Today, the principle of culpability is a common criminal doctrine prevailing in not only civil law system countries but also Anglo-American law system countries. National penal authority should be executed for the purpose of guarantee of people's righ...
다국어 입력
あ
ぁ
か
が
さ
ざ
た
だ
な
は
ば
ぱ
ま
や
ゃ
ら
わ
ゎ
ん
い
ぃ
き
ぎ
し
じ
ち
ぢ
に
ひ
び
ぴ
み
り
う
ぅ
く
ぐ
す
ず
つ
づ
っ
ぬ
ふ
ぶ
ぷ
む
ゆ
ゅ
る
え
ぇ
け
げ
せ
ぜ
て
で
ね
へ
べ
ぺ
め
れ
お
ぉ
こ
ご
そ
ぞ
と
ど
の
ほ
ぼ
ぽ
も
よ
ょ
ろ
を
ア
ァ
カ
サ
ザ
タ
ダ
ナ
ハ
バ
パ
マ
ヤ
ャ
ラ
ワ
ヮ
ン
イ
ィ
キ
ギ
シ
ジ
チ
ヂ
ニ
ヒ
ビ
ピ
ミ
リ
ウ
ゥ
ク
グ
ス
ズ
ツ
ヅ
ッ
ヌ
フ
ブ
プ
ム
ユ
ュ
ル
エ
ェ
ケ
ゲ
セ
ゼ
テ
デ
ヘ
ベ
ペ
メ
レ
オ
ォ
コ
ゴ
ソ
ゾ
ト
ド
ノ
ホ
ボ
ポ
モ
ヨ
ョ
ロ
ヲ
―
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.
А
Б
В
Г
Д
Е
Ё
Ж
З
И
Й
К
Л
М
Н
О
П
Р
С
Т
У
Ф
Х
Ц
Ч
Ш
Щ
Ъ
Ы
Ь
Э
Ю
Я
а
б
в
г
д
е
ё
ж
з
и
й
к
л
м
н
о
п
р
с
т
у
ф
х
ц
ч
ш
щ
ъ
ы
ь
э
ю
я
′
″
℃
Å
￠
￡
￥
¤
℉
‰
＄
％
Ｆ
￦
㎕
㎖
㎗
ℓ
㎘
㏄
㎣
㎤
㎥
㎦
㎙
㎚
㎛
㎜
㎝
㎞
㎟
㎠
㎡
㎢
㏊
㎍
㎎
㎏
㏏
㎈
㎉
㏈
㎧
㎨
㎰
㎱
㎲
㎳
㎴
㎵
㎶
㎷
㎸
㎹
㎀
㎁
㎂
㎃
㎄
㎺
㎻
㎽
㎾
㎿
㎐
㎑
㎒
㎓
㎔
Ω
㏀
㏁
㎊
㎋
㎌
㏖
㏅
㎭
㎮
㎯
㏛
㎩
㎪
㎫
㎬
㏝
㏐
㏓
㏃
㏉
㏜
㏆
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13835473
- 저자
-
발행사항
서울 : 高麗大學校 大學院, 2015
- 학위논문사항
-
발행연도
2015
-
작성언어
한국어
- 주제어
-
발행국(도시)
서울
-
기타서명
A study of American criminal law based on the principle of culpability
-
형태사항
vii, 266 p. ; 26 cm
-
일반주기명
지도교수: 河泰勳
참고문헌: p. 256-262 - DOI식별코드
-
소장기관
- 고려대학교 도서관
- 고려대학교 세종학술정보원
- 국립중앙도서관
- 고려대학교 도서관
-
0
상세조회 -
0
다운로드
인용문이 복사되었습니다.
부가정보
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
Today, the principle of culpability is a common criminal doctrine prevailing in not only civil law system countries but also Anglo-American law system countries. National penal authority should be executed for the purpose of guarantee of people's rights and its procedures and limitations should be abided by.
In American criminal law, the nature of culpability is also blameworthiness. Criminal liability can be imposed on a person who meets the requirement of intent, knowledge, recklessness or criminal negligence as criminal state of mind(mens res). Since the late period of common law, the principle of culpability that means criminal punishment can be justified only when the results are due to the culpable mens rea of the conductor has been established. Therefore, criminal state of mind(mens res) is also the essential element that constitutes culpability in American criminal law.
The Model Penal Code establishes four levels of culpability- purposely, knowingly, recklessly, criminally negligently-. These four culpability levels were intended to replace the vast diversity of mens rea terms used by common law courts and various state legislatures. The Model Penal Code also adopts subjective liability(recklessness) as the default position. If there is no mens rea stated in the statute, the criminal element is proved if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect to mens rea.
