불법영득의사의 내용과 적용범위 = The Content of the Intention of Illegal Acquisition and It's Range of Application

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Generally speaking, Zueignungswille means the intention to make use of and dispose of the properties as if one were a real owner, excluding the position of the right person of the properties. Following the precedent, Zueignungswille is the intention to utilize and dispose of other's properties, for the economic purposes, excluding anyone who has any claim against one's own properties. Here is the problem - while Strafgesetzbuch, StGB(the Criminal Code of Germany) contains an express provision 'in der Absicht, rechtswidrig zuzueignen' - in the intention, illegal acquisition, in the Criminal Code of ROK there is no express provision of it. Therefore, there has been discussion about the necessity of the intention of illegal acquisition. Currently, a majority of perspectives and precedent have stated their views about necessity of the intention of illegal acquisition as excess subjective illegal component besides intention as to the matter of most acquisitive crime. On the other hand, the opinion of the minority has stated it's view that there need not be another intention of illegal acquisition and in acquisitive crime including larceny(theft) there should be sufficient only with intention itself. The reason why there are conflicted opinions in the case is that: At first in the Criminal Code of ROK there is no express provision of it unlike Strafgesetzbuch, StGB(the Criminal Code of Germany) contains an express provision 'in der Absicht, rechtswidrig zuzueignen' - in the intention, illegal acquisition. Second, the content of inquisitive intention is so ambiguous and equivocal that we couldn't easily apply the intention of illegal acquisition to all acquisitive crime without variation. Considering this point, above all, to become a crime, if there should be the intention of illegal acquisition as excess subjective component besides intention itself, according to the perspective of necessity I would establish the content of intention in illegal acquisition after reviewing what is the profit and how we could concede the intention of illegal acquisition as an excess subjective illegal component. In this regard, we can define at least the intention of illegal acquisition as the intention of illegal acquisition to attain properties of others as if they belongs to one's own ones, although there's no need to the extent of economical use. According to this kind of definition, larceny(theft) should be differentiated from acquisition and there should be a subjective illegal component beyond intention. And by differentiating larceny(theft) from acquisition, the time when larceny is committed should be the time when acquisition is completed, not the time when theft is completed. Furthermore, in case of being without the intention of acquisition merely within the stage of theft, the agent shall account for Gebrauchsdiebstahl. Therefore, the main reason why we have to consider the intention of the illegal acquisition is that we could differentiate larceny from Gebrauchsdiebstahl which are in ambiguous domains one another. In addition, we have already the code of punishment in illegal use of vehicles, the range of Gebrauchsdiebstahl could be reduced. This means that it is necessary to have the intention of illegal acquisition and that the intention of illegal acquisition has practical profit in itself. Also the case of malicious mischief, unlike the crime of theft, is not punished severely because there is no especial subjective illegal component which is beyond the intention. So the intention of illegal acquisition has sufficient practical profit as a mark of telling theft(larceny) from malicious mischief.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 불법영득의사의 개념과 필요성 여부
• Ⅲ. 불법영득의사의 체계구조와 내용
• Ⅳ. 불법영득의사의 구체적 적용범위
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이주원, "횡령죄에 있어서의 상계충당과 불법영득의사의 존부" 안암법학회 (30) : 75-107, 2009

