2000년대 초기 대법원판례의 동향: 주요 재산범죄 관련 대법원판례를 중심으로

박형준 한국형사판례연구회 2012 刑事判例硏究 Vol.20 No.-

In this article, I have investigated the major property criminal cases(i.e. embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud and theft cases) sentenced in the Supreme Court since 2000, and have analyzed the n otable importance and the implications of the judgement. I have tried to examine closely, how the Supreme Court has come to apply the judicial interpretation especially in academia to discuss issues or newly emerging types of crimes as the socio-economic situations change. In summary, it could be evaluated that the Supreme Court has emphasized on the principle of “nulla poena sine lege” to protect people from the punishment without law and the arbitrary exercise of state police power, and has made an effort to make the criminal law function at its best to defend liberty and legal benefit in property rights, in response to social and economic changes.

1990년대 刑事證據法에 관한 主要判例 및 動向

金熙玉 한국형사판례연구회 2001 刑事判例硏究 Vol.9 No.-

인과과정에 개입된 타인의 행위와 객관적 귀속

정현미 한국형사판례연구회 2001 刑事判例硏究 Vol.9 No.-

2010년도 형법판례 회고

오영근 한국형사판례연구회 2011 刑事判例硏究 Vol.19 No.-

In the year of 2010, 286 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. Four cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, two cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other two cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows;Ⅰ. IntroductionⅡ. The Cases relating to General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. The Review is constituted as follows: (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The comment on the case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2008Do4762 2. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 28. 2008Do8606 3. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 23. 2010Do7412 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 9. 2010Do6924 5. Supreme Court 2010. 7. 8. 2010Do931 6. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do6403 Ⅲ. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal LawIn this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every review is constituted as follows: (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2010. 7. 15. 2010Do1017 2. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 27. 2009Do9008 3. Supreme Court 2010. 4. 29. 2009Do14554 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7405 5. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 9. 2010Do9630 6. Supreme Court 2010. 8. 19. 2010Do6280 7. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do387 8. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 13. 2010Do1040 9. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do8591 10. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7525

최근 5년간의 주요 재산범죄 판례의 동향

안 경옥 한국형사판례연구회 2017 刑事判例硏究 Vol.25 No.-

This article reviewed the major property criminal cases(i.e. larceny, fraud, embezzlement, and Breach of Trust) in recent five years. As a continuing trend since 2000, One of the important trends is that the criminal laws keep its distance from civil cases in order to prevent Criminalization of Civil Cases and guarantee the functions as last resources. This trend can also be seen in embezzlement and Breach of Trust. Although It’s important that the criminal laws do not intervene too much in private domains such as civil cases, It is necessary to interpret and apply strictly the elements of crime in view of the principle of nullum crime in order that Law–abiding citizen may predict whether each crimes will predict Criminality of each crimes. However, The question now arises as to whether the criminal laws judge independently apart from other laws, extend the range of elements of crime, admit the elements unstipulated in the text so that the laws apply analogical interpretation which is against the principle of nullum crime, or expand requirements of crime. Therefore, although the independent interpretation is needed, it would be desirable to limit range of punishment at a minimum by respecting principle of Subsidiarity or the principle of nullum crime. Also, Whether the elements of property is defined clearly should be carefully studied. If needed, Legislative efforts to continuously rearrange the elements is essential.

2000년대 초기 대법원판례의 동향: 형법총칙 관련 대법원판례를 중심으로

천진호 한국형사판례연구회 2012 刑事判例硏究 Vol.20 No.-

Looking at the 2000s, the Supreme Court has no detailed research on legal issues, leave the judgment of the past and the trend seems to quote. For example, errors of law in the judgment of a legitimate reason, joint principal offender the functional activity of the dominant theory of criminal law theory, Studies of accumulated information, we accept them gradually is moving in the direction. But the Supreme Court include the specific criteria are difficult to understand the concept and are using them. Nevertheless, the fact that by missing arguments for the inclusion of judgment comes to the conclusion lacks a logical basis for a problem that is leaving. The concept of morals and social standards for the presentation of an abstract interpretation and judgment, collusion joint principal offender beliefs about the uncritical criticism of scholars for the future through careful research accumulated in Criminal Justice Studies, by accepting the theory and practice of will have to endeavor to harmonize. Thinking and knowledge learned in courses to apply it in practice will need to prevent useless. Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies is celebrating its 20th anniversary, criticism of the theory and practice through the mutual development to be able to look forward to continue to evolve.