In general, the state needs to prove the defendant had a mens rea, however, in a very few instances courts interpret statutes that have no mens rea words as allowing criminal liability to be imposed even though the defendant has not had any mens rea(even tortious negligence). It is generally referred to as 'strict liability'. Strict liability is imposed where the public rather than a single individual is endangered. Strict liability is not a complete negation of the principle of culpability and that of mens rea but it considers a criminal policy within the scope of those principles. The Model Penal Code precludes any penalty of imprisonment unless the prosecution proves mens rea with regard to every element of the offense.
Although murder in the common law generally required 'malice aforethought', any death occurring during the course of a felony is labeled murder even without such a mens rea. The felony murder doctrine imposes liability for murder whether a felon kills intentionally, recklessly, negligently or even non-negligently. This obviously clash with the notion of causation. The doctrine is too broad and it has been required to find ways to limit its application.
The “in furtherance”, “agency” and “provocative act” theories, duration of the felony and limitation on the predicate felony (independent felonious purpose doctrine and inherently dangerous felony rule) theory have been suggested as restrictions on the felony murder doctrine. The Model Penal Code also limits the doctrine allowing its application only in cases involving robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape. Even then, the Code raises only a presumption that the defendant was reckless with regard to the possibility of death. That presumption is rebuttable by the defendant.
Conspiracy punishes individuals who agree to commit a crime. At common law, conspiracy, like attempt, merged into the completed substantive offense. Consequently, conspirators could not be punished both for conspiracy and the target offense. Today, however, in most jurisdictions conspiracy is a separate substantive offense. Under 'Pinkerton rule' each co-conspirator is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable crime committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. This rule essentially establishes vicarious liability for every member of a conspiracy for all foreseeable crimes without requiring the government to establish the accessorial liability and it establishes vicarious liability based on negligence. The prosecutor needs only to prove that the crimes were reasonably foreseeable. The Model Penal Code rejects the Pinkerton rule because the scope of vicarious responsibility under this rule is too broad. Under the Model Penal Code, a co-conspirator must satisfy the Model Penal Code elements for accessorial liability, which are more narrow than the common law. This means that conspiracy by itself is not a basis for establishing complicity for all reasonably foreseeable substantive offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Accomplice liability is a doctrine that impose criminal liability on individuals for a crime committed by someone else, usually because the secondary actors have intentionally helped or encouraged the primary actor to commit the crime. Physical aid and psychological aid are two ways of helping someone else to commit a crime. Accomplice must act at least the same mens rea or culpability required for conviction of the offense committed by the principal. The Model Penal Code would also require that accomplice act with at least the same culpability or mens rea of the crime being aided. The mens rea element of accomplice clearly suggests that an accomplice should only be held responsible for the specific acts of the principal that he intended to aid. A number of recent cases, however, have expanded the accomplice's liability beyond this limit to include those acts that the accomplice should have reasonably foreseen or that were a natural and probable consequence of the offense that the accomplice intended to aid.
When providing goods and services, a question occurs whether the supplier can be convicted of accomplice solely because he knows his goods or services are being used for a criminal goal or the prosecutor must prove that the defendant provided the goods or services with the purpose to advance the criminal object. The courts have considered whether ①the defendant charged excessive price ②there is no legitimate use for the goods or services ③the volume of the defendant's business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand for his goods or service.
In American criminal law, the nature of culpability is also blameworthiness. Criminal liability can be imposed on a person who meets the requirement of intent, knowledge, recklessness or criminal negligence as criminal state of mind(mens res). Since the late period of common law, the principle of culpability that means criminal punishment can be justified only when the results are due to the culpable mens rea of the conductor has been established. Therefore, criminal state of mind(mens res) is also the essential element that constitutes culpability in American criminal law.
The Model Penal Code establishes four levels of culpability- purposely, knowingly, recklessly, criminally negligently-. These four culpability levels were intended to replace the vast diversity of mens rea terms used by common law courts and various state legislatures. The Model Penal Code also adopts subjective liability(recklessness) as the default position. If there is no mens rea stated in the statute, the criminal element is proved if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect to mens rea.
In general, the state needs to prove the defendant had a mens rea, however, in a very few instances courts interpret statutes that have no mens rea words as allowing criminal liability to be imposed even though the defendant has not had any mens rea(even tortious negligence). It is generally referred to as 'strict liability'. Strict liability is imposed where the public rather than a single individual is endangered. Strict liability is not a complete negation of the principle of culpability and that of mens rea but it considers a criminal policy within the scope of those principles. The Model Penal Code precludes any penalty of imprisonment unless the prosecution proves mens rea with regard to every element of the offense.
