精神障碍犯罪者의 刑事責任判斷基準에 關한 硏究 = (A)study on criminal liability judgement criterion of insane offenders

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A large number of people have mental disorders in the modern society. Hence, many heinous crimes occur. Mentally demented people are deemed not directly responsible for their criminal acts. They often receive a reduced punishment or no punishment at all. It is thus imperative to set some guidelines in order to judge whether they are mentally ill. ?
In the case of Korea, Clauses 1 and 2, Article 10 of the Criminal Law define similar notions, but they don't specify concrete guidelines of judgement.?
? A psychiatrist can give his or her testimony or evaluation in case of a criminal trial involving a mentally disturbed person. That is to say, Article 10 of the Criminal Law judges whether the person on trial is mentally disturbed or ill. ?
A psychiatrist evaluates the criminal according to these two methods: Firstly, the right-wrong test in order to know whether the criminal was aware of his or her criminal act at the time of committing the crime. Secondly, the will power test in order to know whether the criminal was able to control his or her will to commit the crime. ?
? The question is whether we should incriminate the mentally ill criminals in the same legal process as others. This has been a controversial problem for ages in many different societies. The most known principle is the M'Naghten Rule adopted in an English court in 1843. According to this principle, anyone, who is unable to understand nor recognize his or her criminal act committed in the state of being mentally ill, cannot be pronounced guilty. ?
? The M'Naghten rule was further interpreted as the concept of irresistible impulse in 1922. Which means, the inability to resist an urge to commit a crime due to a mental illness leads to the non-liability as to a committed crime. ?
? In 1954, a so-called Durham Rule took place. According to this rule, a criminal with a mental illness is automatically not guilty. This rule was later abolished, since it was too generous with mentally ill criminals. In the U.S, however, the Model Penal Code defines that anyone, who is unable to judge his or her own criminality at the time of committing a crime, is deemed not liable for his or her criminal acts. The Model Penal Code is based upon the M'Naghten Rule.?
? Psychologists say that the mentally ill criminals need be understood psychologically. According to this kind of assertion, crimes may take place because of the psychological peculiarities of an individual. ?
? In the meantime, the law meets the psychiatry: which is, the legal psychiatry. In a court of law, a psychiatrist's position often contradicts that of a lawyer. The role of a psychiatrist is to determine the causes of crimes and reduce the number of criminal acts through preventive measures. By contrast, a lawyer is interested in denouncing anti-social behaviors that may harm other people's security, only trying to win over the jury, based on the physical evidence. The role of a psychiatrist is limited to evaluating and witnessing a case, using his or her professional knowledge, and ultimately assisting the judge in the court.?
? A case by the Supreme Court shows that the verdict can be delivered, based upon common sense and empirical knowledge, without taking psychiatrical or psychological evaluations into serious consideration. This is a cause for concern, since the verdict may vary, depending on the judge.?
? But some recent cases show that it is not lawful to deliver a controversial verdict as to mental illness without asking for professional advice. Which means, it is imperative that the biological matters, at least, be under scrutiny of experts.?
