업무방해죄의 법적 성질과 결과발생의 요부
0
조회
0
다운로드
19
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Though the article 314(Interference with Business) of Korean Criminal Code requires the result of interference with the business of another in constitution of that crime, those who give rise to a danger of the result are being judged guilty of it in judicial trials. To prohibit the excessive application overpunishment by the judiciary authorities, this article suggests some points. First, the means of interference with Business, that is fraudulent means or the threat of force, are so vague that it might infringe on the liberty of speech and press, and of meeting and assembly. So they should be interpreted within a narrow boundary or restricted to similar degree to violence or intimidation. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases in which the result of interference with the business of another are practically occurred. Because the attempt to commit that crime shall not be punished, the interference with the business could not be punished for that crime so long as it put an end to causing that result.
Abstract
Though the article 314(Interference with Business) of Korean Criminal Code requires the result of interference with the business of another in constitution of that crime, those who give rise to a danger of the result are being judged guilty of it in judicial trials. To prohibit the excessive application overpunishment by the judiciary authorities, this article suggests some points. First, the means of interference with Business, that is fraudulent means or the threat of force, are so vague that it might infringe on the liberty of speech and press, and of meeting and assembly. So they should be interpreted within a narrow boundary or restricted to similar degree to violence or intimidation. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases in which the result of interference with the business of another are practically occurred. Because the attempt to commit that crime shall not be punished, the interference with the business could not be punished for that crime so long as it put an end to causing that result.
참고문헌 (23)
- 김일수, "형법각론(제7판)" (2007)
- 김성돈, "형법총론(제2판)" (2009)
- 김성돈, "형법각론(제2판)" (2009)
- 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)" (2008)
- 배종대, "형법각론(제6전정판)" (2006)
- 백형구, "형법각론" (1999)
- 손동권, "형법각론(제2개정판)" (2006)
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2002)
- 임웅, "형법총론(개정판 제2보정)" (2008)
- 임웅, "형법각론(개정판보정)" (2007)
- 이재상, "형법총론(제6판)" (2009)
- 이재상, "형법각론(제6판)" (2009)
- 이형국, "형법각론" (2007)
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2002)
- 정영일, "형법각론(개정판)" (2004)
- 김순태, "파업에 대한 업무방해죄 적용불가론 및 업무방해죄의 위헌성", 민주법학, (12) (1997)
- 김성돈, "침해범·위험범, 결과범·거동범, 그리고 기수·미수의 구별기준", 형사판례연구, 17, pp.1~24 (2009), 한국형사판례연구회
- 김경수, "“비인증 대학이 가짜 대학은 아니다”, 교회연합신문 제705호(2007. 9. 16)", ~ (2007)
- 박홍규, "업무방해죄 판례의 비상식성", 영남법학, 5(1) (1992)
- 오기수, "‘미국 비인증 학위 사용은 불법’ 명시 하자, 조선일보 2007. 12. 26.자", ~ (2007)
- 정현미, "인과과정에 개입된 타인의 행위와 객관적 귀속", 형사판례연구, 9 (2001)
- 하태훈, "협박죄의 범죄구성요건 유형", 형사판례연구, 16 (2008)
- 한인섭, "일반교통방해죄와 집회시위에의 그 적용을 둘러싼 문제", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.353~374 (2009), 한국형사법학회