Although murder in the common law generally required 'malice aforethought', any death occurring during the course of a felony is labeled murder even without such a mens rea. The felony murder doctrine imposes liability for murder whether a felon kills intentionally, recklessly, negligently or even non-negligently. This obviously clash with the notion of causation. The doctrine is too broad and it has been required to find ways to limit its application.
The “in furtherance”, “agency” and “provocative act” theories, duration of the felony and limitation on the predicate felony (independent felonious purpose doctrine and inherently dangerous felony rule) theory have been suggested as restrictions on the felony murder doctrine. The Model Penal Code also limits the doctrine allowing its application only in cases involving robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape. Even then, the Code raises only a presumption that the defendant was reckless with regard to the possibility of death. That presumption is rebuttable by the defendant.
Conspiracy punishes individuals who agree to commit a crime. At common law, conspiracy, like attempt, merged into the completed substantive offense. Consequently, conspirators could not be punished both for conspiracy and the target offense. Today, however, in most jurisdictions conspiracy is a separate substantive offense. Under 'Pinkerton rule' each co-conspirator is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable crime committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. This rule essentially establishes vicarious liability for every member of a conspiracy for all foreseeable crimes without requiring the government to establish the accessorial liability and it establishes vicarious liability based on negligence. The prosecutor needs only to prove that the crimes were reasonably foreseeable. The Model Penal Code rejects the Pinkerton rule because the scope of vicarious responsibility under this rule is too broad. Under the Model Penal Code, a co-conspirator must satisfy the Model Penal Code elements for accessorial liability, which are more narrow than the common law. This means that conspiracy by itself is not a basis for establishing complicity for all reasonably foreseeable substantive offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Accomplice liability is a doctrine that impose criminal liability on individuals for a crime committed by someone else, usually because the secondary actors have intentionally helped or encouraged the primary actor to commit the crime. Physical aid and psychological aid are two ways of helping someone else to commit a crime. Accomplice must act at least the same mens rea or culpability required for conviction of the offense committed by the principal. The Model Penal Code would also require that accomplice act with at least the same culpability or mens rea of the crime being aided. The mens rea element of accomplice clearly suggests that an accomplice should only be held responsible for the specific acts of the principal that he intended to aid. A number of recent cases, however, have expanded the accomplice's liability beyond this limit to include those acts that the accomplice should have reasonably foreseen or that were a natural and probable consequence of the offense that the accomplice intended to aid.
When providing goods and services, a question occurs whether the supplier can be convicted of accomplice solely because he knows his goods or services are being used for a criminal goal or the prosecutor must prove that the defendant provided the goods or services with the purpose to advance the criminal object. The courts have considered whether ①the defendant charged excessive price ②there is no legitimate use for the goods or services ③the volume of the defendant's business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand for his goods or service.
Today, the principle of culpability is a common criminal doctrine prevailing in not only civil law system countries but also Anglo-American law system countries. National penal authority should be executed for the purpose of guarantee of people's rights and its procedures and limitations should be abided by.
In American criminal law, the nature of culpability is also blameworthiness. Criminal liability can be imposed on a person who meets the requirement of intent, knowledge, recklessness or criminal negligence as criminal state of mind(mens res). Since the late period of common law, the principle of culpability that means criminal punishment can be justified only when the results are due to the culpable mens rea of the conductor has been established. Therefore, criminal state of mind(mens res) is also the essential element that constitutes culpability in American criminal law.
The Model Penal Code establishes four levels of culpability- purposely, knowingly, recklessly, criminally negligently-. These four culpability levels were intended to replace the vast diversity of mens rea terms used by common law courts and various state legislatures. The Model Penal Code also adopts subjective liability(recklessness) as the default position. If there is no mens rea stated in the statute, the criminal element is proved if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect to mens rea.
In general, the state needs to prove the defendant had a mens rea, however, in a very few instances courts interpret statutes that have no mens rea words as allowing criminal liability to be imposed even though the defendant has not had any mens rea(even tortious negligence). It is generally referred to as 'strict liability'. Strict liability is imposed where the public rather than a single individual is endangered. Strict liability is not a complete negation of the principle of culpability and that of mens rea but it considers a criminal policy within the scope of those principles. The Model Penal Code precludes any penalty of imprisonment unless the prosecution proves mens rea with regard to every element of the offense.
Although murder in the common law generally required 'malice aforethought', any death occurring during the course of a felony is labeled murder even without such a mens rea. The felony murder doctrine imposes liability for murder whether a felon kills intentionally, recklessly, negligently or even non-negligently. This obviously clash with the notion of causation. The doctrine is too broad and it has been required to find ways to limit its application.
