제8회 한,중 형법 국제 학술심포지엄 : 사회변동과 형법의 과제

윤용규 ( Yong Kyu Yun ) 한국비교형사법학회 2010 비교형사법연구 Vol.12 No.2

Our society has been undergoing an intense development of scientific technologies, setting off the high-speed ``compressive growth`` that inevitably drew dark sides in our society, which the contemporary society stipulates as a ``risky society.`` Prevention of such a phenomenon has abusively held on to criminal countermeasures. Consequently, criminal law has been so expanded that certain terminologies are not unfamiliar such as a majority of modern special criminal laws, economic criminal law, science and technology criminal law, environment criminal law, labor criminal law, among many. What also facilitates the expansion is the tendency to neglect the experts in the legislative process. At this moment, we, however, as the contemplating scholars of criminal law before the ``advent of modern crimes``, have the responsibility for reflective criticism of the expansion of criminal law that has to be ultima ratio; that is, if the expansion is, in essence, a balanced growth for legal protection or if it is an excessive growth. In a nutshell, the change of criminal law progressed in our changing society has showed a conspicuous fact that it had moved towards criminalization rather than decriminalization. The problem is sprawling expansion of special laws that don`t correspond with the assignment of criminal law. From now on, though it is already a lot late, we must return to the original area of criminal law(The kernel of criminal law). We have to get out of delusion which only focuses on the remedy effect of criminal law and cannot see the violation effect. Therefore it is imperative to target decriminalization.

과잉범죄화에 대한 소고

윤용규(Yun, Yong-kyu) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2017 형사정책연구 Vol.111 No.-

법령에 의한 체벌의 성립요건

尹龍奎(Yun Yong-kyu) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2005 江原法學 Vol.20 No.-

법학전문대학원에서 ‘형법총론’의 교육방법에 관한 소고

윤용규(Yun Yong-kyu) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2008 江原法學 Vol.27 No.-

This article's main point is addressing "what and how we teach in Law School". It is very imminent issue for the professors who are supposed to lecture starting on March, 2009. Even though Law School, which we never experienced before needs our best efforts to successfully pull off, we didn't have enough time given. The method we use for teaching could contribute to thriving of Law School. I have taken teaching method of Criminal Law I into consideration in light of possibility of using American Law School's typical teaching method, the case method and the Socratic method to our case. Subsequently, I concluded that those should be accepted limitedly because of difference of the culture and history between two countries, but "Raising problem-solving ability", the goal of Law School should be met in whichever lecture style we choose. At the same time, we should be eager to find out every possible teaching method for the goal. After the study on teaching method, I made some questions about what is called "dolus generalis". We need to admit that we can be readily mistaken during the first few years, but can bear fruits unless we stop trying to progress. To do so, the research about teaching method that can be fitted into every situation should continue. Due to the variable that we call 'time' Law School's teaching method would be rectified 'step by step'.

춘천시 물값 다툼의 문제점과 대안

윤용규(Yun Yong-Kyu) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2006 江原法學 Vol.22 No.-

