의료과실과 인과관계 및 객관적 귀속 = Medical Malpractice and Causality

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Even though the supreme court uses the term ``adequacy`` during the course of determining the causality of the negligent person, it does not actually use ``adequacy-theory`` as a practical standard of judgement. For example, the causalities of the two medical malpractice cases, [Wisdom-Tooth Case] and [Large-Fetus Case], are all acknowledged when examined by the ``adequacy-theory``. However, the supreme court is denying their causalities because the consequence avoidability cannot be secured even with the lawful alternative action. This exactly coincides with the standard of the objective imputation theory. Therefore, it can be said that the supreme court is invoking the standard of objective imputation theory rather than that of ``adequacy-theory``. The conclusion from the two medical malpractice cases were that their causalities are not acknowledged. On the other hand, the causal connection was acknowledged in the [Fuse-Cork Case #1], a general negligence case, where the negligent action of the previous tenant, who removed a fuse-cork without taking any follow-up measures except closingthe external valve resulted in the death of a subsequent tenant due to an explosion caused by the leaked gas from the external valve that was opened by someone else. However in this case, we can conclude that the consequence avoidability could not have been achieved even with the lawful alternative action: looking into [Fuse-Cork Case #2], the previous tenant requested the gas supplier for appropriate measures while removing the gas stove where the supplier directedthe tenant to just cut-off and remove the stove. Since an explosion occurred as the result of this, the legal consequence also might not have been avoided even if a lawful alternative action was taken in [Fuse-Cork Case #1]. It might seem as if the supreme court is discriminating between the medical malpractice and the general negligence cases. This problem should be solved by crystalizing the standard of judgement for causality based on the objective imputation theory so it is capable of solving such cases. When predicting whether the consequence avoidability is achieved by a lawful alternative action, the alternatives should be limited just to the violation of obligation by the accused person. Especially, it would be incorrect to assume the causal connexion by inputting the possibility of the third person committing illegal acts. Accordingly, substituting the violation of obligation of the gas supplier, who did not take appropriate measures in [Fuse-Cork Case], as an alternative action would also be inappropriate. Likewise, by crystalizing the standard of the objective imputation theory, the validity of the conclusion can be enhanced which can lead to an indiscrimination between the medical malpractice and the general negligence cases by the supreme court. In case of medical malpractices, however, because the people who are specialized in legal study are not usually familiar with the medical practices, it would be difficult for them to determine whether the consequence avoidability is achieved. This leads people to be uncertain about the consequence avoidability and this uncertainty makes them to think in favor of the accused person when confirming the ultimate fact(in dubio pro reo). In the end, this would be why the possibility for favoring medical practitioners is open when determining the causal connection in medical malpractice cases.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김성천, "형법총론" 도서출판 소진 2012

2 정영일, "형법총론" 박영사 2011

3 김일수, "형법총론" 박영사 2004

4 박상기, "형법총론" 박영사 2008

5 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 2008

6 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원 2011

7 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2009

8 이정원, "형법총론" 법지사 1999

9 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2009

10 손동권, "형법총론" 박영사 2011

11 임웅, "형법총론" 법문사 2011

12 이형국, "형법총" 법문사 2007

13 도중진, "형법에 있어서 상당인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 한국비교형사법학회 2 (2): 2000

14 김성천, "형법각론" 도서출판 소진 2012

15 장영민, "인과관계론에 관한 보완적 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 18 (18): 107-130, 2007

16 김만오, "의료과오에 관한 판례의 동향" 한국민사법학회 (27) : 299-347, 2005

17 김용빈, "의료과오소송에 있어 입증책임 완화에 따른 의료과실의 의미와 판단기준" 대한의료법학회 9 (9): 57-127, 2008

18 박영호, "의료과실과 인과관계의 입증에 관한 대법원 판결의 태도" 대한의료법학회 6 (6): 2005

19 석희태, "의료과실 판단기준에 관한 학설․판례의 동향" 대한의료법학회 1 (1): 2000

20 양창수, "상당인과관계설의 이론적 의미와 한계 ― 상당성의 본질 ―" 법학연구소 44 (44): 199-238, 2003

21 원형식, "부진정부작위범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 중앙법학회 12 (12): 111-136, 2010

22 김성룡, "부진정부작위범에 있어서 객관적 귀속(번역논문)" 법학연구원 (30) : 609-626, 2009

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

24 조훈, "객관적 귀속에 있어서 간과된 연결고리" 한국형사법학회 (26) : 551-568, 2006

25 임석원, "객관적 귀속에 관한 의문점과 해석의 방향" 한국형사법학회 22 (22): 161-186, 2010

26 김호기, "객관적 귀속론에 대한 주관적/역사적 해석론에 입각한 반론에 대하여" 법학연구소 23 (23): 277-292, 2006

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

28 유용봉, "객관적 귀속론과 대법원판례 입장에 관한 연구" 한국경찰연구학회 10 (10): 129-147, 2011

29 이용식, "객관적 귀속 이론의 규범론적 의미와 구체적 내용" 서울대학교 법학연구소 43 (43): 2002

30 김성천, "객관적 귀속 이론과 판례" 한국비교형사법학회 7 (7): 53-74, 2005

31 조성제, "객관적 귀속 기준에 대한 우리 판례의 입장에 대한 고찰" 한국치안행정학회 5 (5): 77-95, 2008

32 Wolfgang Frisch, "객관적 귀속 - 논의상황과 문제점 -" 서울대학교 법학연구소 45 (45): 2004

33 朴永浩, "醫療過失訴訟에 있어서 過失과 因果關係의 立證과 그 方法" 한국법학원 (77) : 90-123, 2004