해석근거로서의 ‘법질서의 통일성’과 ‘형법의 독자성’
‘Unity of legal order’ and ‘Identity of criminal law’ as Basis of interpretation
0
조회
0
다운로드
22
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper treats which two perspectives, namely unity of legal order and identity of criminal law can be applied as concrete forms of interpretation in criminal law or not. To answer this question, I examined the characteristics of these requests and their roles in the interpretation of criminal law. My opinion is that these requests can be regarded as legal principles, and therefore they can be used as forms of argumentation in the interpretation of criminal law like other methods or arguments of interpretation or other principles. But so far as man regards them as kinds of principles, there is a limit in applying them. The very limit is that legal principles must be used only subsidiarily in the interpretation of criminal law(so-called 'subsidiarity of principle-application'). In other words, this means that legal principles can be applied to interpret the concepts or words of criminal law just in case the relatively concrete arguments or forms of interpretation can not be used. The same applies to the other principles.
Abstract
This paper treats which two perspectives, namely unity of legal order and identity of criminal law can be applied as concrete forms of interpretation in criminal law or not. To answer this question, I examined the characteristics of these requests and their roles in the interpretation of criminal law. My opinion is that these requests can be regarded as legal principles, and therefore they can be used as forms of argumentation in the interpretation of criminal law like other methods or arguments of interpretation or other principles. But so far as man regards them as kinds of principles, there is a limit in applying them. The very limit is that legal principles must be used only subsidiarily in the interpretation of criminal law(so-called 'subsidiarity of principle-application'). In other words, this means that legal principles can be applied to interpret the concepts or words of criminal law just in case the relatively concrete arguments or forms of interpretation can not be used. The same applies to the other principles.
참고문헌 (20)
- 김상호, "형법각론", pp.132~ (2004), 세종출판사
- 권오걸, , pp.151~ (2009), 형설출판사
- 김성돈, "형법각론", pp.140~ (2009), 성균관대학교출판부
- 김일수, "형법각론", pp.145~146 (2007), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)", pp.134~ (2008), 박영사
- 배종대, "형법각론", pp.232~ (2010), 홍문사
- 이영란, , pp.150~ (2010), 형설출판사
- 임웅, "형법각론", pp.142~ (2001), 법문사
- 정성근, "형법각론", pp.140~ (2002), 삼지원
- 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)", pp.122~ (2008), 박영사
- 이정원, "형법각론", pp.188~ (2000), 법지사
- "大判 1987.2.10, 86도2472", ~
- 김상호, "형법각론", pp.272~ (2004), 세종출판사
- 오영근, "형법각론", pp.300~ (2009), 박영사
- 김성천, "형법각론", pp.402~ (2000), 동현출판사
- 로베르트 알렉시, "법적 논증이론", pp.336~ (2007), 고려대학교출판부
- 변종필, "성범죄관련 입법동향과 형법의 정향(定向)", 강원법학, 33, pp.407~441 (2011), 비교법학연구소
- 변종필, "형법해석에서 법정책적 논거원용의 타당성문제", 형사법연구, (26), pp.509~518 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- Ronald Dworkin, "The Model of RulesⅠ, In Taking Rights Seriously(7 edit.)", pp.24~ (1994)
- Robert Alexy, "Zum Begriff des Rechtsprinzips, In Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurisprudenz", pp.63~ (1979)