2007년 이후 형사소송법 주요 판례의 동향 ― 수사절차와 증거에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 ―

김 윤섭 한국형사판례연구회 2017 刑事判例硏究 Vol.25 No.-

In 2007, the Criminal Procedure Act has been changed into actually new law reflecting the social demands to protect the rights of defendants and suspects in the criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2011, adding the relevance as a requirement of seizure and specifying the range and method of seizure or search on digital evidence. And it supplemented the method of proving the authenticity of digital evidence with some amendments in 2016. It can be said that it has continued to influence the Supreme Court precedent and the precedent also influenced legislation and investigation practice and led to change. This article examines the trends of major cases in the proceedings and evidence law since 2007. The Supreme Court’s cases on investigation procedures and evidence law have consistently emphasized the due process principles of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, and apply strict standards for existing practices throughout the investigation process including voluntary company, arrest, interrogation, and occasionally have suggested standards and directions of practice from the perspective of judicial control. In particular, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was applied to use of material evidence and the evidence that was illegally collected by the investigating agency in violation of the due process could not be used as evidence of guilt in principle. In the exceptional case that the procedural violation is not equivalent to the violation of the substantive contents of the due process, and the exclusion of the evidence is against the harmonization of the due process and substantive truth in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence can be used. Thereafter, the Supreme Court has elaborated the criteria and exceptional jurisprudence on the illegally obtained evidence through various precedents. Since 2007, there have been important precedents related to the seizure of digital evidence, the authenticity and exceptional application of hearsay rule on digital evidence, and specific precedents on the interpretation and standards of exceptional application of hearsay rule of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, which were also the starting point of a new discussion. And this article suggests that, for right judicial justice, the two axes of the due process principle and the request for the discovery of the substantive truth should be mutually realized in harmony rather than abandoning any one.

訴訟詐欺의 가벌성

안경옥 한국형사판례연구회 2002 刑事判例硏究 Vol.10 No.-

계속범의 본질 -불법성의 내적 강화-와 유형화

김혜경 한국형사판례연구회 2014 刑事判例硏究 Vol.22 No.-

‘Dauerdelikt’ is a continuing crime. Although The ‘Dauerdelikt’ is defined as a crime subsequent misconduct and illegal state match, ‘Dauerdelikt’ or ‘Zustandsdelikt’ is very hard or impossible to distinguish and is still ambiguous case-by-case crimes. Since the existence criteria is necessary that at the time after completion of commission of crime, it must be observed whether omission of the act or acts exist. Starting from willful actors to choose from acts contrary to the norms of illegality, as long as the intentional act continues, crime will continue. And it is evaluated while the action continues willfully, illegal state not only continue, but also internal strengthening of illegality has been performed. ‘Dauerdelikt’, that is infringement after completion of commission of crime adds to the interests protected by law through inaction or omission of additional actors, gradually increasing from a base point, is a sin or a large extent has been enhanced illegality. In this study will be made a classification that authentic crime of omission, declaration of intention as juristic act, and willfully act that during continuing act unlawfulness is enhanced increasingly are ‘Dauerdelikt’

2007년 형사소송법 개정 후 증거법 분야의 판례 동향

박 진환 한국형사판례연구회 2017 刑事判例硏究 Vol.25 No.-

In accordance with the provision of Article 308–2 of Criminal Procedure Act, any evidence obtained in violation of the due process shall not be admissible. This Article newly inserted by Act No. 8496, Jun. 1. in 2007. Since then, there has been a series of a decision on the evidence, including the exclusionary rule, the fruits of poisonous tree doctrine, and the circumstance that would give exceptionally the admissibility of secondary evidence. In addition, there were a number of decisions that required to be prepared in compliance with the due process and proper methods in giving the admissibility of evidence in relation to the protocol, etc. prepared by prosecutor or senior judicial police officer. As a whole, due to the influence of making a stipulation of the exclusion of evidence illegally obtained, it is clear that the case law in the field of evidence law is proceeding in a direction to emphasize the guarantee of the due process. And in accordance with the provision of Article 314(Exception to Admissibility of Evidence) or 316(Statement of Hearsay) (2), in the case of Article 312 or 313, if a person who is required to make a statement at a preparatory hearing or a trial is unable to make such statement, which is impossible to exercise the right of cross–examination, the relevant protocol and other documents shall be admissible as evidence: Provided, that this shall apply only when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state. In relation to the above provisions, court’s decision maintains a more rigorous interpretation as a requirement for admissibility of hearsay evidence. In addition, court’s decision seems to be proceeding to apply strictly requirements for admissibility of evidence of documents or output from the digital storage media, explaining the requirements of seizure and search of digital storage media in response to overall scientific and information– oriented society. And the recent decision describes the problem of establishing the judgment criteria of scientific evidence as a solution to the problem of misuse of science among the problems in the process of interaction between science and law in accordance with the criminal case. In conclusion, it is still a question of how to realize concretely the general principle that the two sets of demands, namely the discovery of substantive truths and the protection of the human rights of defendants (the guarantee of due process and the deterrence of illegal investigation) under the exclusionary rule.