가토의 비후성 반흔에서 스테로이드와 5-플루오르우라실 투여 효과

김경락,유선열,Kim, Kyung-Rak,Ryu, Sun-Youl 대한악안면성형재건외과학회 2011 Maxillofacial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery Vol.33 No.3

Purpose: This study was to evaluate the synergistic effects of combined therapy of steroid and anti-neoplastic drug injection on hypertrophic scars in a rabbit model. Methods: Adult male white rabbits weighing about 2.5 kg were used. After full thickness wounding (about 6 mm) over the ventral surface of each ear sized was made, either saline (control group), triamcinolone, 5-fluoruracil, and mixture of triamcinolone and 5-fluoruracil were injected once 16 days after the wound was made. Rabbits were sacrificed 2, 4 and 8 weeks after injection, and tissue specimens were prepared for histologic and histomorphometric examinations. Results: With the combined injection of triamcinolone and 5-fluoruracil, collagen fiber thickness was arranged in a somewhat irregular manner 2 weeks after injection. After 4 weeks, blood vessels and inflammatory cells were decreased, and collagen fibers were arranged in an almost parallel manner. By 8 weeks, almost same amount of connective tissue compared with adjacent normal tissue was observed. Conclusion: These results indicated that combined injection of triamcinolone and 5-fluoruracil reduced the amount of hypertrophic scars by inhibition of fibroblasts and inflammatory cells. Therefore, combined injection of triamcinolone and 5-fluoruracil is a more potent and effective treatment of hypertrophic scars compared with the single injection of either triamcinolone or 5-fluorouracil.

야간주거침입절도죄에 있어서 야간에 행해져야 하는 행위

김경락(Kim, Kyung-Rak) 한국형사법학회 2011 刑事法硏究 Vol.23 No.4

Firstly, the trespassing is the act which means that a doer is entering into the house opposing in the intention of the resident. On the other hand, the act which means that a doer is still staying to the house after he or she just entered into the house isn’t the trespassing. The act which means that a doer is entering into the house opposing in the intention of the resident and the act which means that a doer is staying to the house after he or she just entered into the house are different concepts which must be distinguished. Secondly, the article 330 of the Korean Penal Code is providing that the person who trespasses into dwelling at night and steals the property of the others is punished with larceny committed by trespassing into dwelling at night. If we consider the construction form of this sentence, there isn’t a possibility of saying that “at night” doesn’t modify “trespassing” and only modifies “stealing”. Thirdly, the article 330 of the Korean Penal Code which is providing that the person who trespasses into dwelling at night and steals the property of the others is punished with larceny committed by trespassing into dwelling at night consists of one sentence which is “trespassing into dwelling at night” and the other which is “stealing the property of the others”. Consequently, in the process of the interpretation on the article 330 of the Korean Penal Code, the view that the act which must be done at night in larceny committed by trespassing into dwelling at night is “stealing”, “trespassing or stealing” or “trespassing and stealing” isn’t right. The act which must be done at night in larceny committed by trespassing into dwelling at night is “trespassing”.

강도미수범이 사람을 살해한 후 재물을 취득한 행위의 형사책임

김경락 ( Kyung Rak Kim ) 법조협회 2011 法曹 Vol.60 No.12

Considering the dictionary definition of a robber, systematic interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and quantitative differences between the illegality of attempt and completion, a robber in robbery resulting in the murder means only the completed robber except an attempted one. Meanwhile, the assertion recognizing that the possession of having owned in victim`s lifetime continues in a short space of time after the victim`s death and thus the possession of the victim is infringed at the same time is not appropriate, because recognizing the concept of the possession which isn`t recognized even in civil law is analogical interpretation not answering to the dictionary definition of the possession. The assertion ``not`` recognizing that the possession of having owned in victim`s lifetime continues in a short space of time after the victim`s death and recognizing that the possession of the victim is infringed at the same time is not appropriate either, because when the exclusion of possession is attempted against an intention of the possessor, the exclusion and acquisition of possession aren`t accomplished(thus, the infringement of possession can`t be recognized at this time) and when the exclusion and acquisition of possession are actually accomplished, an intention of possessor does not exist, for the victim died and thus does not exist(thus, the infringement of possession can`t be recognized either at this time). According to these conclusions, the act acquiring the property after the attempted robbery murders the person isn`t punished as the completion of robbery resulting in the murder like opinion of the academic world and Supreme Court but punished as the attempt of robbery resulting in the murder and embezzlement of a lost property.

