“인과혁명”의 발전과 인과관계론의 재검토 = The Development of the “Causal Revolution” and the Rethinking of Causation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Compared to the rapid changes and developments in modern science and society, the establishment of causation theory in law has not met expectations. On the other hand, research using randomized control trials (RCTs), the gold standard of causation in the natural sciences, has already been established, and causation theory has made remarkable progress in the fields of statistics and social sciences. Statistics has moved away from the passive stance of “correlation does not imply causation” and is actively studying causality. Recently, the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded for a new causal methodology. In the social sciences, there has been a proliferation of innovative methodologies and an increase in the study of causality, which has been referred to as a “causal revolution.” In the social sciences, which study humans and society, there are methodological constraints on randomized controlled trials such as experiments due to practical and ethical issues. However, recent methodologies have overcome these difficulties and are producing results. Against this academic background, this paper examines the limitations of various theories and precedents on causation in criminal law and explores how the methodology of the “causal revolution” can be appropriately applied to jurisprudence and criminal law theories in South Korea. In doing so, we will explore the possibility of rationally reorganizing legal causation theory and explore the intersection of science and law. Causality is an important issue in the establishment and punishment of crimes, but it is also indispensable for policy to identify the causes of social problems, crimes, and disasters and to establish measures to prevent them. At its core, causality is a hypothetical judgment that asks whether a consequence would have occurred if an event or behavior had not occurred. This idea, formalized as the “but for” test (condicio sine qua non formula), is the foundation of all discussions of causation. Whereas before we were limited to making hypothetical judgments from the comfort of our armchairs, the “causal revolution” in statistics and the social sciences is giving us more insight into the nature of causation. If we do not ignore the breakthroughs of other disciplines and actively reflect on them, we can solve the problems of legal and criminal causation that have been stagnant and confusing.
In this regard, this paper attempts to rediscover the meaning of the “but for” formula while also identifying its limitations. The paper argues that context should be considered before scientific examination of causality in particular situations. We have also shown that scientific causation and the criteria of criminal imputation, which are traditionally distinguished by legalistic conditioning and objective attribution, can be reconceptualized by evaluating causal theory through the lens of minimalist construction. As seen in many cases such as the humidifier sterilizer case, the Sewol ferry case, and the Mokdong Hospital neonatal death case in South Korea, the issue of causation in criminal law is no longer just a matter of criminal law, but also a matter of social concern and science. There is a need to further elaborate and rationalize causation in criminal law from scientific, philosophical, and social perspectives. There is no reason to avoid dialogue and discussion with other disciplines. However, unlike other sciences, in criminal law, the principles of presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be upheld, even if it is difficult. We hope that this paper can serve as an opportunity for such dialogue and communication.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 아리스토텔레스, "형이상학" 출판사 길 2017

2 김호기, "형법학에서의 인과관계의 의미와 객관적 귀속론" 한국형사법학회 (26) : 529-550, 2006

3 유기천, "형법학(총론강의)" 일조각 1977

4 박상기, "형법학 - 총론" 집현재 2021

5 최호진, "형법총론강의" 준커뮤니케이션즈 2017

6 김성돈, "형법총론" SKKUP 2021

7 천진호, "형법총론" 준커뮤니센즈 2016

8 정성근, "형법총론" SKKUP 2020

9 임웅, "형법총론" 法文社 [경기도] 2021

10 이형국, "형법총론" 法文社 [경기도] 2019

11 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2019

12 이주원, "형법총론" 박영사 2023

13 이용식, "형법총론" 박영사 2018

14 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2021

15 신동운, "형법총론" 법문사 2021

16 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 2021

17 이경렬, "형법상의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속의 관계" 성균관대학교 법학연구소 14 (14): 2002

18 한상훈, "형법개론" 도서출판 정독 2022

19 신동운, "형법 제개정자료집" 한국형사정책연구원 2009

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

21 하태영, "형법 제17조 인과관계와 객관적 귀속 - 대법원 판례분석 -" 법학연구소 (58) : 287-372, 2013

22 조상제, "현행 인과관계 규정(형법 제17조)의 개정방안에 관한 연구" 법학연구원 (49) : 965-986, 2007

23 양천수, "현대 안전사회와 법적 통제－ 형사법을 예로 하여 －" 안암법학회 (49) : 81-128, 2016

24 유병진, "한국형법(총론)" 서울고시학회 1957

25 김태명, "판례형법총론" 피앤씨미디어 2016

26 최병천, "판례중심 형법총론" 피엔씨미디어 2017

27 박상옥, "주석형법" 한국사법행정학회 2020

28 이건호, "조건설과 합법칙적 조건설에 대한 방법론적 관점을 통한 고찰 –데이빗 흄의 인과론과 철학적 관점을 중심으로–" 비교법학연구소 60 : 319-355, 2020

29 안건훈, "인과적 필요 충분 조건은 가능한가" 고려대학교 철학연구소 9 : 1984

30 장영민, "인과관계의 확정과 합법칙적 조건설" 한국형사판례연구회 3 : 1995

31 김종구, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속에 관한 비교법적 고찰 - 신양균 교수님의 인과관계론과 관련하여-" 부설법학연구소 64 : 31-65, 2020

