법인의 범죄능력에 관한 연구 = 낭만주의모델과 조직모델의 비교검토

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Can corporations be criminals? Although corporations can be persons in certain legal context, they cannot so easily be criminals in Korean legal culture, because most legal academics are unwilling to see corporate criminal liability as legally acceptable. The major reason why the legal circles are inclined to deny such a liability is, firstly the corporations have no souls like a man which make man be able to apprehend the meaning of moral blameworthiness and punishment as a response of that blame, and secondly, they don’t have, if any, own intention which is different from their agent, but comes from the corporation itself.
However, the it is possible to morally blame corporation's activity and to impute some crimes of corporation, whether the crimes are committed through its agent or for itself, to corporation's own intent. Two kinds of theory or model can explain the mechanism. One is the romantic model of collective guilt theory. According to this model, in some condition on which the internal cohesion between an actor and the collective entity surrounding him is very strong, not only an actor but also the collective entity like corporation can be culpable and an actor's guilt should be mitigated, because the collective entity's immoral culture and practive encouraged him to commit such crimes through its organic collectivity. From this mechanism, a corporation can be a subject to be morally blamed.
And the other model is organization theory. This theory stresses the need to view corporate actions as a product of the organizational structure, rather than as a matter of individual choice. In the view of this model, a corporation is regarded as intentional systems possessed of organizational intelligence. In short, a corporation is similar to intelligent machine that has its own intention. From these two models we can conclude that it is possible to see a corporation as a legal subject to be culpable and to have its own intention.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 법인의 범죄능력, 무엇이 문제인가?
• Ⅱ. 낭만주의모델
• Ⅲ. 조직모델
• Ⅳ. 낭만주의모델과 조직모델에 대한 평가
• Ⅴ. 맺음말
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 유기천, "형법학(총론강의)" 1980

2 박상기, "형법총론 제8판" 2009

3 이재상, "형법총론 제5판" 2006

4 신동운, "형법총론 제4판" 2009

5 정영일, "형법총론" 2007

6 임웅, "형법총론" 2003

7 오영근, "형법총론" 2005

8 박기석, "양벌규정의 문제점과 법인범죄의 새로운 구성" (10) : 1998

9 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법총론 제9판" 2003

10 이천현, "법인의 범죄주체능력과 형사책임" 22 : 2004

11 손동권, "법인의 범죄능력과 양벌규정" 3 : 1995

12 조홍식, "법에서의 가치와 가치판단: 원고적격의의 규범학(Ⅰ)" 법학연구소 48 (48): 160-203, 2007

13 하태훈, "범죄주체와 법인의 형사책임" 고시계 1999

14 배종대, "고시연구" 1991

15 임웅, "고시연구" 1998

16 신동운, "고시연구" 1998

17 Hirsch, "ZStW 107, 287"

18 C. Stone, "Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behaviour" Harper & Row 1975

19 George P. Fletcher, "Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism" Princeton Univ. Press 2002

20 M. Dan Cohen, "Rights, Persons, and Organizations: A Legal Theory for Bureaucratic Society" Univ. of California Press 1986

21 Brickey, "Rethinking Corporate Liability Under the Model Penal Code" 19 : 593-, 1988

22 J. March, "Organizations" John Wiley & Sons 1958

23 Seth F. Kreimer, "Note, Reading the Mind of the School Board: Segregative Intent and the De Facto/De Jure Distinction" 86 : 317-, 1976

24 G. Allison, "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cubean Missile Crisis" Little, Brown 1971

25 Simeon M. Kriesberg, "Decisionmaking Models and the Control of Corporate Crime" 1091-, 1976

26 Martin J. Weinstein, "Criminal Law’s Greatest Mystery Thriller: Corporate Guilt through Collective Knowledge" 29 : 65-, 1994

27 Keisha A. Gary, "Congressional Proposals to Revive Guilt by Association: An Ineffective Plan to Stop Terrorism" 1994

28 R. Cyert, "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs" Prentice-Hall 1963