사회적 법익에 관한 범죄의 법정형의 문제점 및 개정방향

김경락(Kim, Kyung-Rak) 한국형사법학회 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

The legislator determines the statutory penalty which itself must be respected. Determining the statutory penalty is a unique power of the legislator. The importance of the statutory penalty should be consistent from beginning to end of criminal code. When such consistency isn't in the criminal code, we can argue that the importance of the statutory penalty is right or isn't right. Among the statutory penalty in social legal interest, provisions causing imbalances of the crime and punishment are found in several places. Such provisions are particularly ones on the criminal negligence and offense aggravated by results of a crime. I suggest a way to solve these problems. The period of the imprisonment in the criminal code's has been determined such as 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years and the amount of the monetary penalty in the criminal code's has been determined such as 5 million won, 10 million won, 15 million won. I think that when the legislator determines the statutory penalty, the legislator is no need to be dependent on a specific number.

단순도박을 방조한 상습도박자의 형사책임

김경락 ( Kim Kyung-rak ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2009 외법논집 Vol.33 No.4

The status of the article 33 of the Korean Criminal Code is an element related to a criminal actor and should have a peculiarity which people of the scope that is only fixed can have. This status should exist in those days of a criminal act but doesn't necessarily need to have continuity. The distinction standard of the element related to the criminal act and criminal actor is as follows: Elements related to the criminal act are ones that can be generated for the realization of illegal behavior by a criminal actor in those days of a criminal act. The recidivism of the crime of habitual gambling isn't an element that can be generated for the realization of the illegal behavior by a criminal actor in those days of a criminal act. Accordingly, the recidivism of the crime of habitual gambling isn't an element related to the criminal act but the criminal actor. Thus, the recidivism of the crime of a habitual gambling can be included in its(the article 33 of the Korean Criminal Code's) status and the crime of a habitual gambling is one that adds the punishment due to the status. The Supreme Court also judged in this manner but didn't mention whether the reference provision of this precedent is its body or proviso. However, when the crime offender having its status aids the crime of gamble of one not having its status, its body can't be applied to one having its status without reference to its application scope. If its body can't be applied to this precedent related to the formation of a crime that adds the punishment due to the status, we should examine whether its proviso can be applied to this one. But it is obvious that its proviso isn't a provision on the 'formation' but a provision on the 'punishment' of a crime that adds the punishment due to the status. Also, if a criminal actor committing a crime that adds the punishment due to the status hasn't its status, the criminal actor doesn't become one committing the crime that adds the punishment due to the status but one committing a different crime. Therefore, a crime that adds the punishment due to the status is also one formed due to the status and not its proviso but body is a provision on the formation of a crime that adds the punishment due to the status. Consequently, not only its body but also proviso can't be applied to this precedent related to the formation of a crime that adds the punishment due to the status. This precedent should be judged by a principle which is that the formation of the complicity should be subordinate to that of a principal offender. According to this principle, the habitual gambler aiding the crime of simple gambling should be punished with not aiding of the crime of 'habitual gambling' but aiding of the crime of 'simple gambling'.

