보증의무의 전제로서의 선행행위에 대한 제한

이세화 ( Se Wha Lee ) 한국비교형사법학회 2007 비교형사법연구 Vol.9 No.2

형사소송법 제313조 제1항의 증거능력 인정요건에 대한 소고

이세화(Lee, Se-Hwa) 한국형사소송법학회 2015 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.7 No.2

제313조 제1항은 서술형식이 복잡하고 명확하지 않음으로 인하여 해석상 논란의 여지가 많은 규정이다. 이에 문리적 해석 보다는 규정 자체의 논리적 취지에 초점을 맞추고 해석하면 다음과 같다. 먼저, 제313조 제1항의 적용대상은 사인이 작성한 진술기재서와 수사기관의 영향력이 미치지 않은 자진형 진술서이다. 본문과 단서의 관계에 있어서는, 피고인의 진술은 피고인 아닌 자의 진술보다 증거로 함에 더 신중을 기해야 할 것이므로 피고인의 진술이 담긴 경우라면 진술서와 진술기재서를 불문하고 모두 단서의 특신상태를 요구하는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 해석을 논리일관하면 단서는 증거능력 인정의 완화요건이 아닌 본문에 대한 추가요건이 되어야 하고, 이에 따라 단서의 ‘진술에 불구하고’의 의미는 내용의 부인이라고 해석되어야 한다. 또한 성립의 진정을 인정하는 진술의 주체는 제312조와의 균형상 원진술자로 해석해야 하고, 다만 단서의 ‘작성자’는 의미 그대로 피고인 진술서의 경우에는 피고인이 되고, 피고인 진술기재서의 경우에는 제3자가 된다. The Article 313-1 in the Code of criminal Procedure is too complicated and uncertain to interpret easily and obviously. So, the logical interpretationit is better than the literally interpretation to understand obviously the article 313-1. There is the logical interpretation of the article 313-1. The range of application of the article 313-1 is the document of oral statement which a private man makes and the voluntarily written statement without the force of the investigative agency. In the relation between the body and the condition of the article 313-1, it is necessary to require the special credibility of the condition of the article 313-1 both written statement and document of oral statement in case of the including the statement of the accused, because we must be more careful in adopting the statement of the accused as an evidence than the statement of the man who is not the accused as an evidence. If we interpret the article 313-1 in this way, the condition of the article 313-1 must be interpreted as an additional requirement in relation to the body of the article 313-1, not as a relaxative requirement to have admissibility of evidence. So the terms, “in spite of the statement” in the condition of the article 313-1, must be interpreted as the deny of the contents. And the main agent of the statement which is acknowledged to have admissibility of evidence must be interpreted as the person making a original statement considering the harmony with the article 312. “A drafter” in the condition of the article 313-1 is, literally, the accused in case of the statement of the accused, the third man in case of the written document of oral statement of the accused.

