본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부진정부작위범의 작위의무에 관한 연구

Study on the Liability to Act of Disingenuous Negligence

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The legal liability that bases the acknowledgement of disingenuous negligence can be defined as 'a liability that is being forced to be fulfilled or should be forced by the official restrictive means'. The judgement criteria that were first used for legal liability to act are legislation, contract, and ingerenz(Precedent act) which are the grounds for guarantor position development based on the formality theory. Formality theory is useful in a way that it has a definite judgement criteria. However, it gives difficulty when differentiating between when and when not to acknowledge the legal liability to act in an actual practice. Practicality theory is the theory that was created to overcome the formality theory's problem by judging the acknowledgement of the liability to act in more practical sense. However, practicality theory also poses a problem in a sense that a crystalized judgement criteria is not yet provided to decide in what circumstance a liability to act should be acknowledged. Unified theory, theory, on the other hand, combines above two theories as to complement each other's cons and pros. There is, however, criticism against this theory seeing that the two theories are of the two very different characters so that connecting their judgement criteria is not reasonable. Yet, I believe that if we develop the ways to combine the two theories appropriately, a reasonable judgement criteria that is applicable to specific cases can be constructed. The legal liability to act that bases the acknowledgement of disingenuous negligence should be categorized according to the specific characters of the conditions that the legal liability to act should thought to be acknowledged but not by the type of the regulations that are the bases for acknowledgement of liability such as legislation, contract, and logic. Furthermore, a condition where the legal liability to act takes place can be further classified into two cases: acknowledging the guarantor position as an obligant of protection or as an obligant of management. However, because this classification is insufficient to present each condition's categorical contents in detail, it needs more specificity.

Abstract

The legal liability that bases the acknowledgement of disingenuous negligence can be defined as 'a liability that is being forced to be fulfilled or should be forced by the official restrictive means'. The judgement criteria that were first used for legal liability to act are legislation, contract, and ingerenz(Precedent act) which are the grounds for guarantor position development based on the formality theory. Formality theory is useful in a way that it has a definite judgement criteria. However, it gives difficulty when differentiating between when and when not to acknowledge the legal liability to act in an actual practice. Practicality theory is the theory that was created to overcome the formality theory's problem by judging the acknowledgement of the liability to act in more practical sense. However, practicality theory also poses a problem in a sense that a crystalized judgement criteria is not yet provided to decide in what circumstance a liability to act should be acknowledged. Unified theory, theory, on the other hand, combines above two theories as to complement each other's cons and pros. There is, however, criticism against this theory seeing that the two theories are of the two very different characters so that connecting their judgement criteria is not reasonable. Yet, I believe that if we develop the ways to combine the two theories appropriately, a reasonable judgement criteria that is applicable to specific cases can be constructed. The legal liability to act that bases the acknowledgement of disingenuous negligence should be categorized according to the specific characters of the conditions that the legal liability to act should thought to be acknowledged but not by the type of the regulations that are the bases for acknowledgement of liability such as legislation, contract, and logic. Furthermore, a condition where the legal liability to act takes place can be further classified into two cases: acknowledging the guarantor position as an obligant of protection or as an obligant of management. However, because this classification is insufficient to present each condition's categorical contents in detail, it needs more specificity.

참고문헌 (44)

  1. 김성돈, "형법총론" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
  2. 김성천, "형법총론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
  3. 김성천, "형법각론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
  4. 김일수, "형법총론" (2000), 박영사
  5. 김일수, "형법총론" (2002), 박영사
  6. 文採圭, "不眞正不作爲犯의 可罰性要件에 관한 고찰", 박사, 법학, pp.1993
  7. 박상기, "형법총론" (2004), 박영사
  8. 배종대, "형법총론" (2004), 홍문사
  9. 성낙현, "형법총론" (2010), 동방문화사
  10. 손동권, "형법총론" (2004), 율곡출판사
  11. 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
  12. 신동운, "형법총론" (2001), 법문사
  13. 오영근, "형법총론" (2005), 박영사
  14. 유기천, "형법학 - 총론강의" (1983), 일조각
  15. 이재상, "형법총론" (2003), 박영사
  16. 이정원, "형법총론" (1999), 법지사
  17. 이형국, "형법총론" (1992), 법문사
  18. 임웅, "비범죄화의 이론" (1999), 법문사
  19. 임웅, "형법총론" (2011), 법문사
  20. 정성근, "형법총론" (2005), 삼지원
  21. 정영일, "제3판 형법총론" (2010), 박영사
  22. 정대관, "부진정부작위범에 관한 연구 - 특히 객관적 구성요건요소를 중심으로 -", 박사, pp.1991
  23. 진계호, "형법총론" (1996), 대왕사
  24. 황산덕, "형법총론" (1982), 방문사
  25. Kindhäuser, "Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar" (2010)
  26. Adolf Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar" (2010)
  27. 김성룡, "다수인의 공동의 의사결정에서의 형법해석학적 문제점- 과실범에 있어서 부작위의 공동정범 -", 비교형사법연구, 4(1), pp.6~176 (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
  28. 김성룡, "부진정부작위범의 한국적 해석으로서 단일정범개념", 비교형사법연구, 5(1), pp.5~136 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
  29. 김성천, "비범죄화", 중앙법학, (2) (2000)
  30. 김창군, "비범죄화의 실현방안", 형사정책, (8) (1996)
  31. 김태명, "부작위에 의한 살인죄와 타인의 부작위범의 인과관계", 고시계 (2006)
  32. 류화진, "부작위범의 인과관계", 비교형사법연구, 7(1), pp.99~124 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
  33. 류화진, "위험 개념에 근거한 부작위범의 보증인지위 - 형법상 위험개념의 체계적 해석과 관련하여 -", 홍익법학, 12(2), pp.195~215 (2011), 법학연구소
  34. 송문호, "독일형법상 부작위의 인과관계 - 법철학적 관점에서의 분석을 중심으로 -,", 형사법연구, (14) (2000)
  35. 신양균, "부진정부작위범에 있어서 보증인적 지위", 『법학연구』 (전북대 법학연구소), 13 (1986)
  36. 신양균, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속 (I)", 고시계 (1986)
  37. 신양균, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속 (II)", 고시계 (1986)
  38. 원형식, "부진정부작위범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속", 중앙법학, 12(4), pp.111~136 (2010), 중앙법학회
  39. 윤종행, "不作爲의 因果性", 법학연구, 13(3), pp.157~174 (2003), 법학연구원
  40. 이용식, "부진정부작위범에 있어서 작위가능성과 결과회피가능성의 의미내용 - 부작위범의 실행행위와 인과관계의 구별 -", 고시계 (2005)
  41. 이재상, "과실범의 공동정범", 형사법연구, (14) (2000)
  42. 하태영, "형법상 부작위범이 인정되기 위한 요건", 비교형사법연구, 5(1) (2003)
  43. Henkel, "Das Methodenproblem bei den unechten Unterlassungsdelikten", MSchrKrim
  44. Kühl, "Die Unterlassungsdelikte als Problemfall für Rechtsphilosophie, Strafrechtsdogmatik und Verfassungsrecht", 177~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)