장물에 대한 절취행위와 절도죄의 보호법익 -대법원과 학계의 입장에 대한 비판적 검토-

김경락 ( Kyung Rak Kim ) 법조협회 2016 法曹 Vol.65 No.1

The view of the Supreme Court and some of the comments in the academic world of criminal law that recognize the interests protected by law of theft as ownership and right of possession have the following problems. Firstly, according to the points of these views, acting of persons who commit property crimes including theft can be recognized as self-defense or self-help in some cases. This result leads to a problem which is that occupants of stolen goods who have no right to possession on the property are protected by criminal law. Secondly, in accordance with the existence and intention of occupants of stolen goods who have no right to possession on the property, a decision will be made whether to apply the regulation on the crimes and complaints among relatives or not. The decision is illogical. Therefore, right of possession which has the justification should be included in the interests protected by law of theft. On the contrary, right of possession which doesn``t have the justification shouldn``t be included in the interests protected by law of theft. In this article, I suggest the dual interpretation on the interests protected by law of theft as mentioned above.

공갈죄와 뇌물수수죄의 성립관계

김경락(Kim, Kyung Rak) 한국부패학회 2021 한국부패학회보 Vol.26 No.2

범죄의 성질과 성립에 있어 서로 관련이 없어 보이는 뇌물수수죄와 공갈죄에 대하여 대법원은 뇌물수수죄와 공갈죄의 성립여부가 함께 문제되는 사안에서 “공무원이 ‘직무집행의 의사 없이’ 타인을 공갈하여 재물을 교부하게 한 경우에는 공갈죄만이 성립한다”고 하여 뇌물수수죄의 성립여부가 단독으로 문제되는 사안과는 다르게 뇌물수수죄의 ‘성립’자체를 제한하고 ‘공갈죄’의 성립만을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 주장은 다음과 같은 점에서 타당하다고 할 수 없다. 고의는 구성요건의 객관적 구성요건요소에 해당하는 ‘모든’ 사실을 인식하고 인용하는 경우에 성립하고 항상 구성요건의 객관적 구성요건요소에 대응하므로, 뇌물수수죄의 고의가 인정되기 위해서 뇌물수수죄의 객관적 구성요건요소에 포함되어 있지 않은 ‘직무집행’에 대한 인식은 요구되지 않는다. 뇌물수수죄의 고의를 인정하기 위해 직무집행에 대한 ‘인식’이 요구되지 않는다고 한다면, 구성요건의 객관적 요소에 해당하지 않아 인식의 대상이 되지 않는 직무집행에 대하여, 인식을 전제로 이루어지는 ‘의사 내지 인용’을 요구하는 것은 애초부터 불가능한 것이 된다. 즉 인식도 하지 않은 대상에 대하여, 인식을 하지 않은 상태에서 ‘의사 내지 인용’을 요구할 수는 없다. 따라서 뇌물수수죄의 고의가 인정되기 위해서 ‘직무집행의 인식’뿐만 아니라 ‘직무집행의 의사’는 요구되지 않는다고 해야 한다. 또한 ‘직무집행의 의사’를 고의든 초과주관적 구성요건요소든 뇌물수수죄가 성립하기 위한 주관적 요소에 포함시키게 되면, ‘직무집행의 의사’ 없이 직무와 관련하여 불법한 대가관계가 있는 뇌물을 받은 공무원을 뇌물수수죄로 처벌할 수 없다는 국민의 법감정에 반하는 결과가 발생하게 된다. 따라서 ‘직무집행의 의사’는 뇌물수수죄의 고의뿐만 아니라 초과주관적 구성요건요소에도 포함되지 않는다고 해야 한다. 