http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : 내심적 의사 (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
朴澯柱(Park Chan-Ju) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2008 東亞法學 Vol.- No.42
The writer takes up the position to comprehend the substance of manifestation of intention according to the doctrine of declarant's intent. But Korean Civil Act stipulates the provisions for manifestation of unreal intention(§107), and the effect of manifestation must be determined by interpretation of the corresponding provision. The real problem is why the Act §107 provides declarant's manifestation null and void only when the other party was aware or should have been aware declarant's real intention. The writer's reasoning is as following. : Declarant's assertion of his manifestation of intention null and void is contrary to his previous result-oriented intention and is not permitted by the doctrine of prohibition of contrary act clashing against previous act knowingly done or the doctrine of trust and good faith. The writer also conclude the relation between real intention and result-oriented intention as following. : The meaning of true intention in the term of manifestation of unreal intention is identical with result-oriented intention. Declarant's act done unavoidably but undesirably can be a manifestation of real intention if he did that act with the belief of utmost good judgment. In this respect, real intention differs from declarant's wish or expectation of non-occurrence of undesirable act and the writer does not agree with the precedents that distinguish real intention from result-oriented intention. Only on this ground, we can satisfactorily explain the reason manifestation of intention by duress is not classified under manifestation of unreal intention.
-
미국 주 형법상 자살관여행위 규제에 관한 입장과 그 시사점
임정호(Jung Ho Lim) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2014 江原法學 Vol.41 No.-
우리 형법의 해석상 일반적으로 적극적 안락사 내지 이른바 존엄사는 위법성이 조각되는 사유로 해석되지 않는다. 또한 자살을 원하는 자에 대한 자살관여행위 역시 형법상 자살방조죄 내지 자살교사죄로 처벌된다. 한편 우리나라 대법원은 2009년 5월 21일 회복 불가능한 말기(사망의 단계에 진입한) 환자에게 무의미한 연명치료의 중지를 허용하는 판결을 내렸다. 이 문제와 관련하여 2009년 2월 국회에 ‘존엄사법안’이 제출되었고, 최근에도 이를 다듬은 법률안이 정부 주도 하에 준비중이다. 그렇다면 이제 우리나라에서 말기 환자가 치료를 거부할 권리를 넘어서 자살권 내지 죽을 권리를 보유하는가도 논란이 될 수 있다. 미국의 경우 환자의 치료거부권 문제와 자살권에 대한 논의가 형법상 살인행위의 문제라기보다는 자살관여행위(주로 자살방조죄)의 문제로 다루어져 왔다. 미국은 우리보다 앞서 이 문제에 대하여 연방대법원의 몇 차례 판결이 있었고, 각 주에서 존엄사를 허용하거나 혹은 자살관여행위로 보아 처벌하도록 규정하는 등 연방과 주 차원에서 다각적 접근법을 보이고 있다. 본 연구는 존엄사 허용여부에 대한 판단의 뒷받침이 될 수 있는 미국의 형법상 자살관여행위에 대한 동향을 검토하여 그 시사점을 찾는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 치료거부권과 대비되는 자살권에 대한 검토를 바탕으로, 형법상 내심적 의사와 인과관계에 관한 판단의 개입가능성을 살펴 본 후, 각 주가 자살관여행위로서의 의사 주도 존엄사를 어떻게 형법적 규제대상으로 삼는지에 대하여 고찰하도록 한다. 다음으로 주 형법상 자살관여행위 해석에 있어서의 몇 가지 논점을 검토한 후, 미국법상 피해자의 승낙이 자살관여행위 및 살인행위에서 항변사유로 채택되지 못하는 본질적 이유를 살펴 그 시사점을 찾도록 한다. 이상의 검토를 바탕으로 미국의 주 법상 존엄사에 대한 자살관여행위로서의 형사처벌 여부는 자살권 내지 죽을 권리의 인정 여부에 의존치 않는다는 점을 인정한다. 오히려 형법상 자살관여행위에 있어서 행위자의 내심적 의사와 인과관계의 판단, 그리고 피해자의 승낙 불인정 이유와의 관련성이 중시되어야 함을 강조한다. 따라서 우리나라에서의 존엄사법 제정 여부는 자살권 인정여부라는 헌법적 문제에 치중할 사항이 아님을 확인한다. The Korean Supreme Court ordered to eliminate device for life-suspending treatment from a patient in 2009. It seems that the concept of ‘Death with Dignity’ in Korea is mingled with the concept of Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatment or Assisted-Suicide. Recently, Korean Government and Congress also try to make legislation for ‘Death with Dignity’ although the Right to Suicide has never been accepted. And it does not exactly square with the meaning from the general classifications on passive euthanasia which is not a crime in the current interpretation of the Korean Penal Code. On the basis of the critical mind on these problems under the Korean Penal Code, the Article here reviews how the U.S. Supreme Court has handled the possibility of accepting the Right to Suicide of terminally ill patient as a fundamental right and its own interpretation of Criminal Law basis such as criminal intent and causation. Hence, it examines the leading cases on Assisted-Suicide. Futhermore, it overviews a diversity of legislation and its interpretation on Assisted-Suicide. Moreover, this Article concludes that legislation on ‘Death with Dignity’ does not need to depend on whether the Right to Suicide should be protected as a fundamental right. Rather, it should be back to basic concept of criminal defense of the Victim’s Concent.
-
박찬주 전남대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학논총 Vol.28 No.1
The most important controversy over characteristics of legal act is the controversy over characteristics of mistake, and mistake of motive lies in the center of mistake controversy. Korean Civil Act §109 does not prescribe mistake connecting with motive. For this reason, various theories about relation between §109 mistake and mistake of motive are put forward. The Supreme Court holds that, in order to revoke a legal act for the reason of motive mistake, that motive must be manifested and included in the content of the legal act with an exception where a party's will to conclude the legal act is decided or prompted by the other party's unfair means. The Supreme Court's reasoning is severely criticized by various grounds. But this article agrees with the Supreme Court's standpoint principally. The writer's approval based on the following ground. : Permission of revocation by the reason of motive mistake compels the other party to alter the content of the concluded legal act. And the writer adds that the manifested but not included motive should be treated as rejected to be the content of the legal act. Other topics treated in this article is : ① the relation between mistake of motive and the other sort of mistakes, ② whether the other party's knowledge or knowledgeability is an undescribed requisite. The writer agrees with the negative assertion. The most important controversy over characteristics of legal act is the controversy over characteristics of mistake, and mistake of motive lies in the center of mistake controversy. Korean Civil Act §109 does not prescribe mistake connecting with motive. For this reason, various theories about relation between §109 mistake and mistake of motive are put forward. The Supreme Court holds that, in order to revoke a legal act for the reason of motive mistake, that motive must be manifested and included in the content of the legal act with an exception where a party's will to conclude the legal act is decided or prompted by the other party's unfair means. The Supreme Court's reasoning is severely criticized by various grounds. But this article agrees with the Supreme Court's standpoint principally. The writer's approval based on the following ground. : Permission of revocation by the reason of motive mistake compels the other party to alter the content of the concluded legal act. And the writer adds that the manifested but not included motive should be treated as rejected to be the content of the legal act. Other topics treated in this article is : ① the relation between mistake of motive and the other sort of mistakes, ② whether the other party's knowledge or knowledgeability is an undescribed requisite. The writer agrees with the negative assertion.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
