), 박영사
- 정신교, "교통범죄론" (2008), 한국학술정보
- 정영일, "형법각론" (2011), 박영사
- 진계호, "형법각론" (2000), 대왕사
- 김동건, "『법학논집』취봉 김용철선생 고희기념 논문집" (1993), 박영사
- 김형준, "도로교통법상 교통사고시 조치의무위반", 법조, 52(3) (2003), 법조협회
- 조상제, "형사판례연구5" (1997), 박영사
- 한상훈, "특가법 제5조의3(도주운전죄)과 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위", 형사정책연구, 11(3) (2000), 한국형사정책연구원
- 황상현, "형사판례연구3" (1995), 박영사
- 황일호, "특가법상 도주죄에 있어서의 구호의무 -신원고지의무를 중심으로-", 중앙법학, 11(3), pp.179~212 (2009), 중앙법학회