기본적으로 뇌물수수죄의 성립에 있어서 주관적 요소로서‘직무집행의 의사’가 요구되지 않는다고 한다면, 뇌물수수죄가 공갈죄와 함께 문제되는 상황에서도 ‘직무집행의 의사’가 있든 없든 관계없이 일단 뇌물수수죄의 ‘성립’을 인정한 후, 성립된 뇌물수수죄의 ‘처벌’을 어떻게 할지는 죄수를 결정하는 단계에서 뇌물수수죄와 공갈죄의 관계 및 발생상황을 고려하여 판단해야 할 문제이다. 그렇지 않고 범죄‘성립’단계에서부터 법정형이 중한 공갈죄의 성립만을 인정하고, 법정형이 경한 뇌물수수죄의 성립을 제한해야 할 필요성과 이론적 근거는 없는 것으로 생각된다. 또한 대법원과 학계의 일부 입장에 따르게 되면, (뇌물수수죄의 다른 객관적·주관적 성립요건을 모두 갖추었을 때에 한해) 친족이 ‘직무집행의 의사’ 없이 공갈을 수단으로 하지 않고 뇌물을 수수한 때는 뇌물수수죄가 성립하여 그 범죄로 처벌되겠지만, 친족이 ‘직무집행의 의사’ 없이 공갈을 수단으로 하여 뇌물을 수수한 때에는 뇌물수수죄는 성립조차 하지 않고, 성립이 인정된 공갈죄로도 처벌할 수 없는 상황에 이르게 된다. 결국 공갈이라는 더 불법적인 수단을 사용하여 뇌물을 수수한 (더 나쁜) 친족인 행위자가 공갈이라는 수단을 사용하지 않은 (덜 나쁜) 친족인 행위자보다 훨씬 더 유리한 취급을 받게 되는 처벌상의 현저한 불균형이 발생하게 된다. 결론적으로 개인적 법익에 속하면서 재산범죄인 공갈죄와 국가적 법익에 속하면서 국가와 사회의 부정부패를 척결하기 위해 존재하는 뇌물수수죄는 ‘범죄성립’에 있어서 서로 간에 아무런 영향을 미칠 수 없다고 보아야 한다. The term “Bribery” means the abuse of a public official s status for personal gain. Considering the social influence of public officials, it is self-evident that corruption of civil servants has far worse effects on the nation and society than that of ordinary citizens. Therefore, in order to prevent corruption of the nation and society, bribery should be strongly punished, and when the crimes are established, there is a need to be clearly punished. Intentions of the crime are established when all facts in the objective elements are recognized and accepted. The perception of intentions always corresponds to objective elements of the crime. Therefore, it can be said that in order for the establishment of an intentional crime of bribery, recognition of duty execution that is not included in the objective component of bribery is not required. If the intention of performing duties is included in the subjective factor for establishing bribery, public officials who receive bribes related to their duties illegally without willingness to execute duties cannot be punished for bribery. This conclusion is contrary to the public s legal sentiment. It should be said that the intention to execute the duties is not included in the over-subjective component as well as in the intention of bribery. Bribery, which needs to be punished strongly to prevent corruption of public officials, is consistently established when necessary elements are present. When bribery has met the necessary elements that can be established alone, its establishment cannot be restricted under the influence of the establishment of blackmail. Blackmail and bribery have no effect on each other in the establishment of the crime.

