허용구성요건착오에 관한 입법론의 제안 = A Legislative Suggestion about Corpus Delicti Mistake

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although there has been lots of discussion about legal effect of corpus delicti mistake, we couldn`t have a clear answer to it. Being inspired by this problem, I tried to reasonably solve the problem of legal effect of corpus delicti mistake, by reviewing existing discussion. To do this, above all I studied the validity of its legal effect, compared with forms of mistake by whether or not there is a subjective justifying constituent. That is to say, studying legal effects of accidental defense which is related directly or indirectly, I tried to draw a scope of reasonable criminal liability about an agent who believes corpus delicti mistake. As a result, I think that analogical interpretation of corpus delicti mistake is valid because there exists a subjective justifying constituent which responds to intention in that whether or not it is legal should be considered with both act-oriented -value and effect-oriented-value, but internal factors of an agent which is expressed by action might be an important indicator about legal assessment. That is to say, if basically we should apply such a legal logic as inability of a would-be criminal despite impossibility of an effect because there is no criminal intention as an internal element of an agent; without a subjective justifying constituent and with an objective justifying constituent like an accidental defense, the reverse could also applies; without an objective justifying constituent and with a subjective justifying constituent like a mistaken defense, so in this case I think that under the principle of nulla poena sine lege: the principle of legality, we should give the benefit to an agent. Therefore I think that under the principle of “in dubio pro reo”, it is reasonable to apply analogical interpretation of corpus delicti mistake, because there exists a subjective justifying constituent to an agent who believes corpus delicti mistake as permitted. That is, since an agent of mistaken defense, mistaking it as justified situations, committed a crime by not paying one`s normal attention, criminal negligence, or an offense committed through negligence, could be to blame for it. And if this agent of mistaken defense commits a crime due to terror, fright, agitation or embarrassment during nighttime or under insecure states, it will be desirable to apply the existing Criminal Law article 21 item 3 to that case. So I suggest that we should apply the existing Criminal Law article 13 and article 21 item 3 to that case at the same time. For instance That is, regarding the existing Criminal Law article 21, by enacting a new one; Article 21-2, in item 1, “When an act is done under lack of understanding a constituent as a criminal element because of mistake, it shall not be punished. But if one commits a mistake, there is one`s negligence and there is punishment code, it shall be punished.” And in item 2, “Previous item 3 shall apply considerably.”, Regarding corpus delicti mistake as permitted, arguments in academic circles and problems in practical affairs could be solved.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이영란, "형법학 총론강의" 형설출판사, 2011

