부작위에 의한 사기죄의 성부

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The common notion has distinguished explicit deceit from implied deceit in the fraud through commission. The fraud crime requires the behavior of deceit. The deceit is the action that makes the man fall into an error by a false statement. The explicit deceit is performed by the statement and the document, if the deceit is the aggressive expression though it is performed by the gesture, that"s the explicit deceit. On the other hand, if it is the passive expression though it is performed by the statement, that"s the implied deceit.
But there are no interests in such a distinction, so it is desirable to accept the single conception of the fraud through commission.
The precedents and the common notion have accepted the possibility of the fraud through omission without any doubt. But the cases of the fraud through omission in the precedents can be included in the conception of the fraud through commission without a exception.
Also the examples of the fraud through omission in the common notion can be recognized as a fraud of commission or asked to the civil law or malfeasance in office. In other words, the fraud of omission cannot be proved in practice.
According to the analysis of this paper, the common notion approves the fraud through omission with a legal fiction of deceit which is considered by the guarantor-status and the notification obligation. But such a legal fiction is unreasonable and out of place.
The criminal law denies the legal fiction and such interpretations violate the principle of "nullum crimen sine lege". Also such attitudes toward the fraud through ommission are creating the new crime which is not expected in criminal law. It is not acceptable to approve the legal fiction and the creating-crime.
To conclude, the possibility of the fraud through omission must be denied.
On the other side, the precedents is reasoning the guarantor-status and notification obligation from the principle of the faith and trust. But the principle is very ambiguous, so it may injury the clearance of the criminal law.
Therefore, the principle of the faith and trust must be modified with "the special-trust relation theory". Especially, the notification obligation must be denied in the cases that the victim may confirm the relevant facts easily.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 대상판결 - 대판 2014.1.16, 2013도9644
• Ⅲ. 기망행위의 유형에 관한 논의
• Ⅳ. 기망행위에 관한 기존 판례의 동향과 문제점
• Ⅴ. 부작위에 의한 기망행위
• Ⅵ. 대상판결에 관한 평석 및 결론
• 【참고문헌】
• 【Abstract】

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" 박영사 2011

2 오영근, "형법각론 제3판" 박영사 2014

3 이정원, "형법각론" 신론사 2012

4 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2015

5 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2013

6 배종대, "형법각론" 홍문사 2015

7 이세화, "형법 제347조 기망행위의 태양에 관한 소고" 한국법학회 (34) : 367-386, 2009

8 커넥팅랩, "클라우드와 빅데이터를 뛰어넘는 거대한 연결 사물인터넷" 미래의창 2014

9 김일수, "제8판" 박영사 2015

10 김성천, "제5판" 소진출판사 2015

11 한정환, "사기죄에서의 기망과 재산상의 이익취득" 한국형사법학회 12 : 1999

12 김일수, "사기죄 해석론에서 몇가지 문제점" 고려대학교 법학연구소 29 : 1993

13 이정원, "부작위에 의한 사기죄에서의 기망행위와 공동정범?" 한국비교형사법학회 8 (8): 333-354, 2006

14 류화진, "부작위에 의한 사기죄 인정에 관한 비판적 고찰" 부산대학교 법학연구소 44 (44): 2003

15 안경옥, "부작위에 의한 기망행위" 영남대학교 법학연구소 8 : 2002

16 하태훈, "부동산 거래관계에 있어서 고지의무와 부작위에 의한 기망" 박영사 (2) : 1999

17 이근우, "보험계약상 고지의무위반의 형법적 의미" 법학연구소 (54) : 325-354, 2012

18 허일태, "보험계약상 고지의무와 보험금 사기의 고의" 법학연구소 (52) : 417-445, 2011

19 김성룡, "묵시적 기망？부작위를 통한 기망 및 작위와 부작위의 상응성" 한국형사법학회 (23) : 22-42, 2005

20 Bockelmann, "Zur Problematik der Beteiligung an vermeintlich vorsätzlich rechtswidrigen Taten"

21 Naucke, "Zur Lehre vom strafbaren Betrug"

22 Herzberg, "Die Unterlassung im Strafrecht und das Garantenprinzip"

23 Grünwald, "Der Vorsatz des Unterlassungsdelikts"