2 성낙현, "횡령의 객관적 구성요건의 실체" 법조협회 54 (54): 19-46, 2005

3 문형섭, "회령죄와 배임죄 -명확한 구별을 위한 제언-" 법조협회 (560) : 2003

4 이영란, "형법학 각론강의" 형설출판사 2008

5 이재상, "형법총론, 제7판" 박영사 2011

6 이형국, "형법총론, 제4판" 법문사 2007

7 정성근, "형법총론, 제4판" 삼지원 2009

8 이정원, "형법총론, 제3판" 법지사 2004

9 오영근, "형법총론, 제2판 보정판" 박영사 2012

10 성낙현, "형법총론, 제2판" 동방문화사 2011

11 손동권, "형법총론, 제2개정판" 율곡출판사 2006

12 임웅, "형법총론, 개정판 제2보정" 법문사 2009

13 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" 박영사 2012

14 이태언, "형법총론" 형설출판사 2009

15 손해목, "형법총론" 법문사 1996

16 서보학, "형법총론" 박영사 2008

17 김성돈, "형법총론" 성균관대학교 출판부 2009

18 권오걸, "형법총론" 형설출판사 2009

19 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 2008

20 임광주, "형법에 있어서 목적의 개념과 유형" 한양대학교 법학연구소 (21) : 2004

21 권오걸, "형법각론[이론.판례]" 헝설출판사 2009

22 이재상, "형법각론, 제8판" 박영사 2012

23 김일수, "형법각론, 제7판" 2009

24 배종대, "형법각론, 제6전정판" 홍문사 2006

25 이태언, "형법각론, 제4판" 형설출판사 2009

26 이정원, "형법각론, 제3판" 법지사 2003

27 김성천, "형법각론, 제3판" 도서출판 소진 2012

28 정성근, "형법각론, 제3판" 삼지원 2008

29 김성돈, "형법각론, 제2판" 성균관대학교 출판부 2009

30 임웅, "형법각론, 개정판 보정" 법문사 2006

31 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" 박영사 2011

32 손동권, "형법각론 제3개정판" 율곡출판사 2005

33 이형국, "형법각론" 법문사 2007

34 오영근, "형법각론" 박영사 2009

35 이정원, "할부매매 덤프트럭 취거행위와 형사책임 - 대법원 2010.2.25. 선고 2009도5064 판결 -" 법학연구원 17 (17): 25-46, 2010

36 정일성, "타인의 물건을 점유자의 승낙 없이 무단사용하는 경우 불법영득의사의 유무의 판단기준, In 국민과 사법" 박영사 1999

37 성낙현, "직불카드 부정사용행위와 관련한 영득의 객체문제" 법조협회 56 (56): 291-324, 2007

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

39 오영근, "절도죄의 불법영득의사와 사용절도, In 형사판례연구 제2권" 박영사 1994

40 오영근, "절도죄의 불법영득의사" 1994

41 손동권, "절도죄에서의 불법영득의사" 건국대학교 법학연구소 8 : 2003

42 권오걸, "절도죄에 있어서의 절취와 영득" 한국비교형사법학회 7 (7): 125-162, 2005

43 김형곤, "절도죄에 있어서의 불법영득의사" 한국비교형사법학회 (창간) : 1999

44 정성근, "절도죄에 있어서의 불법영득의 의사" 한국법학원 34 (34): 2001

45 성낙현, "절도의 보호법익과 불법영득의 대상" 1999

46 이경열, "재산범죄와 불법령득의 의사" 법조협회 53 (53): 51-80, 2004

47 이정원, "재산범죄에서의 불법영득의 의사와 불법이득의 의사에 관한 연구" 한국비교형사법학회 (창간) : 1999

48 손동권, "재물죄(절도죄)에서의 사자점유(?)와 불법영득의 의사" 한국형사판례연구회, 박영사 13 : 2005

49 박상기, "신용카드절취와 절도죄 성립여부" 법학연구원 12 (12): 235-243, 2002

50 심재우, "불법영득의사와 사용절도" 1981

51 문형섭, "불법영득의 의미와 대상" 한국형사법학회 23 (23): 171-192, 2011

52 이용식, "고의와 목적에 관하여, 현대형사법론, In 죽곡박양빈교수화갑기념논문집" 법문사 1996

53 Jakobs, Günther, "Strafrecht AT, 2. Aufl." Walter de Gruyter․Berlin 1993

54 Welzel, Hans, "Das Deutsche Strafrecht, 11. Aufl." Berlin 1969