The “in furtherance”, “agency” and “provocative act” theories, duration of the felony and limitation on the predicate felony (independent felonious purpose doctrine and inherently dangerous felony rule) theory have been suggested as restrictions on the felony murder doctrine. The Model Penal Code also limits the doctrine allowing its application only in cases involving robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape. Even then, the Code raises only a presumption that the defendant was reckless with regard to the possibility of death. That presumption is rebuttable by the defendant.
Conspiracy punishes individuals who agree to commit a crime. At common law, conspiracy, like attempt, merged into the completed substantive offense. Consequently, conspirators could not be punished both for conspiracy and the target offense. Today, however, in most jurisdictions conspiracy is a separate substantive offense. Under 'Pinkerton rule' each co-conspirator is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable crime committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. This rule essentially establishes vicarious liability for every member of a conspiracy for all foreseeable crimes without requiring the government to establish the accessorial liability and it establishes vicarious liability based on negligence. The prosecutor needs only to prove that the crimes were reasonably foreseeable. The Model Penal Code rejects the Pinkerton rule because the scope of vicarious responsibility under this rule is too broad. Under the Model Penal Code, a co-conspirator must satisfy the Model Penal Code elements for accessorial liability, which are more narrow than the common law. This means that conspiracy by itself is not a basis for establishing complicity for all reasonably foreseeable substantive offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Accomplice liability is a doctrine that impose criminal liability on individuals for a crime committed by someone else, usually because the secondary actors have intentionally helped or encouraged the primary actor to commit the crime. Physical aid and psychological aid are two ways of helping someone else to commit a crime. Accomplice must act at least the same mens rea or culpability required for conviction of the offense committed by the principal. The Model Penal Code would also require that accomplice act with at least the same culpability or mens rea of the crime being aided. The mens rea element of accomplice clearly suggests that an accomplice should only be held responsible for the specific acts of the principal that he intended to aid. A number of recent cases, however, have expanded the accomplice's liability beyond this limit to include those acts that the accomplice should have reasonably foreseen or that were a natural and probable consequence of the offense that the accomplice intended to aid.