형법 제347조 기망행위의 태양에 관한 소고

이세화(Lee Se-Hwa) 한국법학회 2009 법학연구 Vol.34 No.-

사기죄의 구성요건적 행위는 상대방을 기망하여 착오를 일으키게 하고, 그 착오로 하여금 상대방이 처분행위를 하도록 하는 것으로서, 그 핵심은 기망행위이다. 학설은 이러한 기망행위를 ‘작위에 의한 기망행위’라 하여 다시 명시적 기망행위와 묵시적 기망행위로 나누고, ‘부작위에 의한 기망행위’와 구별한다. 부작위에 의한 기망행위를 인정하자면 보증인의 의무가 있어야 하고, 부작위가 작위와 동일한 가치를 가지는 것으로 평가되어야 한다. 여기서 보증인의 의무란 특정내용을 설명해야 하는 고지의무(작위의무)를 의미하고, 이러한 고지의무는 신의성실의 원칙에 근거해서 인정된다는 것이 학설과 판례의 입장이다. 그러나 일반적 학설이 설명하고 있는 ‘부작위에 의한 기망행위’는 다음의 이유로 인해 인정하기 어렵다. 첫째, 기존 견해가 설명하는 ‘부작위에 의한 기망행위’란 보증의무 있는 자가 알고도 방치하는 것인데, 사기죄에서의 기망행위란 진실한 사실을 은폐하는 행위이고, 이는 일반적으로 작위로 평가되어야 한다. 특히 착오상태를 벗어나지 못하게 하거나 착오상태를 유지하도록 하는 것은 적어도 묵시적 행위, 즉 적극적 작위에 의해서만 일어날 수 있다. 둘째, 기존 견해가 설명하는 ‘부작위에 의한 기망행위상황’이란 것은 서로의 관념에 일정한 작용을 가하는 상황이 아니다. 그렇다면 이러한 경우 실질설에서 제시하는 보증의무 발생근거로서의 특별한 신뢰관계는 인정되지 않는다. 셋째, 부작위에 의한 기망행위의 전제인 보증의무 발생근거로서의 신의성실은 범위를 한정짓기 어려워 보증의무 발생근거의 확대를 초래한다. 넷째, 기존 견해에 의하면 부작위와 착오간의 인과관계라는 것은 보증의무의 이행이 있었더라면 착오에 빠지지 않았을 것이라고 판단되는 경우에 인정되는데, 부작위에 의한 기망행위란 상대방이 이미 착오에 빠져 있을 것을 전제로 하므로 위와 같은 인과관계 등식이 성립하지 않는다. 다섯째, 기존 견해는 부작위에 의한 기망행위 및 사기죄를 인정하고 있으면서도 구체적이고 타당한 예를 제시하지 못한다. 따라서 ‘작위에 의한 기망행위’의 개념에 상응하는 ‘부작위에 의한 기망행위’란 인정하기 어렵다. The fraud crime requires the behavior of deceit. The deceit is the action that makes the man fall into an error by a false statement. The explicit deceit is performed by the statement and the document, if the deceit is the aggressive expression though it is performed by the gesture, that's the explicit deceit. On the other hand, if it is the passive expression though it is performed by the statement, that's the implied deceit. As the common notion has distinguished explicit deceit from implied deceit in the fraud through commission, there are no interests in such a distinction. So it is desirable to accept the single conception of the fraud through commission. The distinction between the implied deceit and the fraud through omission is the difference of passivity. The fraud through omission is the perfect-zero, but the implied deceit is the nonexistence with the description value. But the fraud through omission of the common notion is not existed. Because first, the fraud through omission of the common notion is the negligence of guarantor, but the deceit of fraud must be regarded as commission. Second, the situations of fraud through omission of common notion are not the situations which affect each other. Therefore, the special-trust-relations cannot be approved. The third, the precedents is reasoning the guarantor-status and notification obligation from the principle of the faith and trust. But the principle is very ambiguous, so it may injury the clearance of the criminal law. The fourth, the casual relationship in the fraud through omission of the common notion is not acceptable because the fraud through omission of the common notion requires the premise that the victim is drowned in the errors already. The fifth, although the precedents and the common notion have accepted the possibility of the fraud through omission generally, the fraud through omission in the precedents can be included in the conception of the fraud through commission without an exception. Also the examples of the fraud through omission in the common notion can be recognized as a fraud of commission or asked to the civil law or malfeasance in office. In other words, the fraud of omission cannot be proved in practice. Consequently, the possibility of the fraud through omission must be denied.

The Effect of Group Sandplay Therapy on Psychological Health and Resilience of Adolescent Survivors of Nepal Earthquake

이세화(Lee, SeHwa),장미경(Jang, Mikyung) 한국임상모래놀이치료학회 2020 상징과 모래놀이치료 Vol.11 No.2

The authors analyzed the effects of group sandplay therapy on the psychological health and resilience of adolescent survivors 16 months after the 2015 Nepal earthquake, and explored the themes these adolescents expressed during counseling. Group sandplay was found to have significantly decreased the adolescents’ internalizing problems such as anxiety/depression and withdrawal/depression, while their resilience had also significantly improved. The narrative analysis in turn yielded seven themes: magical wish fulfillment/hope for recovery; direct expression of danger of disaster; relationship with gods revealing human’s identity; desire for protection and care from danger and damage in reality; recovering the order of life from chaos; creation of a new world from the chaotic world; and return to their normal daily life.

중언거부권불고지와 허위증언에 대한 위증죄

이세화 ( Se Hwa Lee ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2010 영남법학 Vol.0 No.31

디지털증거에 대한 압수 · 수색에 있어서 대상과 종료시점

이세화(Lee, Se Hwa) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학연구 Vol.58 No.4

형법 제18조의 입법형식에 대한 소고

이세화 ( Se Hwa Lee ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2009 영남법학 Vol.0 No.28

진술거부권불고지와 증거의 증거능력

이세화(Lee, Se-Hwa) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學論叢 Vol.18 No.3