? In order to solve this kind of problem, it is necessary to have Article 10 of the Criminal Law and the judge yield to the result of psychiatric evaluations, and to subsequently enhance the position of the those who evaluate, as defined in Article 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And I also suggest the legislation of a 'new law as to the punishment of mentally ill criminals', taking into consideration all the related articles of the Criminal Law, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Mental Health Law.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 문제의 제기 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 4
• 제2장 책임이론과 책임능력 6
• 제1절 책임이론 6
• Ⅰ. 책임이론의 의의 6
• Ⅱ. 책임개념의 연혁 6
• 1. 책임개념의 발전 6
• 2. 18세기 계몽주의철학과 자연법론 7
• 3. 의사자유의 문제 7
• Ⅲ. 책임에 관한 형법규정 9
• Ⅳ. 책임의 근거 10
• 1. 도의적 책임론 11
• 2. 사회적 책임론 12
• 3. 인격적 책임론 13
• 제2절 책임능력 14
• Ⅰ. 책임능력의 의의 14
• Ⅱ. 책임능력의 본질 14
• 1. 유책행위능력 내지 범죄능력으로 보는 입장 15
• 2. 형벌적응능력으로 보는 입장 15
• 3. 유책행위능력인 동시에 수형능력이라는 입장 16
• 4. 결어 17
• Ⅲ. 책임능력에 관한 형법의 규정 17
• Ⅳ. 책임능력의 범죄체계상의 지위 18
• Ⅴ. 책임능력의 판단시점 20
• 제3절 책임능력에 대한 각국 입법례 21
• Ⅰ. 영미 21
• 1. 서언 21
• 2. M'Naghten Rule 22
• 3. Irresistible Impulse Rule 29
• 4. Durham Rule 32
• 5. Model Penal Code 34
• Ⅱ. 독일 37
• 1. 책임무능력 또는 한정책임능력의 판단 37
• 2. 정신감정 38
• Ⅲ. 일본 39
• 1. 형법 규정 39
• 2. 통설과 판례 40
• 제4절 책임능력의 구체적 내용 41
• Ⅰ. 심신상실자 41
• 1. 사물변별능력 42
• 2. 의사결정능력 45
• Ⅱ. 심신미약자 47
• Ⅲ. 대법원 판례 47
• 1. 정신장애를 인정한 판례 48
• 2. 정신장애를 부정한 판례 49
• 3. 소결 50
• 제5절 정신장애의 판단방법 50
• Ⅰ. 생물학적 방법 51
• Ⅱ. 심리학적 방법 52
• Ⅲ. 혼합적 방법 53
• Ⅳ. 결어 54
• 제3장 정신장애인의 범죄심리에 대한 정신과학적 접근 58
• 제1절 정신분석학적 이론(Psychoanalytic Theory) 60
• Ⅰ. 서설 60
• Ⅱ. 프로이트의 정신분석이론 61
• Ⅲ. 프로이트의 범죄 설명 65
• Ⅳ. 프로이트 이론의 성과와 한계 69
• 1. 프로이트 이론의 성과 69
• 2. 프로이트 이론의 한계 70
• 제2절 인성이론(Personality Theory) 71
• Ⅰ. 인성이론의 내용 71
• Ⅱ. 인성이론에 대한 평가 80
• 제3절 행동심리학적 이론 81
• Ⅰ. 학습이론 82
• Ⅱ. 모델링 이론 84
• Ⅲ. 인지발달이론 85
• Ⅳ. 행동주의 이론의 성과와 한계 88
• 제4절 정신의학적 이론 90
• Ⅰ. 정신병(psychoses)과 범죄 91
• 1. 정신분열증(schizophrenia)과 범죄 92
• 2. 망상증(paranoia)과 범죄 93
• Ⅱ. 정신신경증(neuroses)과 범죄 95
• Ⅲ. 성격장애(personality disorder)와 범죄 96
• Ⅳ. 지능과 범죄 97
• 제5절 결어 98
• 제4장 정신장애의 정신의학적 판단기준 101
• 제1절 정신장애의 의학적 배경 101
• Ⅰ. 이론적 배경 101
• Ⅱ. 정신의 개념 103
• Ⅲ. 정신의학의 역사 104
• 1. 원시시대 105
• 2. 암흑기(300 - 1500) 106
• 3. 현대 정신의학의 전구기(카타르期) 106
• 4. 현대 정신의학의 초기 107
• 5. 현대정신의학 109
• 제2절 정신장애에 대한 감정 110
• Ⅰ. 의의 110
• Ⅱ. 범위 111
• Ⅲ. 형사절차 113
• 1. 법규정 113
• 2. 정신감정의 채택 여부 114
• Ⅳ. 감정과 보고 115
• 1. 감정 115
• 2. 보고 115
• 3. 정신감정서의 기재사항 116
• Ⅴ. 감정 결과의 증거능력과 기속 여부 117
• 1. 정신감정서의 증거능력 117
• 2. 정신감정 결과의 기속 여부 117
• Ⅵ. 입증책임 118
• 제3절 정신장애의 정신의학적 판단기준 120
• Ⅰ. 정신지체(Mental Retardation) 122
• 1. 증상 122
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 124
• 3. 판례 124
• Ⅱ. 기분장애(Mood Disorders) 126
• 1. 증상 126
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 126
• 3. 판례 127
• Ⅲ. 인격장애(Personality disorders) 127
• 1. 증상 127
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 132
• 3. 판례 133
• Ⅳ. 충동조절장애(Disorder of Impulse Control or Impulse-Control Disorders) 134
• 1. 증상 134
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 136
• 3. 판례 136
• Ⅴ. 정신분열병(Schizophrenia) 138
• 1. 증상 138
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 140
• 3. 판례 141
• Ⅵ. 성장애(Sexual Disorder) 142
• 1. 증상 142
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 145
• 3. 판례 145
• Ⅶ. 물질관련장애(Substance-related Disorders) 146
• 1. 증상 146
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 147
• 3. 판례 148
• Ⅷ. 알코올관련 장애(Alcohol-related Disorders) 149
• 1. 증상 149
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 150
• 3. 판례 151
• Ⅸ. 간질(Epilepsy) 152
• 1. 증상 152
• 2. 책임능력의 판단 155
• 3. 판례 156
• Ⅹ. 결어 157
• 제5장 결 론 159
• 참고문헌 164