32 장영민, "인과관계론에 관한 보완적 연구" 한국형사법무정책연구원 18 (18): 107-130, 2007

33 이승호, "인과관계 유형의 분류와 조건설에 의한 해결" 건국대학교 법학연구소 2 : 1997

34 엥기쉬, "인과관계 : 형법 구성요건의 한 요소" 세창출판사 2019

35 김동현, "인과" 서광사 2020

36 흄, 데이비드, "인간 이해력에 관한 탐구" 지식을만드는지식 2012

37 김성돈, "이철원교수 정년기념논문집" 1998

38 젤만, "위험형법" 한양대 법학연구소 14 : 1997

39 이영환, "아리스토텔레스에서의 부수적 인과관계: 아리스토텔레스는 보편인과율을 받아들이는가?" 한국철학회 (119) : 27-53, 2014

40 로스, "아리스토텔레스" 세창출판사 2016

41 김성룡, "심리적 인과성" 한국형사법학회 29 (29): 235-262, 2017

42 러셀, "서양철학사" 을유문화사 2020

43 양선이, "새로운 흄 논쟁: 인과관계의 필연성 문제를 중심으로" 철학연구회 (88) : 163-201, 2010

44 손동권, "새로운 형법총론" 율곡출판사 2011

45 김일수, "새로쓴 형법총론" 박영사 2014

46 심헌섭, "분석과 비판의 법철학" 법문사 2001

47 선우환, "때문에-‘때문에’의 의미에 대한 철학적 연구" 아카넷 2020

48 코피, 어빙, "논리학 입문" 경문사 2019

49 새먼, "논리학" 2017

50 김광수, "논리와 비판적 사고" 철학과 현실사 2018

51 조병선, "과실범에 있어서의 인과관계 및 객관적 귀책에 대한 이론의 전면적 재구성" 한국형사법학회 4 : 1991

52 김종구, "객관적 귀속론과 영미법상 법적 인과관계" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 461-486, 2009

53 최준혁, "객관적 귀속 이론의 정립과 적용 - 신양균 교수님의 형사실체법 이론 -" 부설법학연구소 64 : 67-94, 2020

54 한상훈, "가추법은 독자적 법적 추론방법인가 - 대법원 2019. 4. 18. 선고 2017도14609 전원합의체 판결과 서울고등법원 2010. 5. 31. 선고 2009노3108 판결을 중심으로 -" 한국법학원 181 : 109-142, 2020

55 김용세, "刑法上_因果關係의_本質_및_條件關係의_確定에_관한_硏究" 법학연구소 4 (4): 307-340, 1993

56 申洋均, "刑法上 因果關係와 客觀的 歸屬에 대한 硏究" 延世大學校 大學院 1989

57 Moore, Michael, "“Causation in the Law”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"

58 안호영, "‘복잡성 논증’의 일상언어적 이해와 INUS조건" 인문학연구소 82 : 239-266, 2017

59 Morgan, S., "ounterfactuals and Causal Inference : Methods and Principles for Social Research" Cambridge University Press 2015

60 von Buri, Maximilian, "Zur Lehre von der Teilnahme an dem Verbrechen und der Begünstigung"

61 von Buri, Maximilian, "Ueber Causalität und Deren Verantwortung" Gebhardt Verlag 1873

62 Pearl, Judea, "The Book of Why : The New Science of Cause and Effect" Basic Books 2018

63 Abadie, A., "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies : Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program" 105 (105): 493-505, 2010

64 Roxin, C., "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Bd. 1 Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre" C.H. Beck 2020

65 Holland, P., "Statistics and causal inference(with discussion)" 81 : 945-960, 1986

66 Beck, Ulrich, "Risikogesellschaft : Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne" Suhrkamp 1986

67 백영민, "R 기반 성향점수분석 : 루빈 인과모형 기반 인과추론" 한나래출판사 2021

68 Wright, Richard W., "Perspectives on Causation" Hart Publishing 267-292, 2011

69 Card, D., "Minimum Wages and Employment : A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania" 84 (84): 772-793, 1994

70 Catenacci, M., "Kausalität und Naturgesetze im italienischen Strafrecht" 120 (120): 447-, 2008

71 안건훈, "INUS조건과 원인 : 인공언어와 자연언어를 중심으로" 대한철학회 101 : 151-170, 2007

72 Beauchamp, T. L., "Hume and the Problem of Causation" 1981

73 Schünemann, B., "Grundfragen des modernen Strafrechtssystems" Walter de Gruyter 1984

74 Rubin, D. B., "Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies" 66 (66): 688-701, 1974

75 Engisch, K., "Die Kausalität als Merkmal der strafrechtlichen Tatbestände" Verlag Von J. C. B. Mohr 1931

76 Rubin, D. B., "Comment Neyman(1923)and Causal Inference in Experiments and Observational Studies" 5 (5): 472-480, 1990

77 Hart, H. L. A., "Causation in the Law" Oxford University Press 1985

78 Wright, Richard W., "Causation in Tort Law" 73 (73): 1735-1828, 1985

79 Ryu, P. K., "Causation in Criminal Law" 106 : 773-805, 1958

80 Wright, Richard W., "Causation : Linguistic, Philosophical, Legal and Economic" 91 (91): 461-480, 2016

81 Imbens, G., "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences : An Introduction"

82 Markus, K. A., "Causal Effects and Counterfactual Conditionals-Contrasting Rubin, Lewis and Pearl" 37 (37): 441-461, 2021

83 Hume, David, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"

84 Glaser, J., "Abhandlungen aus dem österreichischen Strafrecht, Bd. 1" 1858

85 Goertz, "A Tale of Two Cultures - Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences" Princeton University Press 2012

86 Mill, J. S., "A System of Logic, Vol. 1" John W. Parker 1843