형사절차의 객체에게 법적 권리 및 의무를 고지해주고 또한 그들에게 자신의 의견을 표현할 기회를 주는 것은 적법절차원칙이 보장해야 할 중요한 절차적 요청 중의 하나이다. 특히 진술거부권은 형사절차의 객체에게는 절대적으로 보장되어야 할 방어수단이고 헌법상 보장된 기본권이다. 따라서 이 권리에 대한 사전고지는 첫 번째 안전장치로서의 성질을 갖는 것으로서 그 중요성을 강조하지 않을 수 없다. 따라서 진술거부권고지가 필요한 전제상황은 법규정에 근거하여 가능하면 넓게 해석할 필요가 있다. 다만 지극히 자발적 진술의 경우는 고지의 대상에서 제외시키는 것이 합리적이다. 진술거부권을 고지하지 않고 진술을 얻은 경우 진술의 증거능력이 부정되는 근거는 단순히 법이 요구하고 있는 절차적 규정을 준수하지 않고 얻은 진술에 대해서 임의성의 부정이라는 접근은 무리가 있으므로 위법 수집증거배제법칙에 의해 증거능력을 부정하면 될 것이다. 증거능력배제범위에 대해서는 절차적 정당성이 실체진실의 발견만큼 중요한 가치를 가진다는 것을 제대로 확립하기 위해서라도 위법하게 수집된 1ㆍ2차 증거에 대한 증거능력의 부정이라는 원칙은 더 강조되어야 한다. 그러나 1차 증거와 2차 증거가 인과적 연관의 단절로 인하여 별개의 것으로 판단되어지는 경우라면 2차 증거는 그 자체로 적법하게 획득한 1차 증거의 지위를 갖게 된다. ‘Right of statement veto’ is the right which can deny the unfavorable or advantageous statement of the accused in the process of the investigation or the judgement. It is based on the regulation, so-called ‘Privilege against self incrimination’ which is due to the article 12 of Constitution. It is “All the people must not be tortured, not be compelled to make the criminally unfavorable statements”. The reason why the Constitution assures right of statement veto as a basic right of the people is because human right of the accused is more important than the national interests, like the social justice or the discovery of substantive truth. The aim of article 12 is to come true the principle of the fair judgement and the principle of the human dignity, as the prohibition of the force of inhumane confession and the promotion of ‘weapon equality’. It is very important factor which should be guaranteed in the legal process to inform the accused of his legal right and duty. Especially, the right of statement veto is the essential method of defense which is guaranteed in Constitution as a basic human right. So, the importance of the notification of this right in advance cannot be overemphasized. It is necessary that we should interpret the situation, which needs the notification of right of statement veto, widely. But, it is desirable to except the extremely voluntary statements in the objects of the notification. The basis on the denial of the admissibility of the evidence in the cases which gain the statements without notification of right of statement veto should be the ‘Exclusionary rule’, as it is not desirable to deny the voluntariness of the statements which are gained through simply undue process. This precedent accepted the evdence-ability of the testimony made by the witness and the secondary confession of the accused in due process. This conclusion was decided separately, according to the basis on the severance of the relation between direct statements and secondary proof. Therefore, the secondary confession of the accused and the testimony of the witness have the qualification of the direct proof themselves which was gained in due process. So this precedent is beyond the collision problem between procedual-legitimacy and descovery of the genuine truth.

불능미수에 관한 형법 제27조의 해석상 문제점과 해결방안

이세화(Se Hwa Lee) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.3

The criminal law provides punishable styles of crimes. So I think that ``futile attempt exempted from punishment` without dangerousness is not inc1uded in article 27. Consequently I assure that "the futile attempt" on article 27 means ``an punishable futile attempt`` with dangerousness. And starts of commissions of all punishable criminal acts inc1uding the punishment ground of an attempted crime are the expressions of hostile wills to the law, and so they contain dangerousness to disturb general person`s truth within the force of the law. I think that it is good to consider the mark of the dangerousness of the futile attempt on artic1e 27 as the dangerousness as the punishment ground of an attempted crime, not as an independent mark. Because the essence of the futile attempt lies in a point which a1though an occurrence of result is impossib1e at first, due to his mistake about the means or object of commission, an doer does not recognize the fact that the result occurrence is possible, and so advances to an commission. In distinguishing between the futile attempt and the obstacle attempt, it has to be preceded to judge which the result occurrence was possible or impossible primarily. And then if the result occurrence is impossible and there is possibility of a mistake to doer when he acts, it is to be the futile attempt. In this case, the reduction or the exemption of punishment must be judged by degree of mistake. In the other hand, I think that if generally the result occurrence is not due to a situation enough to cause a mistake, the doe r is not punished. Because his act is due to his distinguished ignorance and so is not dangerous. But I think that in the case that the result occurrence is possible primarily, except for the abandonment of the attempt to commit an offence on artic1e 26, anything is included in the extent of the narrow sense of obstac1e attempt on artic le 25. That is, it is the material sense of the abandonment of the attempt to commit an offence that it is possible to the occurrence of a result but a deer is not able to compete crime in spite of his beard. Consequently, artic1e 27 has to be reformed as follows. At first its title has to be changed to 「the futile attempt」. Second, its contents has to be changed to "In the case that a doer started to commit a criminal act without recognizing the impossibility of the result occurrence due to his mistake about the means or object he is been able to reduce or exempt from punishment."

작위와 부작위의 단계적 고찰

이세화(Lee Se-Hwa) 한국형사법학회 2007 刑事法硏究 Vol.19 No.2