살인죄와 위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오 = Homicide and the Mistake on the Elements of Justification Defenses

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The concept of Homicide has two dimensions. One dimension is the domain of homicide; “the killing of a human being by a human being.” The other dimension is the range of homicide such as “social harmfulness, blameworthiness of that wrongful results, conduct, attendant circumstances, etc.” The domain of concepts and the range of concepts have functional correspondence. In Frege's analysis on the function y = f(x), elements of x constitute domain, and values of y constitute range. The illegality and culpability of homicide are in the range of homicide, which corresponds functionally to each element in the domain of homicide. The frame of domain and range is valid to the elements of “justification” and “excuse”. The domain and range of criminal concepts are useful instruments in the analysis of mistakes on elements of justification. That mistake is called as the mistake over the factual premises of exclusion clause of illegality. According to a theory in current criminal Jurisprudence, we should apply the rule for the mistake of fact to this case since there are neither illegal-intention nor behavior-illegality. According to the other theory, we should apply the rule for the mistakes of law to this case since there are no culpability-intention. The actor shall not be punished for his intentional offenses by any theory, even though he has intention in Tatbestand. All theories in current criminal Jurisprudence about this case are in the fallacy of category mistake. They confuse the domain of intention and the range of it to put them into the same row. Then, in the case of the mistake over the factual premises of exclusion clause of illegality, the problem is whether it is confirming to the justification or not. If the actor had probable causes(or reasonable grounds) at the mistake of facts to be true, his act is confirmed to the “justification” A crime is defined as an illegal and culpable act conforming to 'Tatbestand (elements of an offence)' in current criminal Jurisprudence. But if we look at the real situation of affairs, we can find four exclusive and exhaustive kinds of behaviors in the world: ‘Tatbestand’, “justification”, “excuse” and residuals. The residuals have no meaning in criminal Jurisprudence. The relation of the remaining three is an exclusive confrontational system, not a serial staged system. Then what are illegality and culpability? The illegality(or rightfulness) and culpability(or immunity) are the range of Tatbestand, justification and excuse. These are new paradigm of system theory of crime.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 살인죄와 정의역(定義域)·치역(値域)
• Ⅲ. 살인죄와 주관적 요건의 정의역
• Ⅲ. 살인죄와 정당화요건사실의 착오
• Ⅳ. 결어
• ◆ 참고문헌 ◆
• [Abstract]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Hans Welzel, "형법체계의 신형상" 박영사 1957

2 이재상, "형법상의 착오" 박영사 1999

3 최원배, "프레게 철학에 있어서 개념, 대상 그리고 함수" 한국철학회 57 : 1998

4 Anthony Kenny, "프레게" 2003

5 김성돈, "책임론의 새로운 전개" 고시계사 38 (38): 1993

6 신양균, "정당화사유의 전제사실에 대한 착오" 전북대학교 12 : 1985

7 김태명, "정당방위의 요건으로서 상당성에 관한 연구" 서울대 2000

8 강동범, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실의 착오" 고시계사 42 (42): 1997

9 신정훈, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오" (29) : 2005

10 임재호, "위법성조각사유의 객관적 전제조건에 관한 착오" 안동대학 9 : 1987

11 천진호, "위법성조각사유의 객관적 전제사실의 착오" 경북대학교 법학연구소 7 : 1991

12 정진연, "위법성조각사유의 객관적 전제사실에 관한 착오" 계명대 사회 과학연구소 8 : 1989

13 손동권, "오상방위와 위법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오" 국가고시학회 48 (48): 2003

14 문채규, "소극적 구성요건표지이론을 위한 변론" 한국형사법학회 (12) : 1999

15 신동일, "소극적 구성요건표지 이론" 인천대학교 4 : 2001

16 김성룡, "법적 논증의 기초" 경북대학교 출판부 2007

17 심재우, "법성조각사유의 전제사실에 관한 착오" 고려대법학연구원 6 : 1994

18 Ruth Fulton Benedict, "문화의 패턴" 까치 1989

19 Johannes Wessels, "독일형법총론" 법문사 1991

20 박양빈, "구성요건이론의 발전과 고의" 단국대학교 (15) : 1989