When providing goods and services, a question occurs whether the supplier can be convicted of accomplice solely because he knows his goods or services are being used for a criminal goal or the prosecutor must prove that the defendant provided the goods or services with the purpose to advance the criminal object. The courts have considered whether ①the defendant charged excessive price ②there is no legitimate use for the goods or services ③the volume of the defendant's business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand for his goods or service.
목차 (Table of Contents)
- 제 1 장 서론 1
- Ⅰ. 연구 목적 1
- Ⅱ. 연구 방법과 구성 2
- 제 2 장 책임원칙의 의의 및 형법적 기능 4
- 제 1 절 형법과 책임원칙 4
- 제 1 장 서론 1
- Ⅰ. 연구 목적 1
- Ⅱ. 연구 방법과 구성 2
- 제 2 장 책임원칙의 의의 및 형법적 기능 4
- 제 1 절 형법과 책임원칙 4
- Ⅰ. 국가형벌권과 형법 4
- 1. 문제의 제기 4
- 2. 국가형벌권의 정당성 5
- 3. 형법의 임무와 국가형벌권 8
- Ⅱ. 국가형벌권과 책임원칙 13
- 1. 책임과 형벌의 상관관계 13
- 2. 책임원칙의 형법적 기능 15
- 3. 책임원칙에 대한 도전 17
- Ⅲ. 형법상 책임과 예방과의 관계 18
- 1. 학설의 논의 19
- 2. 책임개념의 재정립 24
- 제 2 절 현대 위험사회에서 책임원칙과 책임구조의 변화 25
- Ⅰ. 서론 25
- Ⅱ. 위험사회에서 형법의 기능변화 26
- Ⅲ. 위험예방과 법익보호의 문제 28
- Ⅳ. 소결 33
- 제 3 절 결론 34
- 제 3 장 미국 형사사법의 특징 및 책임원칙과의 관련성 36
- 제 1 절 서설 36
- 제 2 절 영미법의 개념 및 특징 38
- Ⅰ. 대륙법체계와 영미법체계 38
- Ⅱ. 영미법의 개념 42
- Ⅲ. 영미법의 특징 44
- 1. 법원(法源) 45
- 2. 법의 지배 55
- 3. 보통법 및 형평법의 병존 58
- 4. 법적 안정성과 구체적 타당성(Certainty and Equity) 62
- 5. 법전과 법전화(Code and Codification) 63
- Ⅳ. 소결 - 영미법의 법전통과 책임원칙- 65
- 제 3 절 미국 법체계의 발전과정 70
- Ⅰ. 개관 70
- Ⅱ. 신대륙 이주 초기의 형사사법제도 70
- Ⅲ. 영국 보통법의 계수 및 발전 72
- 1. 개관 72
- 2. 영국 형사사법제도의 도입 73
- 제 4 절 독자적인 미국법체계의 형성 74
- Ⅰ. 서론 74
- Ⅱ. 성문법에 의한 형사사법절차의 보장 76
- Ⅲ. 연방제도의 채택 78
- Ⅳ. 배심제도 79
- 1. 배심제도의 의의 및 연혁 79
- 2. 배심제도의 기능 80
- 3. 미국에서 배심제의 운영 81
- 4. 배심제도의 영향 86
- Ⅴ. 당사자주의(Adversary System)의 확립 88
- 1. 당사자주의의 형성 과정 88
- 2. 당사자주의제도의 이론적 근거와 특징 89
- 3. 미국에서 당사자주의의 확립 92
- 4. 당사자주의제도에 대한 평가 93
- 제 5 절 결론 -미국 형사사법제도와 책임원칙과의 관계- 95
- 제 4 장 미국 형법상 범죄의사(Mens Rea)와 책임원칙 100
- 제 1 절 서론 100
- Ⅰ. 범죄의 구성요소(Elements of Crime) 100
- Ⅱ. 범죄의사(mens rea)와 책임원칙 101
- 제 2 절 미국 형법상 범죄의사(Mens Rea) 103
- Ⅰ. Mens Rea의 원칙 103
- 1. 범죄의사(Mens Rea)의 필요 여부-불법행위와의 구별 104
- 2. 전통적 Mens Rea와 제정법상의 Mens Rea 106
- 3. 동기(Motive)와 범죄의사(Mens Rea) 109
- 4. 보통법(Common Law)상 범죄의사(Mens Rea)에 따른 범죄의 분류 111
- Ⅱ. 제정법상 범죄의사(Mens Rea)의 유형 114
- 1. 고의(의도) - Intent(Purpose) 114
- (1) 일반적인 의미 114
