정당화적 의무충돌과 면책적 의무충돌
The justified Collision of Obligation and the Collision of Obligation exempted from Responsibility
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are three type of ‘collision of obligations’. One is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’, another is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of omission’,the other is ‘the collision between obligation of omission and obligation of omission’. But, in the true sense of the rule, ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’ is the only ‘collision of obligations’. As for the legal character of ‘collision of obligations’, two parties exist. One is ‘the theory of emergency evacuation’, the other is ‘the theory of the normal usage’. The ‘collision of obligations’ is similar to the emergency evacuation,but there are different points between them. In other words, ‘collision of obligations’ has ‘the compulsion of the act’which must choice and perform the one obligation, and the violation of the rule is revealed by the omission, not the affirmative commission. So ‘collision of obligations’ has its own system which is distinguished from ‘emergency evacuation’. Therefore, it is desirable that ‘collision of obligations’ should be regarded as ‘the legal act by the normal usage’. There are two views in the settlement of the collision of the same valued obligations. One is ‘the theory of offsetting of illegality’, the other is ‘the theory of offsetting of responsibility’. Come to think of it, it is desirable that the collision of the same valued obligations should be regarded as ‘the case which cannot be expected legal act’. To conclude, this collision is ‘the act without the responsibility’.
Abstract
There are three type of ‘collision of obligations’. One is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’, another is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of omission’,the other is ‘the collision between obligation of omission and obligation of omission’. But, in the true sense of the rule, ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’ is the only ‘collision of obligations’. As for the legal character of ‘collision of obligations’, two parties exist. One is ‘the theory of emergency evacuation’, the other is ‘the theory of the normal usage’. The ‘collision of obligations’ is similar to the emergency evacuation,but there are different points between them. In other words, ‘collision of obligations’ has ‘the compulsion of the act’which must choice and perform the one obligation, and the violation of the rule is revealed by the omission, not the affirmative commission. So ‘collision of obligations’ has its own system which is distinguished from ‘emergency evacuation’. Therefore, it is desirable that ‘collision of obligations’ should be regarded as ‘the legal act by the normal usage’. There are two views in the settlement of the collision of the same valued obligations. One is ‘the theory of offsetting of illegality’, the other is ‘the theory of offsetting of responsibility’. Come to think of it, it is desirable that the collision of the same valued obligations should be regarded as ‘the case which cannot be expected legal act’. To conclude, this collision is ‘the act without the responsibility’.
참고문헌 (27)
- 권오걸, "형법총론, 제3판" (2009), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법총론, 제2판" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법총론, 제11판" (2008), 박영사
- 김일수, "한국형법 I, 개정판" (1996), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법총론, 제8판" (2009), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법총론, 제9개정판" (2009), 박영사
- 신동운, "형법총론, 제4판", 법문사
- 이재상, "형법총론, 제6신판" (2010), 박영사
- 손해목, "의무의 충돌 (上)", 월간고시, 174, pp.31~ (1988)
- 윤용규, "의무의 충돌에 관한 고찰", 사회과학연구, 32, pp.32~ (1992), 강원대학교
- 하태훈, "초법규적 면책사유로서 의무의 충돌, 현대형사법론 - 박양빈교수화갑기념논문집", pp.687~ (1996), 법문사
- Binding, Karl, "Handbuch des Strafrechts, Band. I, 1885 (Neudr. 1991)", ~ (1885)
- "Cicero, De Officiis, Book III: The Conflict between the Right and the Expedient, CXXIII, edited and transrated by Walter Miller"[URL]
- Gallas, Wilhelm, "Pflichtenkollision als Schuldausschließungsgrund, Festschrift für Edmund Mezger zum 70. Geburtstag, 1954, 311ff", ~ (1954)
- Gropp, Walter, "Die „Pflichtenkollision‟: weder eine Kollision noch Phlichten in Kollision, Festschrift für Hans Joachim Hirsch zum 70. Geburtstag, 1999, 207ff", ~ (1999)
- "Hirsch, Hans Joachim, Strafrecht und rechtsfreier Raum, Festschrift für Paul Bockelmann zum 70. Geburtstag, 1979, 89ff", ~ (1979)
- Hirsch, Strafgesetzbuch, "Leipziger Kommentar, Großkommentar, 11. Aufl., 1994, Vor § 32", ~ (1994)
- Hruschka, Joachim, "Pflichtenkollision und Pflichtenkonkurrenzen, Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 80. Geburtstag, 1983, 257ff", ~ (1983)
- Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, "Lehrbuch des Strafrechts : allgemeiner Teil, 5.,vollständig neubearb. und erw. Aufl", ~ (1996)
- Kaufmann, Arthur, "Rechtsfreier Raum und eigenverantwortliche Entscheidung, Festschrift für Maurach zum 70. Geburtstag, 1972, 327ff", ~ (1972)
- Küper, Wilfried, "Grund- und Grenzfragen der rechtfertigenden Pflichtenkollision im Strafrecht", ~ (1979)
- Mangakis, Georgios, "Die Pflichtenkollision als Grenzsituation des Strafrecht, ZStW 84, 1972, 447", ~ (1972)
- Otto, Harro, "Pflichtenkollision und Rechtswidrigkieitsurteil, 3.Aufl", ~ (1978)
- "Paeffgen, Hans-Ullich, Nomos Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch Band 1, 2. Aufl., 2005. Vor §§32 bis 35", ~ (2005)
- Roxin, Claus, "Die notstandsähnliche Lage - ein Strafunrechtsausschließungsgrund?, Festschrift für Dietrich Oehler zum 70. Geburtstag, 1985, 181ff", ~ (1985)
- Roxin, Claus, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I, Grundlagen․Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4.Auflage", ~ (2006)
- Schlehofer, Horst, "Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch 1. Aufl., 2003, Vor § 32", ~ (2003)