As for the problem of the water price, we need to review the fundamental principles such as the guarantee of the vested water right and the equitable utilization in water usage. Although exclusive water right has been granted to the State or the Korea Water Resources Corporation(KWRC) by law, no organization, even the State, can solely dominate the usage and the distribution of water resources. Because a river isn't taken care of only by the State or KWRC but also the local governments nearby rivers, which measure the quality and quantity of water. As residents nearby dam have the right to use water, the induction of 'the regional water right' is highly in demand. Since natural resources like water is the thing to use, not to own, the national patent on it should be for the right of management, not of ownership(the Constitutional Law Article 120, Clause 2). Accordingly, through harmony between those principles above, we must try to maximize democratization of water use. So any local government can't oppose the equitable principle between the upper stream region and the lower without legitimate reasons. In fact, no water user in a upper stream can possess water exclusively. But the argument made by the KWRC which distorts Chun-chon city's water usage is absolutely absurd, misleading the essence of the problem. Conversely, KWRC's attitude of keeping unreasonable standards makes it hard to avoid the criticism that it is only pursuing the maximum interest using its monopolistic position, the supplier of water. The KWRC and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation must clarify the several doubts come out in the process of interpreting a proviso in Dam Construction Act(abbreviated name) §35①. Meanwhile, the KWRC seems to struggle with understanding these two in water price discussion which are completely separate, the amount of water and the quality of water. KWRC's statement that it finished so called "water distribution" according to Water Budget Analysis is not really realistic. It is only their "thinking" that it distributes certain amount of water to this and that region. However, though it is said that KWRC supplies the stored water in Soyang Dam to Seoul, we can never be sure whether the water is from there solely. As a result, KWRC needs to change its view from getting the water price by unrealistic standards to checking through the quality of received and returned water. As a matter of fact, it's the question of the quality, not the quantity. Then, we have to regard the Water Budget Analysis based on the spot of Hangang Bridge and the water usage of the region nearby a river as separate things. Unless the amount of water usage goes beyond the scope of standard minimum flow, it's doesn't matter. We should set a goal to return water after use to the river as much, and pure as possible. For these reasons it's desirable to practice “the system of water pollution cap” after the prerequisites such as the unfairness between upper and lower stream etc., are solved first.

구성요건착오에 관한 소고

윤용규(Yun, Yong-Kyu) 한국법학원 2015 저스티스 Vol.- No.147

종래 구성요건착오론에 등장했던 많은 용어와 학설은 불명료하거나 불필요하였고, 불완전하였다. “객체의 착오”, “방법의 착오”, “인과관계의 착오”, “구체적?추상적 사실의 착오”, 그리고 “부합설” 등이 그런 것들이다. 이것들이 착오론에서 차지하는 비중을 감안하면 착오론의 복잡성은 다름 아닌 착오연구자들의 탓이라고도 할 수 있다. 이 글은 이러한 잘못된 용어와 견해를 기초로 전개된 착오론에 관한 반성적 고찰이다. 착오란 범죄적 행위상황에 대한 인식의 결함으로 인해 고의성립이 부정되는 법형상으로서 고의성립의 필요조건인 ‘인식’여부를 판단하는 과정에서 문제된다. 이 점에서 착오는 고의와 표리관계를 넘어 동체적인 것이므로 고의의 일반원칙이 그대로 적용된다. 그런데 다수설은 인식한 사실과 발생된 사실 간에 불일치가 있기만 하면 착오로 인정하려고 함으로써 형법적 착오와 비(非)형법적인 착오 간 명확한 구분을 사실상 포기하였다. 비착오 사안인 ‘객체의 혼동’을 지금까지도 객체의 ‘착오’로 부르고 있는 것이 그 대표적인 예이다. 그러나 객체혼동은 형법상 착오가 아니기 때문에 고의성립 여부는 애당초 문제가 되지 않는다. 따라서 착오라는 이름을 붙이지 않아야 한다. 용어와 내용 간의 이 같은 모순과 불협화음은 “방법의 착오”와 “인과관계의 착오” 등에서도 발견된다. 이런 혼란의 주 원인은 무엇보다도 착오에 관한 형법규정인 제13조, 제15조 등에 대한 해석론이 펼쳐지지 않은데 있다. 대부분의 문헌은 이 규정의 해석과 적용이 아니라 이른바 “부합설” 논란에 몰입하였다. 착오규정으로부터 직접 고의성립과 착오성립의 원리를 찾는 것이 아니라 불명료하거나 불필요한 용어와 불완전한 사례를 무비판적으로 답습하여 비현실적인 공식표를 만드는 것을 목표로 하는 듯하였다. 착오의 개념뿐만 아니라 착오론의 과제를 제대로 이해하지 못한 탓이라고 하겠다. “부합설”은 형법의 미비 때문에 등장했다고 하지만 오히려 고의확장을 위한 이론적 수단으로 전락되었고 공리공론의 대표적인 사례가 되고 말았다. 착오론의 과제는 부당한 고의확장을 막는 것인데 이러한 지시는 이미 착오 형법과 책임원칙 등이 담당하였으므로 성실한 해석론이 전개되었어야 했다. 이제라도 “부합설”이나 여러 잘못된 용어와 그 사용은 착오론에서 사라지거나 바른 내용으로 채워져야 한다. 이론이 실무에 어떠한 기준도 제공하지 못하는 사이에도 법원은 독자적으로 고의 유무에 대한 판단을 하여왔다. 이처럼 착오론은 실무로부터 철저히 외면되었으나 그렇다고 착오론이 무용한 것은 아니다. 이론의 통제를 벗어난 실무는 자칫 형법과잉으로 나아갈 수 있기 때문이다. 외면된 것은 공론적 복잡성이지 착오형법에 대한 착오론이 아니므로 이제껏 살인이나 상해, 재물손괴 등의 지극히 단순한 사례만을 대상으로 한데서 벗어나 각론의 다양한 사안으로 관심을 넓혀야 한다. 당해 범죄의 성격과 행위자의 다양한 인식을 대상으로 고의 존부와 정도를 합리적으로 판단할 기준을 찾아 축적하는 것이 그 목표이다. 착오론은 결국 고의존부판단에 대한 논의이기 때문에 그것은 다름 아닌 고의확장을 막는 관점과 긴장의 조성이라고 하겠다.