- (2) 고의의 전용(Transferred Intent)문제 116
- (3) 간접고의(Oblique Intent) 117
- (4) 특정고의와 일반고의 (Specific Intent and General Intent) 118
- 2. 인지(Knowledge) 119
- 3. 무모함(Recklessness) 120
- 4. 형사책임의 기초로서 과실(Negligence as a Predicate for Criminal Liability) 122
- Ⅲ. 인식(Knowingly), 과실(Neligent)과 무모함(Reckless)의 구별 125
- 1. 모범형법상 무모함(Recklessness)의 개념요소 126
- 2. 알면서(Knowingly) 와의 구별 127
- 3. 과실(Negligence) 과의 구별 128
- 4. Homicide 범죄에서 Reckless 와 Negligent Manslaughter 129
- (1)부작위에 의한 무모함(reckless)과 위험의 인식에 관한 판단기준 130
- (2)위험의 의식적인 무시(Conscious Disregard of Risk) 131
- 5. 한국 형법상 미필적 고의, 인식 있는 과실과 미국 형법상 무모함(recklessness)의 비교 132
- (1) 미필적 고의와 인식 있는 과실의 구별 132
- (2) 판례의 태도 133
- (3) 무모함(recklessness) 과의 관련성 134
- 6. 소결 135
- Ⅳ. 범죄의사와 관련된 제정법의 해석 136
- 1. 제정법의 해석(Construction) 원리 136
- 2. 범죄구성요건 분석 137
- 3. 범죄의사 규정의 흠결(Default Position) 문제 141
- 제 3 절 모범형법(Model Penal Code)상의 범죄의사(Mens Rea) 142
- Ⅰ. 범죄구성요건분석(Element Analysis) 142
- 1. 구성요건(Elements)과 중요구성요건(Material Elements) 143
- 2. 중요구성요건의 종류(Kinds of Material Elements) 143
- (1) 실행행위와 결과(Conduct and Result) 144
- (2) 범죄에 수반되는 정황; 부대상황 (Attendant Circumstance) 144
- Ⅱ. 모범형법상 책임의 단계(Levels of Culpability) 145
- 1. 고의로(purposely) 147
- 2. 알면서(knowingly) 148
- 3. 무모하게(recklessly) 149
- 4. 과실로(negligently) 149
- Ⅲ. 범죄의사(Mens Rea) 와 중요 범죄구성요건 150
- 1. 원칙 150
- 2. 범죄의사에 대한 규정이 없는 경우(The Default Position), 모범형법 상 규정 태도 154
- Ⅳ. 주관적 기준(subjectivity) vs. 객관적 기준(objectivity) 156
- 제 4 절 Mens Rea 원칙의 예외(책임원칙의 예외) 157
- Ⅰ.엄격책임 157
- 1. 서론 157
- 2. 엄격책임의 개념 및 엄격책임 논의의 전개과정 159
- 3. 엄격책임의 기준 및 유형 167
- 4. 평가 및 책임원칙과의 조화 169
- 제 5 절 미국 형법상 책임형식에 대한 평가 및 결론 174
- 제 5 장 미국 형법상 책임원칙이 문제되는 영역 178
- 제 1 절 Felony Murder와 책임원칙 178
- Ⅰ. Felony Murder의 연혁적 근거 178
- Ⅱ. Felony Murder 이론의 문제점 180
- Ⅲ. Felony Murder 이론에 대한 제한(Restrictions on the Doctrine) 180
- 1. 인과관계의 문제 -The Proximate Cause Theory 181
- 2. 범죄수행의 촉진이론, 조력자 이론, 그리고 유발행위 이론(The In Furtherance, Agency and Provocative Act Theories) 182
- 3. 엄폐물 사례- 예외에 대한 예외 이론(The Shield Cases: Exception to an Exception to an Exception) 183
- 4. Felony Murder 성립의 시간적 범위 문제(Duration of the felony) 184
- 5. Felony murder 책임의 기초가 되는 중범죄에 대한 제한(Limitation on the Predicate Felony) 184
- (1) 병합 혹은 독립적인 중범죄 목적 원칙(Merger or Independent Felonious Purpose Doctrine) 184
- (2) 본질적으로 위험한 중범죄의 원칙(Inherently Dangerous Felony Rule) 186
- Ⅳ. Mens Rea vs. Felony Murder 189
- Ⅴ. 모범형법상의 접근 방법 190
- Ⅵ. 소결 191
- 제 2 절 공모(Conspiracy)와 책임원칙 193
- Ⅰ. 개관 193
- 1. 공모의 개념 194
- (1) 보통법 194
- (2) 모범형법 195
- 2. 미수(attempt)와의 구별 195
- 3. 공모죄의 재판절차상의 특징 196
- Ⅱ. 공모의 구성요소 197
- 1. 합의(Agreement) 197
- (1) 보통법 197
- (2) 모범형법 198
- (3) 편면적 공모의 가능여부 199
