자살관여죄에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Crime of Aiding and Abetting Suicide

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The crime of aiding and abetting suicide applies to a person who instigates or aids and abets another to commit suicide, and the legal interest is other person's life. Life is an absolute legal interest. Although suicide is not a crime, life should be protected regardless of the intention of survival and the act of abetting and betting of suicide is regulated as crime. A person who instigates of aids and abets another to commit suicide is regarded as a independent principal not an accomplice, for a person who commits suicide cannot be a principal because suicide is not a crime.
There is some arguments that statutory punishment for the crime of aiding and abetting suicide should be lowered, but there is not enough validity for arguing that murder upon request or with consent is more responsible than the act of abetting and betting suicide, so current criminal act need not to be revised. And there is also an argument that statutory punishment for instigation should be lowered than aiding and abetting, but both infringes legal interest of another one's life, it is not unreasonable to maintain same statutory punishment.
The crime of aiding and abetting suicide is punished on the same legal basis of other criminal cases. And also, it needs to be punished because there are murders disguised as suicide. Aside from the legal basis of the crime of abetting and betting suicide, suicide is not punished because our constitution admits the right of self-determination. The Crime Act on the abetting and betting suicide infringes the right of self-determination indirectly but the right of self-determination can be regulated by the law on the basis of Constitution Article 37-2, it has validity if it follows the limit of legislation on the basic human right restriction.
The principal agent of the abetting and betting suicide is narrowly construed as the one that has the protective obligation by 'law, contract, and good deed', so the protective obligation should be adjusted and the basis of generation of surety status also has to be construed accordingly.
The beginning of execution starts when a person of abetting and betting suicide begins to instigate or aid and abet. Also, the problem of principal and accomplice is treated as that of other criminal cases but the crime of abetting and betting suicide has to be construed differently because it has the properties of abetting and instigating.
It is very important that the problems related to suicide should be examined legally other than theologically, philosophically and mentally, which makes us know when we will be punished or not if we get involved in other person's suicide. As a result, freedom of action and other human rights can be guaranteed in substance.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 3
• 제2장 자살관여죄의 의의 및 연혁 5
• 제1절 자살관여죄의 의의 5
• Ⅰ. 자살관여죄는 공범인가 정범인가 6
• Ⅱ. 위계위력에 의한 살인죄와의 구별 8
• Ⅲ. 촉탁승낙에 의한 살인죄(동의살인죄)와의 구별 11
• Ⅳ. 의사조력자살과의 문제 12
• Ⅴ. 합의동사의 법률관계 14
• 제2절 보호법익 14
• 제3절 연혁적 입법과정 16
• Ⅰ. 외국의 경우 16
• 1. 독일 17
• 2. 일본 17
• 3. 영국 19
• 4. 미국 20
• 5. 기타 국가 21
• Ⅱ. 우리나라 21
• 1. 연혁적 입법과정 21
• 2. 개정론 26
• (1) 실행의 착수시기 문제 27
• (2) 법정형의 적정성 문제 30
• 제3장 자살관여죄의 처벌근거 32
• 제1절 자살의 법적성격 32
• 제2절 자살관여죄의 처벌근거 36
• 제4장 자살관여죄와 총칙상의 교사방조죄와의 비교 40
• 제1절 자살교사죄와 총칙상의 교사죄와의 비교 41
• Ⅰ. 적용되는 규정상의 차이 41
• Ⅱ. 성립요건상의 차이 42
• Ⅲ. 교사범의 처벌 50
• 제2절 자살방조죄와 총칙상의 방조죄와의 비교 51
• Ⅰ. 적용되는 규정상의 차이 51
• Ⅱ. 성립요건상의 차이 52
• Ⅲ. 방조범의 처벌 59
• 제5장 자살관여죄의 내용 60
• 제1절 행위주체 60
• Ⅰ. 정신적 방조에 의한 자살방조죄에 있어서의 행위주체 제한해석 61
• Ⅱ. 판례사안에의 적용 67
• 1. 대법원 1992. 7. 24.선고 92도1148판결 67
• 2. 춘천지법원주지원 2009. 7. 16.선고 2009고합30판결 67
• 제2절 행위객체 68
• 제3절 교사방조행위 69
• 제4절 인과관계와 객관적 귀속 70
• 제5절 실행의 착수시기 73
• 제6절 자살관여죄와 공범문제 73
• Ⅰ. 자살관여죄와 작위에 의한 공범문제 73
• Ⅱ. 자살관여죄와 부작위에 의한 공범문제 74
• 제6장 결론 78
• 참고문헌 81