조직내 배후자의 형사책임과 형법 제34조의 재음미
Criminal liability of wirepuller within organization and reexamination of criminal code article 34
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the past, when dealing with such a crime, the criminal liability of an individual that instigated or instructed the crime is rarely considered. Only an individual that directly committed the crime is usually considered for his/her liability. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on the criminal liability of wirepuller within an organization and criminal code article 34. The order of this dissertation is as follows. First, briefly assessed the concept of “wirepuller” within an organization, the current regulations on organized crime, and the relation between the criminal liability of organization and individual. Second, in cases of the so-called “organizational domination”, briefly surveyed various theories, including the ones advanced in Germany and Japan, which deal with the question of whether a wirepuller is responsible as a principal offender. In conclusion, a wirepuller may have possibilities of becoming a principle offender through innocent human agent, joint principal offender or aninstigator. Lastly, based on the previous discussions, reviewed and stated my personal views on the current debate over the revision of the criminal law of Korea(specially, criminal code article 34) associated with the issue of criminal liability of wirepuller within an organization.
Abstract
In the past, when dealing with such a crime, the criminal liability of an individual that instigated or instructed the crime is rarely considered. Only an individual that directly committed the crime is usually considered for his/her liability. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on the criminal liability of wirepuller within an organization and criminal code article 34. The order of this dissertation is as follows. First, briefly assessed the concept of “wirepuller” within an organization, the current regulations on organized crime, and the relation between the criminal liability of organization and individual. Second, in cases of the so-called “organizational domination”, briefly surveyed various theories, including the ones advanced in Germany and Japan, which deal with the question of whether a wirepuller is responsible as a principal offender. In conclusion, a wirepuller may have possibilities of becoming a principle offender through innocent human agent, joint principal offender or aninstigator. Lastly, based on the previous discussions, reviewed and stated my personal views on the current debate over the revision of the criminal law of Korea(specially, criminal code article 34) associated with the issue of criminal liability of wirepuller within an organization.
참고문헌 (33)
- 권오걸, "형법 제34조의 해석론의 관점에서 본 간접정범의 정범성과 성립범위", 형사법연구, (19), pp.241~272 (2003), 한국형사법학회
- 김성규, "조직범죄에 대한 규제조항으로서의 형법 제114조 제1항의 기능과 한계", 형사법연구, (19), pp.323~350 (2003), 한국형사법학회
- 김종구, "간접정범의 성립범위에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2000
- 법무부, "형법(총칙)일부개정법률안제안 이유서", ~ (2011)
- 오열근, "조직의 개념에 관한 연구 - 유명론과 실재론의 논쟁과 관련하여", 정책과학연구, (3) (1991)
- 이무신, "Definition of Organizations Reconsidered", 인적자원개발연구, 5(2) (2003)
- 이승호, "형법총칙 공범분야 개정방안", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.143~178 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 이주희, "조직지배에 의한 간접정범의 성립요건과 적용한계", 청주법학, 32(2) (2010)
- 김성규, "조직범죄와 형사법" (2004), 법문사
- 조병선, "국가권력을 이용한 살상행위의 배후자, In 공범론과 형사법의 제문제(심경정성근교수화갑기념논문집) 상권" (1997), 삼영사
- 최호진, "조직에 있어서 배후자의 형사처벌 가능성", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.159~186 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 하태훈, "정범배후의 정범이론", 고시연구 (1999)
- 伊東研袥, "組織体の刑事責任 論の近時の展開について, In 鈴木茂嗣先生 古稀祝賀論文集 (上卷)" (2007), 成文堂
- 佐久間, "共同正犯における集団犯罪の法理, In 刑事法學の現實と展開(齊藤誠二先生古稀記念)" (2002)
- 齊藤金, "共犯理論の硏究" (1954), 有斐閣
- 草野豹一郞, "刑法改正上の重要問題" (1950), 巌松堂書店
- 下村康正, "共謀共同正犯と共犯理論" (1976), 学陽書房
- Ambos, "Tatherrschaft durch Willensherrschaft kraft organsatorischer Machtapparate", GA (1998)
- Bloy, "Grenzen der Täterschaft bei fremdhändiger Tatausführung", GA (1996)
- F-C. Schroeder, "Der Sprung des Täters hinter den Täter aus der Theorie in die Praxis, zugleich Besorechungsaufsatz zum Urteil des BGH v. 26.7.94 - 5StR 98", 94, 1995, ~
- Gropp, "Die Mitglieder des Nationalen Verteidigungsrates als “Mittelbare Mit-Täter hinter denTätern?- BGHSt 40, 218", JuS, 40 (1996)
- Herzberg, "Mittelbaren Täterschaft und Anstiftung in formalen Organisationen, In Individuelle Verantwortung und Beteiligungsverhältnisse bei Straftaten in bürokratischen Organisationen des Staates, der Wirtschaft und der Gesellschaft" (2000), der Wirtschaft und der Gesellschaft
- Jakobs, "Anmerkung zum Urteil des BGH vom 26.7.1994", NStZ (1995)
- Jung, "Strafrechtliche Verantworlichkeit von Mitgliedern des Nationalen Verteidigungsrates der DDR für Tötungen an der DDR-Grenzen", JuS (1995)
- Murmann, "Tatherrschaft durch Weisungsmacht", GA (1996)
- Otto, "Täterschaft kraft organisatorischen Machtapparates", Jura (2001)
- R. L. Daft, "Organization Theory and Design, 6th ed." (1998)
- Roxin, StGB, "Leipziger Kommentar" (1993)
- Roxin, "Straftaten im Rahmen organisatorischer Machtapparate", GA (1963)
- Roxin, "Organisationsherrschaft als eigenständige Form mittelbare Täterschaft", ZStrR (2007)
- Samson, "Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch" (1993)
- Schall, "Zur Strafbarkeit von Amtsträgern in Umweltverwaltungsbehörden", JuS (1993)
- Wohlers, "Der Erlass fehlerhafter Genehmigungsbescheide als Grundlage mittelbarer Täterschaft", ZStW, 108 (1996)