- 2. 외부적 행위(Overt Act) 202
- 3. Mental State - 특정고의(Specific Intent) 203
- Ⅲ. 공모자의 책임범위 205
- 1. 공모의 처벌 205
- 2. Wharton Rule 206
- 3. 공모죄에 있어서 대위책임(Vicarious Liability - Pinkerton Rule) 207
- (1) 보통법 207
- (2) 모범형법 210
- 4. 보호되는 집단(Protected Class)의 공모죄 성립여부 210
- 5. 공모범죄와 실행된 범죄의 병합여부 211
- Ⅳ. 소결 211
- 제 3 절 공범과 책임원칙(Accomplice Liability) 214
- Ⅰ. 서론 214
- 1. 보통법상 범죄참가자(Parties to a Crime) 215
- 2. 보통법상 범죄참가자 구별의 실익 216
- 3. 현대 입법경향 217
- Ⅱ. 영미법상 공범체계와 책임원칙 218
- 1. 보통법상 정범과 공범의 구별 기준 218
- 2. 미국 모범형법전과 연방법상의 공범체계 219
- (1) 모범형법(Model Penal Code)상의 공범체계 219
- (2) 미국연방법(U.S. Code)상의 공범체계 220
- 3. 보통법상 공범종속성의 원칙 221
- 4. 미국 모범형법과 미국 연방법상 공범종속성의 완화 223
- (1) 모범형법 223
- (2) 미국 연방법 224
- 5. 대륙법상의 공범체계와의 차이 및 책임원칙 부합 여부 225
- (1) 보통법상 정범과 공범의 처벌 225
- (2) 공범 성립과 인과관계 226
- Ⅲ. 보통법상 공범의 성립요건 227
- 1. 원칙 227
- 2. 주관적 요건(Mens Rea) 227
- (1) 정범의 Mens Rea(The Mens Rea of the Crime Aided) 228
- (2) 공범의 Mens Rea(Purpose or Intent to Aid the Principal's Criminal Action) 228
- (3) 무모함 혹은 과실의 정범에 대한 공범의 성립 가능성 여부 228
- (4) 엄격책임범죄의 문제 229
- 3. 통상적인 재화와 용역의 제공과 방조성립 여부 229
- (1) 문제점 229
- (2) 미국판례의 유형 230
- (3) 판례 및 이론의 검토 233
- (4) 미국 모범형법전의 규정 235
- (5) 새로운 범죄유형을 입법하는 방식 235
- (6) 소결 및 시사점 236
- 4. 행위(Actus Reus) 요건 238
- (1) 범죄현장에서의 현존 여부 238
- (2) 방조행위의 실질적 기여 여부 239
- Ⅳ. 공범의 책임 범위 240
- 1. 자연스럽고 상당한 결과(Natural and probable results) 240
- 2. 공범 책임의 면제 241
- (1)보호받는 집단의 구성원(Members of the Protected Class) 242
- (2) 처벌이 규정되지 않은 필요적 당사자(Necessary Parties Not Provided For) 242
- 3. 공범의 철회(Withdrawal) 242
- 4. 모범형법상 공범규정 243
- 제 4 절 결론 245
- 제 6 장 결론 248
- <참고문헌> 256
- <Abstract> 263
참고문헌 (Reference)
1. 영미법, 이상윤, 박영사, , 2005
2. 영미법, 최대권, 박영사, 박영사, , 2001
3. 미국형법, 서철원, 법원사, , 2005
4. 형법총론, 오영근, 박영사, , 2009
5. 형법총론, 陈子平, 中国人民大学出版社, 박영사, , 2009
6. 행정법 Ⅰ, 김동희, 박영사, , 2007
7. 미국법강의, 장영진, 세창, 세창출판사, -5 7, , 2008
8. 영미법해설, 김용진, 박영사, , 2009
9. 위험형법론, 박강우, 한국학술정보( 주), , 2005
10. 책임형법론, 심재우, 홍문사, 홍문사, , 1995
1. 영미법, 이상윤, 박영사, , 2005
2. 영미법, 최대권, 박영사, 박영사, , 2001
3. 미국형법, 서철원, 법원사, , 2005
4. 형법총론, 오영근, 박영사, , 2009
5. 형법총론, 陈子平, 中国人民大学出版社, 박영사, , 2009
6. 행정법 Ⅰ, 김동희, 박영사, , 2007
7. 미국법강의, 장영진, 세창, 세창출판사, -5 7, , 2008
8. 영미법해설, 김용진, 박영사, , 2009
9. 위험형법론, 박강우, 한국학술정보( 주), , 2005
10. 책임형법론, 심재우, 홍문사, 홍문사, , 1995
11. 미국법 이해, 조은향, 법문사, , 2008
12. 미국법 해설, 정하늘, 박영사, 박영사, , 2011
13. 한국형법 Ⅰ, 김일수, 박영사, , 1996
14. 미국의 배심제도, 정만희, 한국공법학회, 공법연구 제35 집, , 2006
15. 헌법이론과 헌법, 허영, 박영사, , 2004
16. 영미 형사사법의 구조, 표성수, 비봉출판사, , 2006
17. 미국형법상의 책임원칙, 李基憲, 명지대학교 사회과학연구소, 사회과학논총 제13 집 제2 권, , 1997
18. 법정형체계의 정비방안, 김혜경, 한국형사정책연구원, , 2006
19. 기업처벌 법리의 재구성, 한성훈, 한국학술정보, 한국학술정보( 주), , 2013