성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법의 법정형의 문제점 및 개정방향

김경락(Kim, Kyung-Rak) 한국형사법학회 2015 刑事法硏究 Vol.27 No.1

성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법의 법정형은 다음과 같이 개정되어야 한다. 첫째 성폭법 제3조의 제1범죄와 관련하여 제3조 제2항에서 제1범죄인 특수강도죄의 법정형의 경중을 고려하여 제1항의 제1범죄와 구별하여 규정하고 있는 것처럼, 제1항 내에서도 형법상의 법정형의 경중을 고려하여 제1범죄가 주거침입죄인지 야 간주거침입절도죄인지 특수절도죄인지에 따라 각각의 법정형을 구별하여 규정할 필요가 있다. 제2범죄와 관련하여 형법이 (준) 강제추행죄, (준) 유사강간죄, (준) 강간죄의 법정형의 경중을 구별하여 규정하고 있는 것을 고려하면, 제3조에서는 이러한 형 법상의 법정형의 경중을 고려하여 제2범죄가 (준) 강제추행죄인지 (준) 유사강간죄인 지 (준) 강간죄인지에 따라 각각의 법정형을 구별하여 규정할 필요가 있다. 둘째 성폭법 제4조부터 제7조의 강간행위에 대하여 친족강간죄<특수강간죄<장애 인강간죄<13세 미만 강간죄의 순서로 법정형을 규정하였다면, 이러한 원칙이 강제추 행행위에도 그대로 반영되는 것이 일관성 있는 규정형태일 것이다. 따라서 강제추행 행위에 대하여도 친족강제추행죄<특수강제추행죄<장애인강제추행죄<13세 미만 강제 추행죄의 순서로 법정형을 규정하여야 할 것이다. 셋째 형법이 유사강간행위와 강제추행행위를 구별하여 규정하고 있고, 성폭법 제4조 (특수강간 등) 와 제5조 (친족관계에 의한 강간 등) 를 제외한 성폭법의 다른 규정에서도 형법과 마찬가지로 유사강간행위와 강제추행행위를 구별하여 규정하고 있으므로, 성폭력범죄와 관련한 여러 규정들과의 일관성 있는 규정형태를 유지하기 위하여 성폭 법 제4조와 제5조에 유사강간행위를 처벌하는 별도의 규정을 두어야 할 것이다. 넷째 제8조의 결합범과 결과적 가중범의 법정형을 제1범죄 또는 기본범죄의 성폭 법상의 법정형의 경중을 고려하여 각각 구별하여 규정할 필요가 있다. 또한 고의불법과 과실불법 간에 존재하는 불법의 정도의 차이를 고려하여 제2범죄 또는 중한 결과가 고의로 인한 상해인지 과실로 인한 상해인지에 따라 각각의 법정형을 구별하여 규정할 필요가 있다. 마찬가지로 제9조 제1항의 결합범과 제2항 및 제3항의 결과적 가중범의 법정형을 제1범죄 또는 기본범죄의 형법과 성폭법상의 법정형의 경중을 고려하여 각각 구별하여 규정할 필요가 있다. The act on special cases concerning the punishment, etc. of sexual crimes should be amended as follows in order to maintain balance between crime and punishment. Firstly, the statutory penalty on the concurrent offences in article 3 of the act should be amended in consideration of the gravity of the first and second offenses. Secondly, the provision on indecent act by compulsion should be provided in order of article 298 of the criminal act by taking advantage of a consanguineous or marital relationship<article 298 of the criminal act, carrying any weapon or other dangerous object or jointly with any other person (s) <article 298 of the criminal act against another person with physical or mental disability<article 298 of the criminal act on another person under the age of 13. Thirdly, the provision on imitative rape should be provided separately in article 4 and 5 of the act. Fourthly, the statutory penalty on the concurrent offences in article 8 and 9 of the act should be amended in consideration of the gravity of the first or basic offenses.

절도미수 · 기수범이 재물탈환항거 등의 목적으로 폭행 · 협박한 행위의 형사책임

김경락(Kim, Kyung-Rak) 韓國刑事法學會 2011 刑事法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

Considering differences between the illegality of attempt and completion as well as dictionary definition of a thief, a thief in quasi-robbery means only the completed one except an attempted one. Hence, either the attempt or completion of quasi-robbery depends on whether an assault or a threat reaches the degree which can suppress the insubordination of the counterpart or not. The above-mentioned propositions put forward the following four inferences: Firstly, when a completed thief causes an assault or a threat which reaches the degree that can suppress the insubordination of the counterpart, the thief is responsible for 'completion' of quasi-robbery. Secondly, when a completed thief causes an assault or a threat which doesn't reach the degree that can suppress the insubordination of the counterpart, the thief is responsible for 'attempt' of quasi-robbery. Thirdly, when an attempted thief causes an assault or a threat which reaches the degree that can suppress the insubordination of the counterpart, even if the insubordination of the counterpart is actually suppressed, the thief isn't responsible for attempt or completion of quasi-robbery because an attempted thief isn't the subject of quasi-robbery. Fourthly, when an attempted thief causes an assault or a threat which doesn't reach the degree that can suppress the insubordination of the counterpart, the thief isn't responsible for attempt or completion of quasi-robbery because an attempted thief isn't the subject of quasi-robbery.

