연쇄적 공범의 가벌성에 대한 일본과 우리나라의 비교

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A serial accomplice consists of indirect abetment inciting an abettor, re-indirect abetment inciting an indirect abettor and indirect accessory abetting an accessory. Opinions about whether indirect abetment and accessory actions can build a case of abettor or accessory have been divided. It implies that they could be the target of research.
To establish abettor or accessory, the principal offender should commit a crime through abetment or accessory actions. According to the accessory dependent theory which is precedent and conventional wisdom, if the principal offender falls under composition requirement through abetment or accessory action, and unlawful and legal responsible actions are committed, causal relationship could be established. Without verifying the crime of the principal offender, abettor and accessory would not be established but be attempted. In terms of abettor and accessory, actions of the principal offender should be done by a deliberate offense. The reason is that abettor and accessory about criminal negligence establishes indirect principal offender.
The recognition and anticipation of criminal execution and facilitation of the principal offender about intention of abettor and accessory as well as provocation and anticipation of composition requirement of the ground are needed. It is called to abet and aid to commit the principal offense based on the awareness.
Since the accessory actions of an abettor in punishment of indirect accessory does not aid the principal offender but aid the abetment action, it does not seem th¡at it facilitates the execution of the principal offender. Therefore, it should be denied, since they do not exhibit the causal relationship and the objective jurisdiction. In order to overcome these limitations, Japan has prepared the punishment provision in writing in case of abetting a deliberate offense. However, the clarity of punishment couldn’t be given since the punishment provision is not written in Korea. Therefore, it should be resolved through making punishment provisions in writing.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 연쇄적 공범의 성립요건
• Ⅲ. 연쇄적 공범의 가벌성 검토
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 배종대, "형법총론(제8판)" 홍문사 2005

2 정영일, "형법총론(제7판)" 박영사 2007

3 신동운, "형법총론(제4판)" 법문사 2009

4 오영근, "형법총론(보정판)" 박영사 2007

5 임웅, "형법총론(개정판)" 법문사 2005

6 신동운, "형법총론 제5판" 법문사 2010

7 서보학, "형법총론" 박영사 2008

8 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원 2008

9 신양균, "중립적 행위에 의한 방조" 한국형사법학회 (26) : 1-24, 2006

10 이기호, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속, 승계적 공동정범, 방조범과 범인도피죄" 47 (47): 2002

11 이재상, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 박영사 1995

12 Arthur Kaufmann, "위험증대이론의 문제점, 인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 박영사 1995

13 원형식, "방조범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 209-228, 2009

14 김정환, "방조범의 고의에 관한 검토" 22 (22): 2007

15 이영선, "교사범의 고의에 관한 연구" 연세대학교 2002

16 안성조, "과실범의 공동정범" 한국형사법학회 19 (19): 587-618, 2007

17 이상문, "공범의 처벌근거에 관한 연구:교사범을 중심으로" 서울대학교 2006

18 이정원, "가벌적 방조행위의 한계에 관한 연구 - 소위 중립적 행위에 의한 방조를 중심으로" 한국법학원 (118) : 214-233, 2010

19 大谷 實, "刑法講議總論(新版 第2版)" 成文堂 2007

20 前田雅英, "刑法總論講義(第4版)" 東京大學出版會 2006

21 松宮孝明, "刑法總論講義" 成文堂 2006

22 中野次雄, "刑法總論槪要(第3補訂版)" 成文堂 1997

23 野村 稔, "刑法總論(補訂版)" 成文堂 1998

24 曽根威彦, "刑法總論(第3版)" 成文當 2000

25 川端 博, "刑法總論(第2版)" 成文堂 2006

26 平野龍一, "刑法總論 Ⅱ" 有裴閣 1976

27 山口 敬一, "刑法總論" 成文堂 2006

28 福田 平, "刑法總論" 有裴閣 2004

29 山口 厚, "刑法總論" 有裵閣 2007

30 板倉 宏, "刑法總論" 勁草書房 2007

31 西田 典之, "刑法總論" 弘文堂 2007

32 大塚 仁, "刑法槪說 (總論)(第3版 增補版)" 有裴閣 2005

33 도중진, "刑法における相當因果關係と客觀的 歸屬:行爲後の介在事情の介入類型を中心として" 동북대학교 2000

34 山口 敬一, "刑法に おける 因果關係と歸屬" 成文堂 1984

35 山口 敬一, "刑法に おける 因果關係と 歸屬" 成文堂 1984

36 植田重正, "共犯論上の諸問題" 成文堂 1985

37 阿部純二, "不作爲の 從犯(上)" 日本刑法學會 17 (17): 1971

38 Otto, "Strafrecht AT, 7. Aufl" 2004

39 Bockelmann/Volk, "Strafrecht AT, 4. Aufl" 1987

40 Wessels/Beaulke, "Strafrecht AT, 30. Aufl" 2007

41 Blei, "Strafrecht AT, 18. Aufl" 1983

42 Stratenserth, "Lehrbuch AT, 4. Aufl" 2000

43 Schild/Trappe, "Harmlose Gehilfenschaft" 1995