의무충돌에 관한 고찰

윤용규(Yong-Kyu Yun) 강원대학교 사회과학연구원 1992 사회과학연구 Vol.32 No.-

[논문] 敎員의 學生體罰에 대한 刑法的 考察

윤용규(Yun Yong-Kyu) 한국형사법학회 2004 刑事法硏究 Vol.21 No.-

School Corporal Punishment (CP) has long been used as a means of student discipline around the world. Nevertheless, its justification brings about consistent disputes due to its classification as a violence or injury. According to Korean educational laws and regulations (E-Laws) such as the Educational Organic Law, the Elementary and Secondary Educational Law (ESEL) and its Enforcement Ordinance (EO”31), the model draft of the Ministry of Education 1;2 (MD), and the School Codes (SC), CP is, in principle, prohibited. It is then the E-Laws (ESEL”18, EO”31., MD, SC, etc.), which permit the justification grounds for CP, as classified below: (1) the situations of CP (educational inevitability as a prerequisite condition), (2) the causes of CP (violation of SC), and (3) due process of CP provisions in the E-Laws. Moreover, the E-Laws accurately distinguish CP from disciplinary action. CP is, in any case, not a kind of disciplinary action, but an abnormal means of student supervision under the E-Laws. The trend in legislation on CP throughout the world has come to complete abolition of it. For example, the Elementary Ordinance (1900, ”47) in Japan prohibited it a century ago. Although New Jersey as the only state in the US banned CP in 1967 (NJ Rev. Stat. Section 18A: 6-1), the number of states banning it has since mounted up to 28. The court's attitude has been gradually changed from tolerance for CP toward a more strict interpretation of the meaning and intendment of the provisions on CP; No trace of such an examination can be found in the Korean court's cases on CP, especially, for the grounds as mentioned in (1) and (3) above. The Korean courts including the Supreme Court have adjudicated merely based on the results of CP. Such an attitude has to be the target for public criticism. Therefore, the Supreme Court should immediately revisit the ruling of its precedents. Even the justification grounds for CP in the E-Laws should be at once repealed and replaced by other democratic alternative discipline methods, because students have constitutionally-protected liberty interest in bodily integrity based on the Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Korea ratified in 1991. But, until then, teachers, students, parents, and courts must all be committed for strict observation of the justification grounds.

규범학습을 통한 범죄예방 -고등학생의 규범의식조사를 바탕으로-

윤용규 ( Yong Kyu Yun ) 한국비교형사법학회 2004 비교형사법연구 Vol.6 No.2

형법의 인과관계에 관한 소고

尹龍奎(Yun Yong-Kyu) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 1995 江原法學 Vol.7 No.-