준강도의 처벌범위에 대한 비판적 검토 = A Critical Review on the Scope of Punishment for Quasi-Robbery

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Quasi-robbery is a crime where a thief uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to obliterate a trace of the crime. In actual quasi-robbery cases, the courts tend to be too quick to find the defendant guilty of quasi robbery, despite the fact that the severity of violence, intimidation or injury in quasi-robbery cases is not as substantial as in other crimes. In addition, the majority of scholars and the Supreme Court hold that since quasi-robbers are punished in accordance with the robbery provision, quasi-robbery should be equated with robbery or special robbery. Based on this interpretation, they go on to construe the Article to mean that the concurrent offence provisions and Erfolgsqualifizierte Delikte (offence aggravated based on the result of the crime) provisions involving robbery should be also applied to quasi robbery, as well as the relevant aggravation provisions in the special acts
Even if Article 335 of the Criminal Act could pass the muster of the rule of clarity stemming from the principle of nulla poem sine lege, the above interpretation cannot hold in the face of the very text of the Article. Article 335 stipulates that “a thief who uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to obliterate a trace of the crime shall be punished in accordance with the preceding two Articles.” Construing this Article in accordance with the theories from Germany or Japan, where the law states that quasi-robbery constitute or be punished as robbery, would be inconsistent with interpretation of Korea’s criminal law. Therefore, even when a quasi-robber injures/kills another person deliberately or by negligence in the course of violence or intimidation, such offender should be punished by concurrently applying the quasi-robbery provision along with the injury/murder provision, or the bodily injury/death by negligence provision.
This interpretation will provide the courts with more room to appropriately adjust the level of punishment in accordance with the Sentencing Guideline. Also, depending on the level of sentencing, the courts may be able to suspend execution of the sentence: such possibility will greatly contribute to correcting the problem of unreasonably severe punishments.
Although Precedence 1 involved aggravated punishment based on the Special Act, not the Criminal Act, it rightfully refused to equate quasi-robbery with regular or special robbery, thus providing us with a meaningful implication for construing the quasi-robbery provision in the Criminal Act.
Precedence 2, on the contrary, held that a quasi-robber who also inflicted bodily injury should be punished for ‘bodily injury resulting from robbery’, following the theory of the majority of scholars and the Supreme Court that quasi-robbery should be equated with robbery or special robbery. Such interpretation cannot escape the criticism that it is inconsistent with the text of Article 335 of the Criminal Act.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이재상, "형법연습(제8판)" 신조사 2012

2 강구진, "형법강의 각론 Ⅰ" 박영사 1983

3 김일수, "형법각론(제7판)" 박영사 2007

4 배종대, "형법각론(제6전정판)" 홍문사 2007

5 정성근, "형법각론(제3판)" 삼지원 2008

6 오영근, "형법각론(제2판)" 박영사 2009

7 박상기, "형법각론(6판)" 박영사 2005

8 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2012

9 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2005

10 김성천, "형법각론" 동현출판사 2006

11 김성돈, "형법각론" 성균관대학교 출판부 2008

12 허일태, "현행형법의 법정형에 대한 문제점과 개선방안, In 형사법개정연구자료집 Ⅲ-1" 법무부 2010

13 김일수, "한국형법 Ⅲ" 박영사 1997

14 김상준, "한국 국민참여재판 시행원년의 성과와 과제" 국민의사법 참여연구회 2010

15 김경락, "특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기" 법학연구소 18 (18): 369-392, 2006

16 박이규, "준강도할 목적이 있음에 그치는 경우에 도 강도예비 음모죄가 성립하는지" 법원도서관 (66) : 2007

17 조현욱, "준강도죄의 행위주체와 기수와 미수의 판단기준" 한국법학회 (29) : 243-266, 2008

18 김일수, "준강도죄의 불법과 책임의 구조" 고려대학교 법학연구원 (44) : 2005

19 임석원, "준강도죄에 관한 고찰 - 법적 성격과 미수를 중심으로 -" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 335-358, 2009

20 문형섭, "준강도를 위한 변론" 법조협회 53 (53): 205-225, 2004

21 최병각, "준강도가 강도죄는 아니지 않는가?," 한국법학원 2010

22 최병각, "법해석의 한계: 미성년자 의제강간, 미수범까지 처벌?" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 223-244, 2009

23 이용구, "국민참여형사재판의 배심원평결과 판결차이에 관한 분석" 한국형사소송법학회 3 (3): 2011

24 한상훈, "결합범의 구조와 신분범과의 관계 - 준강도죄와 강도강간죄를 중심으로 -" 법조협회 54 (54): 96-133, 2005

25 성낙현, "강도죄에서의 몇 가지 논점" 5 (5): 2003

26 大谷實, "刑法講義各論" 成文堂 2000

27 団藤重光, "刑法綱要各論" 創文社 1990

28 大塚仁, "刑法槪說各論" 有斐閣 2005

29 前田雅英, "刑法各論講義(제4판)" 東京大學出版會 2007

30 佐久間修, "刑法各論" 成文堂 2007

31 西田典之, "刑法各論" 弘文堂 2005

32 山口厚, "刑法各論" 有斐閣 2005

33 권오걸, "“例에 의한다”는 문언의 명확성과 해석의 범위" 한국비교형사법학회 9 (9): 413-432, 2007

34 Rudolf Rengier, "Strafrecht Besonderer Teil Ⅰ: Vermӧgensdelikte, 14.Aufl" 2012