RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      형법 제3조의 문제점과 해결방안 = The Problems and Solutions of Article 3 of the Criminal Act

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A60170676

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Article 3 of the Criminal Act provides that, "This Act shall apply to all Korean nationals who commit crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea," even though their crimes are not applied to the Criminal Act of the countries. However, the attitude of the current Act is inappropriate because policies and institutions of each country havebeen changed similarly through increasing co-relationships due to globalization. Also, the attitude of extending the territory to a host country is hard to defend against criticisms that protecting nationalism does not follow generation changes, though it is enough to keep protective values if each country has them traditionally. In addition, its provision is inappropriate to the constitutional ideology and rule under which a country should provide maximum fundamental rights for citizens while limiting them to the minimum if necessary. Therefore, Article 3 of the Criminal Act, "Crimes by Koreans outside Korea," should be revised because of the absolute personal principle. Direction for revision consists of the legislative method of the dual criminality punishment and positive system. By means of accepting the positive system, it is reasonablethat specific acts which are kept should be regulated by law somewhere outside of a host country. It is natural only if there is a social consensus on what kinds of crimes are enacted and legislated. As a result, the applicable scope of the Article 3 of the Criminal Act should be decreased. It is more rational that the solution is an analogical application with respect to the exceptive clause of Article 6 of the Criminal Act. Article 6 of the Criminal Act, "Foreign Crimes against Republic of Korea and Korean National outside Korea," provides that, "This Act shall apply to aliens who commit crimes, other than those specified in the preceding Article, against the Republic of Korea or her nationals outside the territory ofthe Republic of Korea provided.That this shall not apply in case where such acts under Act in effect at the time of the act do not constitute a crime, or the prosecution thereof or the execution of the punishment thereof or is remitted." Thus, it does not violate the principle of legality (nulla poena sine lege), if the exceptive clause of Article 6 of the Criminal Act is applied analogically thereof and gives actors a beneficial status, the applicable direction allows the decrease of unconstitutionality of the absolute personal principle which is related to "Crimes by Koreans outside Korea" in case that such acts do not constitute a crime, or the prosecution, or the execution of the punishment under the Act of the territory. Under this method, it is reasonable to apply to Article 3 of the Criminal Act toward providing actors with a beneficial status in the circumstance when it is not reformed.
      번역하기

      Article 3 of the Criminal Act provides that, "This Act shall apply to all Korean nationals who commit crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea," even though their crimes are not applied to the Criminal Act of the countries. However, the a...

      Article 3 of the Criminal Act provides that, "This Act shall apply to all Korean nationals who commit crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea," even though their crimes are not applied to the Criminal Act of the countries. However, the attitude of the current Act is inappropriate because policies and institutions of each country havebeen changed similarly through increasing co-relationships due to globalization. Also, the attitude of extending the territory to a host country is hard to defend against criticisms that protecting nationalism does not follow generation changes, though it is enough to keep protective values if each country has them traditionally. In addition, its provision is inappropriate to the constitutional ideology and rule under which a country should provide maximum fundamental rights for citizens while limiting them to the minimum if necessary. Therefore, Article 3 of the Criminal Act, "Crimes by Koreans outside Korea," should be revised because of the absolute personal principle. Direction for revision consists of the legislative method of the dual criminality punishment and positive system. By means of accepting the positive system, it is reasonablethat specific acts which are kept should be regulated by law somewhere outside of a host country. It is natural only if there is a social consensus on what kinds of crimes are enacted and legislated. As a result, the applicable scope of the Article 3 of the Criminal Act should be decreased. It is more rational that the solution is an analogical application with respect to the exceptive clause of Article 6 of the Criminal Act. Article 6 of the Criminal Act, "Foreign Crimes against Republic of Korea and Korean National outside Korea," provides that, "This Act shall apply to aliens who commit crimes, other than those specified in the preceding Article, against the Republic of Korea or her nationals outside the territory ofthe Republic of Korea provided.That this shall not apply in case where such acts under Act in effect at the time of the act do not constitute a crime, or the prosecution thereof or the execution of the punishment thereof or is remitted." Thus, it does not violate the principle of legality (nulla poena sine lege), if the exceptive clause of Article 6 of the Criminal Act is applied analogically thereof and gives actors a beneficial status, the applicable direction allows the decrease of unconstitutionality of the absolute personal principle which is related to "Crimes by Koreans outside Korea" in case that such acts do not constitute a crime, or the prosecution, or the execution of the punishment under the Act of the territory. Under this method, it is reasonable to apply to Article 3 of the Criminal Act toward providing actors with a beneficial status in the circumstance when it is not reformed.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 머리말
      • Ⅱ. 형법 제3조 속인주의의 타당성
      • Ⅲ. 문제점
      • Ⅳ. 현행 형사법내에서 해결방안
      • Ⅴ. 입법적 해결방안
      • Ⅰ. 머리말
      • Ⅱ. 형법 제3조 속인주의의 타당성
      • Ⅲ. 문제점
      • Ⅳ. 현행 형사법내에서 해결방안
      • Ⅴ. 입법적 해결방안
      • Ⅵ. 맺는말
      • [참고문헌]
      • [Abstract]
      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 유기천, "형법학(형법강의)" 일조각 1978