2 차용석, "형법총론강의" 고시연구사, 1988

3 안동준, "형법총론강의" 형설출판사, 2009

4 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사, 2009

5 정영일, "형법총론" 박영사, 2010

6 황산덕, "형법총론" 방문사, 1982

7 손해목, "형법총론" 법문사, 1996

8 이형국, "형법총론" 법문사, 2007

9 신동운,임웅, "형법총론" 법문사, 2013

10 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원, 2009

11 이정원, "형법총론" 신론사, 2012

12 김신규, "형법총론" 청목사, 2009

13 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사, 2013

14 성낙현, "형법총론" 동방문화사, 2011

15 손동권, "형법총론" 율곡출판사, 2006

16 이태언, "형법총론" 형설출판사, 2009

17 권오걸, "형법총론" 형설출판사, 2011

18 한정환, "형법총론" 한국학술정보(주), 2010

19 김성돈, "형법총론" 성균관대학교 출판부, 2009

20 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사, 2008

21 박상기, "형법총론" 박영사, 2007

22 김일수, "형법총론" 박영사, 2006

23 진계호, "형법총론" 대왕사, 1996

24 안경옥,원혜욱, "형법상의 착오" 박영사, 1999

25 이재상, "형법상 착오" 박영사, 1999

26 김종구, "형법 제310조와 착오" 연세법학 6 (1), 1999

27 김성천, "형법" 도서출판 소진, 2009

28 김성룡, "현행법체계에서 위법성 조각사유의 전제조건에 관한 착오의 해석론" 비교형사법연구 15 (1) : 317 ~ 340, 2013

29 성낙현, "허용구성요건착오" 영남법학 6 (1·2), 2000

30 성낙현, "주관적 정당화요소의 성격과 기능" 형사법연구 (14), 2000

31 이진권, "주관적 정당화요소와 위법성의 본질에 관한 고찰" 법학연구 (39) : 247 ~ 268, 2010

32 신양균, "주관적 정당화요소에 대한 검토" 형사법학의 과제와 전망, 계산 성시탁교수화갑기념논문집, 1993

33 양화식, "주관적 정당화요소 소고" 법조 39 (12), 1990

34 김준성, "주관적 불법요소 : 고의와 주관적 정당화요소의 관계를 중심으로" 영남대학교, 2011

35 정용기, "정당방위에 있어서의 방위의사" 형사법연구 (11), 1999

36 정영일, "정당방위에 있어서 방위의사의 의미" 형사법연구 (23) : 67 ~ 86, 2005

37 유용봉, "정당방위 상황의 착오에 관한 형사법적 고찰" 법제연구 (43) : 373 ~ 400, 2012

38 이용식, "이중착오" 서울대학교 법학 44 (1), 2003

39 강철하, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오 - 독자적 착오 유형 규율을 위한 한국 형법의 개선방향 -" 동아법학 (52) : 317 ~ 348, 2011

40 신정훈, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오" 법학논총 29, 2005

41 천진호, "위법성조각사유의 객관적 전제사실의 착오" 법학논고 7, 1991

42 윤상민, "위법성조각사유의 객관적 성립요건에 관한 착오" 원광법학 24 (4) : 321 ~ 344, 2008

43 김경락, "오상방위의 형사책임" 비교형사법연구 8 (1(2)) : 95 ~ 124, 2006

44 김경락, "오상과잉방위의 형사책임" 형사법연구 20 (4) : 135 ~ 166, 2008

45 허일태, "오상과잉방위와 형법 제21조 제3항" 형사법연구 (26) : 569 ~ 596, 2006

46 문채규, "오상과잉방위" 안암법학 2, 1994

47 손동권, "오상(과잉)방위의 효과" 형사법연구 (12), 1999

48 신동운, "신판례백선 형법총론" 경세원, 2009

49 문채규, "소극적 구성요건표지이론을 위한 변론 -고의책임의 본질을 중심으로-" 형사법연구 (12), 1999

50 권오걸, "사실의 착오와 한계사례" 비교형사법연구 2 (2), 2000

51 김일수, "미수의 불법귀속에 관한 연구 : 특히 불능미수를 중심으로" 고려법학 40, 2003

52 허일태, "독일형법총론" 세종출판사, 1998

53 정현미, "과잉방위와 오상과잉방위" 형사판례연구 (16), 2008

54 이정원, "과실범죄에서의 위법성과 책임" 비교형사법연구 3 (2), 2001

55 양화식, "違法性阻却事由의 前提事實에 관한 錯誤" 성균관법학 19 (3) : 395 ~ 416, 2007

56 中山硏一, "槪說刑法Ⅰ" 成文堂, 2003

57 大谷, "刑法講義總論" 成文堂, 2009

58 井田, "刑法總論の理論構造" 成文堂, 2008

59 山中敬一, "刑法總論" 成文堂, 2009

60 吉田敏雄, "刑事法學の課題と展望" 成文堂, 1996

61 金在峯, "主觀的 正當化要素에 관한 硏究" 서울대학교, 1996

62 이인영, "主觀的 正當化要素" 법학연구 12 (4) : 19 ~ 51, 2002

63 이호중, "『형사법연구』20년을 통해 본 착오이론의 발전과 전망 - 구성요건착오를 중심으로 -" 형사법연구 20 (4) : 3 ~ 38, 2008

64 Gallas, Wilhelm, "Zur Struktur des strafrechtlichen Unrechtsbegriffs" Festschrift für Bocklman, 1979

65 Wessels, Johannes, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" C. F. Müller Verlag Heidelberg, 2009

66 Jakobs, Günther, "Strafrecht AT" Walter de Gruyter, 1993

67 Kühl, Kristian, "Strafrecht AT" Verlag Franz Vahlen Müchen, 2008

68 Roxin, Claus, "Strafrecht" Verlag C. H. Beck Müchen, 2006

69 Kaufmann, Arthur, "Schuld und Strafe" Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, 1983

70 Spendel, Günter, "Notwehr und ‘Verteidigungswille’ objektiver Zweck und subjektive Absicht" Festschrift für Dietrich Oehler, 1985

71 Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, "Lehrbuch des Strafrechts AT" Duncker & Humblot, 1996

72 Zielinski, Diethart, "Handlungs- und Erforlgsunwerrt im Unrechtsbegriff" Duncker & Humblot, 1973

73 Frisch, Wolfgang, "Grund- und Grenzprobleme des sog. subjektiven Rechtfertigungselements" Festschrift für Karl Lackner, 1987

74 Welzel, Hans, "Das Deutsche Strafrecht" 1965