불법원인위탁과 횡령죄 성부의 재검토 = On the Re-examination of Illegal Cause Bailment and Embezzlement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article considers the potential punishment and necessity of embezzlement in illegal cause bailment without the intention of ownership transfer. Based on the interpretation of Article 746 of the Civil Law, the Korean Supreme Court has said that embezzlement is not built even if the recipients arbitrarily use this by interpreting that the ownership is actually transferred to recipients in the performance of illegal cause.
However, this is not because it is valid as a legal principle of ownership transfer. This method is to practically guarantee the legal principle that does not grant payers a claim for unjust enrichment. Although the majority does not consider the illegal cause bailment and performance for illegal cause according to the intention of ownership transfer, it needs to consider an ownership to be transferred to payers if payers convey them as an intention of ownership transfer. In such cases, there is no room for embezzlement. However, major cases called performance for illegal cause in criminal law are cases of the illegal cause bailment similar to the case where payers request recipients to convey an ownership without the intention of ownership transfer.
It is not appropriate to solve these cases the same category as the former. In order to distinguish this, the latter case is distinguished as illegal cause bailment. In this case, it seems necessary to recognize the independence of embezzlement in that there is no room for ownership transfer. Although the existence of fiduciary relationship protected by the criminal law becomes a problem, the fiduciary relationship is enough as a consignment. It is necessary to punish this when breaking this. If the term fiduciary relationship here is not worth a relationship protected by criminal law, both payers and recipients should be punished. It is not appropriate to exclude only recipients from the scope of criminal punishment. The Korean Supreme Court found the procurer in embezzlement in Judgment 3 by accepting the comparison theory of illegality, which is a clue as to Article 746 of the Civil Law, to criminal law.
However, criteria to judge that illegality of either party is extremely serious are vague. The criteria to judge the effect of illegality of bribery or prostitution on society are not absolute, and the results vary depending on who judges it. Eventually, the results are in danger of being dependent on arbitrary discretion of judges under these circumstances. If the necessity of criminal punishment is dependent not on the gravity of the illegality but on the degree of social stigmatization, there is no reason to maintain the opinion to deny the establishment of embezzlement under the assumption that the ownership is transferred to recipients in case of the performance for illegal cause. The Korean Supreme Court can be evaluated to make independent judgments on criminal law when acknowledging the need to punish even performance for illegal cause regardless of the presence or absence of a claim for unjust enrichment.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 논의의 방향
• Ⅱ. 불법원인급여의 취지와 소유권귀속
• Ⅲ. 불법원인급여와 불법원인위탁의 구별
• Ⅳ. 소위 “불법성 비교론”에 대한 검토
• Ⅴ. 맺음말
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 류전철, "형사판례의 쟁점과 이론" 전남대학교 출판부 2013

2 강구진, "형법강의 각론Ⅰ" 박영사 1983

3 안동준, "형법각론의 재구성" 전남대학교출판부 2007

4 유기천, "형법각론강의(상)" 일조각 1982

5 배종대, "형법각론" 홍문사 2012

6 안동준, "형법각론" 전남대학교출판부 2011

7 정성근, "형법각론" 삼영사 2011

8 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2012

9 이정원, "형법각론" 신론사 2012

10 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2012

11 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2005

12 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 1995

13 김상용, "채권각론" 화산미디어 2009

14 강동범, "전달뇌물 또는 보관화대의 임의소비와 횡령죄의 성부, 지송 이재상교수 화갑기념형사판례연구(1)-형법" 박영사 2003

15 문형섭, "재산범죄론의 이해: 재산범죄에 대한 실무적 관점에서의 이해" 전남대학교출판부 2006

16 정상현, "이른바 불법성비교이론에 대한 고찰" 한국비교사법학회 9 (9): 2002

17 강동범, "소위 불법원인급여와 횡령죄의 성부" (1) : 1993

18 권순철, "불법원인위탁과 횡령죄-대법원 1999. 7. 17. 98도2036판결-" 한국비교형사법학회 2 : 2000

19 문형섭, "불법원인위탁과 횡령죄" 전남대학교법학연구소 26 : 2006

20 문형섭, "불법원인위탁과 횡령죄" 한국비교형사법학회 13 (13): 113-135, 2011

21 정상현, "불법원인급여제도에 관한 연구" 성균관대학교 대학원 1999

22 조현욱, "불법원인급여와 횡령죄의 성립여부" 한국형사법학회 (18) : 273-291, 2002

23 강구진, "불법원인급여와 횡령죄" 한국사법행정학회 1 (1): 1971

24 장영민, "불법원인급여와 횡령죄" (8) : 2000

25 이정원, "불법원인급여와 재산범죄의 성립여부" 비교형사법학회 4 (4): 2002

26 김선복, "불법원인급여에 있어서 횡령죄의 성부" 비교형사법학회 5 (5): 2003

27 양창수, "민법입문" 박영사 1991

28 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2012

29 朴炳大, "不法原因給與의 判斷基準에 관한 構造分析" 한국법학원 76 (76): 76-104, 2003

30 김일수, "(새로쓴) 형법각론" 博英社 2007