      2 배종대, "형법총론(제9개정판)" 홍문사 2009

      3 진계호, "형법총론(제8판)" 대왕사 2007

      4 박상기, "형법총론(제8판)" 박영사 2009

      5 이재상, "형법총론(제7판)" 박영사 2011

      6 정성근, "형법총론(제5판)" 삼지원 2011

      7 김성천, "형법총론(제4판)" 삼양애드 2008

      8 이형국, "형법총론(제4판)" 법문사 2007

      9 정영일, "형법총론(제3판)" 박영사 2010

      10 임웅, "형법총론(제3정판 보정)" 법문사 2011

      1 유기천, "형법학(형법강의)" 일조각 1978

      2 배종대, "형법총론(제9개정판)" 홍문사 2009

      3 진계호, "형법총론(제8판)" 대왕사 2007

      4 박상기, "형법총론(제8판)" 박영사 2009

      5 이재상, "형법총론(제7판)" 박영사 2011

      6 정성근, "형법총론(제5판)" 삼지원 2011

      7 김성천, "형법총론(제4판)" 삼양애드 2008

      8 이형국, "형법총론(제4판)" 법문사 2007

      9 정영일, "형법총론(제3판)" 박영사 2010

      10 임웅, "형법총론(제3정판 보정)" 법문사 2011

      11 성낙현, "형법총론(제2판)" 동방문화사 2011

      12 오영근, "형법총론(제2판)" 박영사 2010

      13 김성돈, "형법총론(제2판)" 성균관대학교 출판부 2009

      14 손동권, "형법총론(제2개정판)" 율곡출판사 2005

      15 김일수, "형법총론(제11판)" 박영사 2007

      16 신동운, "형법총론 제4판" 법문사 2009

      17 이정원, "형법총론" 법지사 1999

      18 김성규, "형법의 장소적 적용범위에 관한 규정의 내용과 한계" 한국형사법학회 (18) : 181-210, 2002

      19 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" 박영사 2011

      20 김일수, "형법각론(제7판)" 박영사 2007

      21 이재상, "형법각론(제7판)" 박영사 2010

      22 이정원, "형법각론(제3판)" 법지사 2003

      23 임웅, "형법각론(제3정판 보정)" 법문사 2011

      24 김성돈, "형법각론(제2판)" 성균관대학교 출판부 2009

      25 정성근, "형법각론(제2판)" 삼지원 2006

      26 김성천, "형법각론(제2판)" 동현출판사 2006

      27 손동권, "형법각론(제2개정판)" 율곡출판사 2007

      28 이형국, "형법각론" 법문사 2007

      29 오영근, "형법각론" 박영사 2005

      30 전지연, "형법 제3조의 적극적 속인주의의 문제점과 해결방안" 법학연구원 19 (19): 107-129, 2009

      31 김일수, "한국형법Ⅰ(총론상), In 개정판" 박영사 1996

      32 김성규, "적극적 속인주의에 관한 형법 제3조의 문제점과 그 해결방안" 한국비교형사법학회 9 (9): 1-24, 2007

      33 김성돈, "속인주의와 형법제3조의 재음미" 법학연구소 17 (17): 347-370, 2005

      34 김성규, "소극적 속인주의에 대한 제한으로서의 쌍방가벌성의 요건 - 그 문제점과 대안*" 법학연구소 21 (21): 27-45, 2009

      35 김재윤, "새로운 형법총론" 율곡출판사 2011

      36 박병도, "국내법원에서 국제범죄의 소추와 처벌" 중앙법학회 8 (8): 357-386, 2006

      37 林武永, "賭博罪에 있어서 內國人의 國外犯 處罰에 對한 妥當性 檢討" 한국법학원 72 : 245-256, 2003

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2022 평가예정 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
      2017-01-01 평가 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.94 0.94 0.95
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.94 0.89 1.109 0.3
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