20. 현대형법의 위기와 과제, 김재윤, 전남대학교 출판부, , 2009
21. 형법총칙 비교법 자료집, 장규원 ( Gyu Won Chang ), 강동욱, 한국형사정책연구원, 연구총서 제6 권 11 호, , 2006
22. 중립적 행위에 의한 방조, 신양균, 형사법연구 제26 호, , 2006
23. 배심제와 시민의 사법참여, 안경환, 집문당, 집문당, , 2005
24. 영미법상 엄격책임의 이해, 박강우, 형사정책연구, 제18 권 제3 호, , 2007
25. 법의 지배의 해체와 그 대안, 하우영, 법률행정논집 제16 집, , 1996
26. 위법성 인식으로서의 mens rea, 조 훈, 한국비교형사법학회, 비교형사법연구 제5 권 제2 호, , 2003
27. 위험사회에서의 형법의 임무, 이동건, 고려대학교 석사학위 논문, , 2005
28. 형벌의 본질( 형사법 강좌Ⅱ), 심재우, 한국형사법학회, , 1984
29. 미국 모범형법전에 대한 고찰, 장규원, 한국비교형사법학회, 비교형사법연구 제9 권 제1 호, , 2007
30. 형법적 책임개념에 관한 논쟁, 김학태, 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소, 외법논집 제2 호, , 1995
31. 미국형법의 기본이론, 법조협회, 주광일, 법조 제35 권 제5 호, , 1986
32. 영국형법상 범죄의 주관적 요소, 이경재, 충북대학교 법학연구 제20 권 1 호, , 2009
33. 미필적 고의와 과실의 구분에 관한 연구, 김용욱, 한국비교형사법학회, 비교형사법연구 제3 권 제2 호, , 2001
34. 객관적 귀속이론의 발전사, 한국법사학회, 김성룡, 법사학연구 제42 호, , 2010
35. 국가형벌권의 정당화에 관한 새로운 시도, 崔錫胤(Choi Seog-Youn), 한국형사정책연구원, 형사정책연구 제8 권, , 1997
36. 위험사회에서의 법익보호와 적극적 일반예방, 이용식, 형사정책 제13 권 제1 호, , 2001
37. 영미법상 공범체계와 공범종속성 원칙의 변천, 김종구, 한국형사법학회, 형사법연구 제21 권 제2 호, -5 8, , 2009
38. 형법총론, 박영사, 박승옥, 미국 형사판례 90 선, 박상기, 법수레, , 2005
39. 미국 형법상 중립적 행위에 의한 방조의 가벌성, 김종구, 형사법연구 제24 권 제4 호, , 2012
40. 법익보호원칙 - 근대형법의 신화인가 이성인가?, 이상돈, 형사정책연구 제 5 권 제1 호, , 1994
41. 형법상 책임과 예방과의 관계, 법학논집 제22 권, 김일수, 고려대학교, , 1984
42. 미국에서의 보통법근원에 대한 논의, 안암법학회, 윤남순, 안암법학 제18 권, , 2004
43. 미국 형법교수가 본 독일형법과 미국 형법의 특징, Markus D. Dubber, 손미숙, 동아대학교 법학연구소, 동아법학 제55 호, , 2012
44. 형법상 책임주의의 재구성, 경상대학교 법학연구소, 이종갑, 법학연구 제3 호, , 1992
45. 영미형법에 있어 주관적 범죄요건(Mens Rea) 에 대한 연구, 박상진, 한국비교형사법학회, 비교 형사법연구 제9 권 제2 호, , 2007
46. 객관적 귀속론과 영미법상 법적 인과관계, 한국형사법학회, 김종구, 형사 법연구 제21 권 제4 호, , 2009
47. 위험형법의 전개에 대한 비판과 바람직한 형법적 대응방안, 백상진, 한국비교형사법학회, 비교 형사법연구 제13 권 제1 호, , 2011
48. 미국형법개요- 범죄론을 중심으로-, 단국대학교 법학연구소, 박양빈, 법학 논총, , 1985
49. 영미형법상 범죄의 성립요건: 범죄의 객관적 요건을 중심으로, 이경재, 형 사정책연구 제9 권 제2 호, , 1998
51. 영국형법상 인과관계에 관한 학설과 판례 검토, 한국비교형사법 학회, 이경재, 비교형사법연구 제7 권 제2 호, , 2005
52. 정보사회에서의 형법의 임무와 과제, 이형국교수 화갑기념논문 2-6 0 집, 하태훈, 법문사, , 1998
53. 뷔헤/ 최병규 옮김, 영미법과 대륙법의 대조성, 고려대학교 법학연 구원, 오이겐, 법학논집 제32 집, , 1996
54. 인간의 존엄과 법질서, 고려대 법률행정논집, 제12 집, 심재우, 형벌권의 제한, 심재우, 형사법강좌Ⅰ, 1982, , 1974
55. 가벌적 방조행위의 한계에 관한 연구- 소위 중립적 행위에 의한 방조를 중심으로-, 이정원, 저스티스 통권 제118 호, , 2012
56. 현행 인과관계 규정( 형법 제17 조) 의 개정방안에 관한 연구, 고려 대학교 법학연구원, 조상제, 고려법학 제49 권, , 2007
57. “일상적 중립적 행위와 방조 -방조행위의 개념적 의미내용과 방조의불법귀속의 이해구조-”, 이용식, 서울대학교 법학 48 권 1 호, , 2007
58. 위험사회, 위험 그리고 형법의 대응, 비교형사법학회, 비교형사법 연구 제14 권 제2 호 변종필, 형법의 임무, 변종필, 형사정책연구 제8 권 제4 호, , 1997
59. 법치국가에서의 형법과 형사소송법의 과제- 최근 형사 관련법 개 정경향을 중심으로-, 고려대학교 법학연구원, 하태훈, 고려법학 제62 호, , 2011
분석정보
이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료
나만을 위한 추천자료
