형법철학 사상사를 통해 본 현대 안보형사법의 의미와 과제

안수길(An, Su-Gil) 한양법학회 2018 漢陽法學 Vol.29 No.1

As shown by “National Security Act” (“Gukgaboanbeop”) and “Act on Anti-Terrorism” (“Tereobangjibeop”), there is a huge debate on whether it is necessary and legitimate to use criminal law as a means of ensuring national security. This applies not only to Korea, but also to most Western democratic countries. At first sight, this may seem strange, because there has been no state which does not have penal provisions to protect its own existence. But when we consider the meaning and purpose of state punishment in the context of an intellectual history of modern criminal law, it becomes clear that a fierce debate on the legitimacy of penal law protecting national security (Staatsschutzstrafrecht) is a normal occurrence. Doctrines and theories of modern criminal law are mainly based on the Philosophy of the enlightenment which refuted the classical natural law ideas and established social contract theory that sees raison d"être of state power in its function of ensuring the freedom of individuals. Accordingly, they have designed a liberal and constitutional “theory of legally protected interests” (Rechtsgutslehre) which conceives basic human freedom as “legally protected interests of individuals” (Individualrechtsgüter) and limits the task of criminal law to protecting these interests. Of course, Rechtsgutslehre also recognizes “legally protected interests of society as a whole” (Universalrechtsgüter), since the protection of these interests is essential for the development of individual freedom. In other words, Universalrechtsgüter are derived from Individualrechtsgüter, and not the reverse; penal provisions protecting Universalrechtsgüter criminalize the preparatory stages of a crime, so that they can be justified only if they contribute to guaranteeing Individualrechtsgüter. It is therefore no wonder, why in democratic countries there is a vehement debate on Staatsschutzstrafrecht which safeguards state that is furthermost from Individualrechtsgüter. Recently, however, liberal Rechtsgutslehre is being shaken by increasing demands on public security, which correlate with the threat of Islamist terrorism that aims to destroy Western liberal democracies. Proponents of Staatsschutzstrafrecht allege that liberal Rechtsgutslehre is not able to counteract the international terrorism and must thus be replaced by preventive theories which make it possible to fight effectively against terrorism; they propose to produce penal provisions to criminalize the preparation of terrorist acts. But it should be stressed that such proposals are hardly compatible with a liberal concept of state that regards state not as an end in itself but rather as an instrument for guaranteeing individual freedom; they curtail civil liberties without significantly contributing to combating terrorism. Therefore we should use criminal law as ultima ratio in the field of fighting terrorism, just as in other areas. This does not mean that criminal law could neglect the risk of terrorism, but rather that we should know exactly where the reason and limits of protection of state by criminal law lie, if we want to prevent anti-terrorism law from turning into anti-liberty law.

오스트리아 총선 관전기 - 형법의 단편성에 관한 생각의 단편들 -

안수길(An, Su-Gil) 한양법학회 2020 漢陽法學 Vol.31 No.3

한글+한자문화 칼럼 : 윤리와 도덕의 소용(2) -작은 것을 무시 못하는 이유-

안수길 ( An Su Gil ) 전국한자교육추진총연합회 2004 한글한자문화 Vol.56 No.-

소극적 공리주의와 사회적 약자 보호

안수길(An, Su-Gil) 한양법학회 2018 漢陽法學 Vol.29 No.3

If we work on the premise that law is “the reality the meaning of which is to serve the legal value, the idea of law” (Gustav Radbruch), then we could say that the idea of law (Rechtsidee) may only be justice (Gerechtigkeit). And the essence of justice is nothing but equality (Gleichheit). Justice calls for treating equal things equally and unequal things unequally. But justice, as Radbruch has said, “leaves open the two questions, whom to consider equal or different, and how to treat them.” To answer this questions, justice should be thus complemented by another idea of law, utility or purposiveness (Zweckmäßigkeit). However, due to different views of the state, there is no general agreement on the question of what the final aim of law is. In the debate about the purpose of law, ethical theories compete with one another, and one of the most preferred ethical theories in this field is utilitarianism which tries to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The Principle of Greatest-Happiness meets our right intuition and can be easily put into practice. It can also be harmonized not only with individualism, but also with communitarianism, because it treats all individuals equally on the one hand, and attempts to maximize the happiness of the community on the other hand. Despite this, utilitarianism can hardly be the guiding principle of law, for the following reasons: The Greatest-Happiness Principle cannot be applied universally, since the meaning of happiness varies from person to person. And utilitarianism focuses only on maximizing utility of society and pays no attention to the question of how the optimized utility should be shared within society. As a result, utilitarianism tends to ignore minorities; it tends to forget the fact that the happiness of majorities are often achieved at the cost of the suffering of minorities. If, on the other hand, we recast classical utilitarianism as an ethical theory that aims not at increasing happiness, but at reducing suffering, utilitarianism (negative utilitarianism) could serve as a guiding principle of law. Reducing suffering could be a universal purpose of law, since suffering is easier recognized than happiness and, as Popper stated, “human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” Negative Utilitarianism is mainly concerned about minorities who are in trouble, so that it is naturally able to fulfill Rawls’ Principles of Justice, especially the difference principle which says that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.

한글 + 한자문화 칼럼 : 윤리와 도덕의 소용 -작은 것을 무시 못하는 이유-

안수길 ( An Su Gil ) 전국한자교육추진총연합회 2004 한글한자문화 Vol.55 No.-

한글+한자문화 칼럼 : 윤리와 도덕의 소용(3) -작은 것을 무시 못하는 이유-

안수길 ( An Su Gil ) 전국한자교육추진총연합회 2004 한글한자문화 Vol.57 No.-

전자산업 수출 100억불 달성과 향후 과제

안수길,An, Su-Gil 한국전자정보통신산업진흥회 1987 電子振興 Vol.7 No.12

DAD 개발현황과 전망

안수길,An, Su-Gil 한국전자정보통신산업진흥회 1983 電子振興 Vol.3 No.11

PCM Channel Bank의 시작연구

안수길,김석기,이성희,An, Su-Gil,Kim, Seok-Gi,Lee, Seong-Hui 대한전자공학회 1980 전자공학회지 Vol.17 No.5

전화회선필요량의 급증은 시내선이나 시외선 어느 경우에서나 현자하고 반면 선로사정은 동값의 급등만이 아니고 cable설치공사비의 상승, 관로의 포화등으로 인하여 시분할방식인 PCM24의 국산화가 시급하다. 필자들은 1972년부터 독자적인 방법으로 회로를 설계하고 제작하여 노량진일양서전화국간일석서전독국간에서 통화시험한 결과, 잡음억제가 현자하며 혼신이 없는 좋은 결과를 얻었고 이는 상기국간에 설치되어있는 일본NEC제품 Replater (PCM-24-1 No「」NB.) series와의 compatibility도 증명한 셈이다. The ever unsatisfied demand for more channel and bandwidth to the limited installalion of existing communication facilities, and explosively increasing expanses for the cable installation fee force us to revive once patented but unused idea of multlplexign in time, that is, PCM in telephony. The authors designed, artworked and prototyped PCM 24 since 1972 and tested the first PCM chaulel Hank between Noryang Jin and yang see stations to prove that the resust of their PCM 24 Channel Bank implementation is viable and promissing.

컴퓨터 기술산업의 국산화문제와 전망

안수길,An, Su-Gil 한국전자정보통신산업진흥회 1982 電子振興 Vol.2 No.7