상당인과관계설의 상당성 판단기준을 위한 상당성의 구체화 작업 시도 : 피해자의 도피행위를 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Causation in the Criminal Law is very important as it is a part of an element of a crime, especially result crime. Where an accused is charged with a result crime, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that her act or omission caused the prohibited consequence.Traditionally speaking, there has been several theories to solve the problem of causation. One is a ‘sine qua non’ or ‘but for’ theory, which must be established that the consequence would not have occurred when it did ‘but for’ the accused’s conduct. But the sine qua non theory is said to be not sufficient for it’s ambit is too wide to establish the causation. So comes an ‘adequacy’ theory, which means that when a prohibited consequence occurs whether the relation between the cause in question and the consequence is adequate or reasonable. For a long time the adequacy theory has been the majority in theory and cases in Korea. But nowadays a new theory has appeared before 25 years ago from the German Criminal Law, which is called ‘objective attribution’ theory. It is getting and getting common here. Objective attribution theory means that a prohibited consequence comes from the cause in question.However, even though objective theory is popular among the scholars, adequacy theory is the majority in the criminal cases because of the Japanese criminal law theory. But it has been attacked by some scholars because the meaning of adequacy is somehow abstract or obscure. To overcome the problems of the adequacy theory, it must settle a new way of reasoning. As a one reasoning, there comes so-called ‘Fright and Flight’ theory in Anglo-American Criminal Law. It seems to solve the problems of adequacy theory.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• [대상판례 1] 대법원 1985. 10. 8, 85도1537
• [판결요지]
• [대상판례 2] 대법원 1995. 5. 12, 95도425
• [판결요지]
• [연 구]
• I. 들어가는 말
• II. 우리 판례를 통해 본 결과적 가중범의 판단
• III. 상당인과관계설의 검토
• IV. 상당성 판단기준으로서의 ‘피해자의 도피행위'
• V. 맺 음 말
• [참고문헌]
• [Abstract]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이영란, "형법학" 형설출판사 2008

2 박상기, "형법총론(제7판)" 박영사 2007

3 서보학, "형법총론" 박영사 2006

4 김성돈, "형법총론" SKKP 2009

5 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2012

6 임웅, "형법총론" 법문사 2002

7 이형국, "형법총론" 법문사 2007

8 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2011

9 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원 2001

10 안동준, "형법총론" 학현사 1998

11 진계호, "형법총론" 대왕사 2000

12 성낙현, "형법총론" 동방문화사 2010

13 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 2005

14 한국형사정책연구원, "형법제정자료집" 1990

15 도중진, "형법에 있어서 상당인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 2 (2): 2000

16 법무부, "형법개정법률안 제안이유서"

17 이상돈, "형법강의" 법문사 2010

18 이건호, "형법 제17조의 위험발생의 의미와 상당인과관계설" 한국형사법학회 (17) : 19-42, 2002

19 이경재, "일본형법상 인과관계론" 16 (16): 1-14, 2005

20 장영민, "인과관계의 확정과 합법칙적 조건설" 3 : 1995

21 윤용규, "인과관계의 이해와 판단척도, In 형사법의 주요이론" 2007

22 이경재, "영국형법상 인과관계에 관한 학설과 판례 검토" 한국비교형사법학회 7 (7): 227-246, 2005

23 허일태, "엄상섭 선생의 형법사상과 형법이론, In 효당 엄상섭 형법논집" 서울대학교출판부 2006

24 김성돈, "범죄유형별 인과관계판단과 직접성" 13 : 53-75, 2005

25 김성천, "독일의 객관적 귀속이론과 우리의 판례" 2005

26 이용식, "객관적 귀속이론의 규범론적 의미와 구체적 내용, In 현대형법이론 I" 2008

27 정영일, "개정판 형법총론" 박영사 2007

28 辰井聰子, "因果關係論" 有斐閣 2006

29 前田雅英, "刑法總論講義" 東京大學出版會 2001

30 山口厚, "刑法總論" 有斐閣 2007

31 伊藤眞, "刑法總論" 弘文堂 2007

32 申洋均, "刑法上 因果關係와 客觀的 歸屬에 대한 硏究" 연세대학교 대학원 1989

33 都重珍, "刑法における相當因果關係と客觀的歸屬" 東北大學校大學院 2000

34 林陽一, "刑法における因果關係理論" 成文堂 2000

35 Michael J. Allen, "Textbook on Criminal Law" Blackstone Press Limited 2000

36 Glanville Williams, "Textbook of Criminal Law" Stevens 1983

37 A P. Simester, "Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine" Hart Publishing 2003

38 C. M. V. Clarkson, "Criminal Law: Text and Materials" Sweet & Maxwell 1998

39 Alan Reed, "Criminal Law" Sweet & Maxwell 2002

40 Nicola Padfield, "Criminal Law" Oxford University Press 2006

41 Marise Cremona, "Criminal Law" MacMillan 1989

42 Andrew Ashworth, "Criminal Law" Oxford University Press 2003

43 Tony Storey, "Criminal Law" Willan Publishing 2004

44 H.L.A. Hart, "Causation in the Law" Oxford University Press 2002

45 W セミナ, "COMPACT DEVICE 刑法I(總論)" 早稻田經營出版 2008