협박의 의미와 대상

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article is a critical review on a case, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1017 delivered on 2010. 7. 15. In the present case, the intimidated person neither felt fear nor was the subject of the harm threatened. Defendant threatened a person with a notice of harm that he would harm the legal interest of a corporation operated by the intimidated person. Supreme Court held that although the object of intimidation was not the subject of harm threatened, the behavior of defendant constitutes a crime of intimidation on the ground that a corporation can be a subject of harm threatened. Article 283 (1) of Criminal Law stipulates that the meaning of intimidation is “to threat a person” but it remains silent in the meaning and types of legal interest. This is why the concept of intimidation remains in the arena of interpretation. In order to interpret the meaning and the content of intimidation reasonably, it is essential to conduct comparative research on constituent elements of the crime of intimidation, as conducted in this study with provisions of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan. In the case of Korean Criminal law, not surprisingly, a third party including family members of intimidated person can be a subject of harm notified as there is no provision applicable to a situation in which the object of intimidation is not a subject of harm threatened. However, the object of intimidation should be in ‘close relationship’ with the subject of harm threatened. Especially, for a corporation to be an subject of harm threatened, the content of intimidation should be interpreted narrowly, when considering the legislative examples of countries aforementioned which confine the scope of subject of harm threatened. It is thought to be unreasonable to expand the scope of punishment on the crime of intimidation by interpreting the provision to provide no limitation on the content of harm notified. In the present case, intimidated person did not feel fear because the subject of harm threatened was not himself, but his corporation. Even from the standpoint that crime of intimidation is a crime of danger, it is unreasonable to disregard the statement of the victim made in court in judging harmfulness of the notice. Moreover, considering the content of the notice which contained a threat that defendant would accuse the corporation of its illegal practice to the supervising department, Court should have been more cautious in its holdings on the consummation of the crime of intimidation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• [대상판결] 대법원 2010. 7. 15. 선고 2010도1017 판결
• [공소사실]
• [원심판결] (인천지방법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2007고단3021 판결)
• [판결요지] (대법원 2010. 7. 15. 선고 2010도1017 판결)
• [판례평석]
• Ⅰ. 문제제기
• Ⅱ. 협박죄의 구성요건에 관한 비교법적 고찰
• Ⅲ. 협박의 의미
• Ⅳ. 협박의 대상
• Ⅴ. 결론
• [참고문헌]
• [Abstract]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 한국형사정책연구원, "형법각칙 개정연구[2]"

2 배종대, "형법각론 제 7 판(2011)" 홍문사 2011

3 이재상, "형법각론 제 7 판" 박영사 2010

4 박상기, "형법각론 제 6 판" 박영사 2005

5 오영근, "형법각론 제 2 판" 박영사 2009

6 이정원, "형법각론 인터넷 공개 제 1 판"

7 권오열, "형법각론" 형설출판사 2009

8 김성돈, "형법각론" SKKUP 2009

9 김성천, "형법" 소진 2009

10 허일태, "협박죄의 성질과 기수시기(旣遂時期)" 법학연구소 (41) : 273-290, 2008

11 하태훈, "협박죄의 범죄구성요건 유형" (16) : 2008

12 최동렬, "협박죄의 기수에 이르기 위하여 상대방이 현실적으로 공포심을 일으킬 것을 요하는지 여부" (74) : 2007

13 이주일, "협박죄의 기수시기에 대한 평론 - 대법원 2007.9.28. 선고 2007도606 전원합의체 판결" 법학연구소 (30) : 451-469, 2008

14 김일수, "한국형법 Ⅲ[각론 상]" 박영사 1997

15 김성돈, "침해범·위험범, 결과범·거동범, 그리고 기수·미수의 구별기준" 한국형사판례연구회 17 : 1-24, 2009

16 임석원, "범죄피해자로서 법인의 본질 -모욕죄와 협박죄를 중심으로" 한국피해자학회 16 (16): 229-252, 2008

17 Maurach, "Strafrecht, Besonderer Teil 1"

18 Gössel, "Strafrecht Besonderer Teil 1, 2. Aufl"

19 Fischer, "Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 56. Aufl"

20 Stratenwerth, "Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch Handkommentar, 2. Aufl"

21 "Leipziger Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 10. Aufl"

22 Dölling, "Gesamtes Strafrecht"

23 Niggli, "Basler Kommentar, 2. Aufl"