오상과잉방위의 형사책임

김경락(Kim, Kyung-Rak) 한국형사법학회 2008 刑事法硏究 Vol.20 No.4

Putativnotwehrexzeßfälle können in zwei Unterfallgruppen klassifiziert werden: einfacher Putativnotwehrexzeß und Putativnotwehrexzeß als verdoppelter Irrtum. Bei den Fällen des einfachen Putativnotwehrexzeßen kombinieren Putativnotwehr und Notwehrexzeß ohne Verbotsirrtum miteinander, während Putativnotwehr und Notwehrexzeß mit Verbotsirrtum bei den zweiten Fällen miteinander kombinieren. Einfacher Putativnotwehrexzeß muss als eigenartige Deliktstat verstanden werden, der weder mit den Putativnotwehrfällen, noch mit den Notwehrexzeßfällen gleich zu stellen ist. In diesen Fällen wird der Täter nach dem Maßstab des Wissens des Überschreitens der Begründetheitsgrenze entweder als vorsätzlicher Täter oder als Täter eines erfolgsqualifizierteten Deliktes bestraft werden. Wenn der Täter etwa irrtümmlich seinen Eisenknüppel für Holzknüppel gehalten hat und dem Opfer damit tatbestandmäigen Gewalt oder Körperverletzung mit dem Vorsatz der Gewalt oder der Körperverletzung angetan hat, kann man in diesem Fall nicht einen vorsätzlichen Totschlag anerkennen, auch wenn das Opfer somit umgekommen ist. Es wäre ebensowenig gerecht, wenn man unter Ablehnung des Vorsatzes bezüglich Gewalt bzw. Körperverletzung Fahrlässigkeitsdelikt der Todesfolge als Ganzes anerkennt. Da in diesen Fällen mindestens der Vorsatz des Täters bezüglich Gewalt bzw. Körperverletzung vorliegt, kann das erfolgsqualifizierte Delikt nach dem verwirklichten schweren Erfolg anerkannt werden. Da die Fälle des verdoppelten Irrtums nächstens als Verbotsirrtum behandelt werden, ist Putativnotwehrexzeß als verdoppelter Irrtum, je nach dem Wissen des Täters bezüglich des Überschreitens der Begründetheitsgrenze, entweder als Vorsatztat oder als Fälle der erfolgsqualifizierten Delikten anzusehen. Somit sind die Fälle des Putativnotwehrexzesses gemäß dem § 16 koreanischen Strafgesetzbuches entweder als Fälle der Vorsatzdelikten bzw. erfolgsqualifizierten Delikten behandelt werden oder kann aufgrund Wegfall der Schuld unbestrafbar sein. Da die Putativnotwehrexzeßfälle eigenartige Deliktsart sind, können die Vorschriften über Notwehrexzeß darauf nicht ‘direkt' angewendet werden. Wenn man berücksichtigt, dass Notwehrexzeß die Kombination zwischen der ursprünglich nicht verbotenen, gerechtfertigten Tat und der verbotenen übermäßigen Tat ist, braucht man bei Putativnotwehrexzeßfällen nicht die Vorschriften über Notwehrexzeß ‘analog’ anzuweden, da die Putativnotwehrexzeßfälle im Vergleich dazu die Kombination zweischen der ursprünglich verbotenen Tat (Bei unvermeidbarem Putativnotwehr wird das Unrecht nur durch die Theorie der analogen Anwendung weggefallen) und dem Notwehrexzeß ist. Das vorsätzliche Unrecht bei ‘unvermeidbarem’ Putativnotwehr wird nach der strengen Schuldthorie und den eingeschärnkten Schuldtheorie bejaht, die Schuld fällt jedoch im Ergebnis weg und der Tat bleibt somit unbestrafbar. So ist m.E. bei den ‘unvermeidbaren’ Putativnotwehrexzeßfällen unter besonderen Umständen, wo die Anwendung der Vorschriften über Notwehrexzeß berücksichtigt werden kann, erforderlich, bei der Strafzumessung eine Verminderung der Strafe zu berücksichtigen.