위험사회와 과실의 공동정범 = Co-principals of Crime by Negligence in Risk Society

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Today, the technological development and the increase of intimate relations among social structures augment danger. The civilization made lots of sources of danger in consideration of it and having uncertain features, sources of danger are unpredictable. The criminal law guarantees security of citizen, especially it focuses on environment; narcotic, traffic, manufactures and medical care. Nowadays, almost theories of criminal law base on the deliberate offense.
However, I would like to discuss on whether we presume the accomplice of negligence in perceiving lots of accidents occur as the negligence, ‘co-principals of Crime by negligence’ frequently occurs as many as ‘deliberate conspiracy’.
According to the Korean penal code 30th , the co-principals of crime is committing in conspiracy over two, so it is possible to construct as the positive term and negative vice versa. Could you submit the theory about usual the deliberate offense and deliberate co-principals of crime for settling the question about requisite and purview of co-principals of Crime by negligence?
Therefore, I approached to solve as it requires the new benefit and protection of the law from a different standpoint. We can figure the profit and loss out the view of co-principals of Crime by negligence. I checked up the change of precedent , relation between ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’, and ‘simultaneous crimes’ and approved requisite.
It is wonder wether co-principals of Crime by negligence own responsibility is presumed as whole or not. But, it is not resonable because the co-principals of Crime by negligence joint the constituent requisite of tort not individual reproach of obligation. This solution is not pertinent because the criminal negligence is different from deliberate offense in lawful complete structure.
Also, finding of ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’ is not issue of the theory of obligation that which one concretely raises tort among escheat of subjects. Focusing on the result, it is certain that an effect is raised by all volunteers.
Accordingly, the act among escheat of subjects can not separate when they are intimately associated with together. From this point of view, it regards as appropriate that the co-principals of Crime by negligence lies. Moreover, I checked up the change of precedent , relation between ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’, and ‘simultaneous crimes’ and approved requisite.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
• Ⅱ. 위험사회 속에서 형법의 대응
• Ⅲ. 공동과실과 과실의 공동정범
• Ⅳ. 과실범의 공동정범에 대한 성립요건의 제시
• Ⅳ. 나가는 글에 대신하여
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Lampe, (106) : 705-, 1994

2 김용욱, "형사연습강의" 법문사 519-, 1999

3 김일수, "형법총론(제7판)" 박영사 88-, 2007

4 신동운, "형법총론 제5판" 법문사 584-, 2010

5 신동운, "형법총론 제5판" 법문사 422-, 2010

6 이형국, "형법총론" 법문사 287-, 2007

7 이정원, "형법총론" 344-,

8 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 467-, 2009

9 안동준, "형법총론" 학현사 233-, 1998

10 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원 555-, 2009

11 조준현, "형법총론" 법원사 413-, 2004

12 서보학, "형법총론" 박영사 574-, 2006

13 황산덕, "형법총론" 272-, 1982

14 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 593-, 2009

15 김성돈, "형법총론" 성균관대학교출판부 587-, 2009

16 박상기, "형법총론" 박영사 394-, 2009

17 김학태, "현대위험사회에서의 형법상 귀속구조의 변화" 3 (3): 6-, 2001

18 허일태, "위험사회의 출현과 법의 기능변화" 3 (3): 2001

19 박광민, "위험사회의 등장에 따른 형법의 대응" 법학연구소 18 (18): 513-534, 2006

20 박강건, "위험사회와 형법의 변화" 8 (8): 277-278, 1997

21 이용식, "위험사회에서의 법익보호와 적극적 일반예방" 13 (13): 54-, 2001

22 김재윤, "위험사회에 있어 형법의 팽창현상에 대한 비판적 고찰" 한국비교형사법학회 7 (7): 29-52, 2005

23 이보영, "과실의 공동정범의 이론" (4) : 99-, 1991

24 서거석, "과실의 공동정범, in 사법행정" 19-, 1991

25 허일태, "과실범의 공동정범에 대한 대법원판례의 변천"

26 문채규, "과실범의 공동정범에 대한 논증도구로서의 기능적 범행지배, in 「법치국가와 형법」, 심재우 교수 정년기념논문집" 381-, 1998

27 이승호, "과실범의 공동정범에 관한 판례의 검토와 학설의 정립" 한국형사법학회 23 (23): 151-176, 2011

28 신동운, "과실범의 공동정범 긍정례, in 고시연구" 1995

29 전지연, "과실범의 공동정범" 13 : 49-, 2000

30 정진연, "과실범의 공동정범" 8 : 133-, 1995

31 이용식, "과실범의 공동정범" (7) : 99-, 1999

32 서보학, "과실범의 공동정범" 35 (35): 2000

33 심재우, "과실범의 공동정범" 1980

34 이영우, "과실범와 공동정범" 3 : 1996

35 김성룡, "고의론에서 접근한 과실범에 있어서 공동정범" (16) : 149-, 2001

36 하태훈, "결함제조물로 인한 법익침해와 그 형사책임" 한국형사법학회 (17) : 187-210, 2002

37 유기천, "개정형법학(총론강의)" 일조각 288-, 1984

38 松宮孝明, "過失犯の現代的課題" 成文堂 52-, 2004

39 嶋矢貴之, "過失犯の共同正犯論(1)-共同正犯論序說" 121 (121): 87-88, 2004

40 大塚 仁, "犯罪論の基本問題" 有悲閣 319-, 1982

41 "東京地裁昭和40.5.10判決" 7 (7): 855-,

42 木村龜二, "刑法總論ㆍ增補" 日本評論社 405-, 1978

43 平野龍一, "刑法總論Ⅱ" 有悲閣 393-, 1975

44 福田 平, "刑法總論I" 有悲閣 70-, 1979

45 福田 平, "刑法總論I" 日本評論社 381-, 1979

46 平野龍一, "刑法總論I" 有悲閣 193-, 1972

47 川端 博, "刑法總論25講" 靑林書院 316-, 1993

48 中山硏一, "刑法總論" 成文堂 453-, 1982

49 團藤重光, "刑法綱要總論" 成文堂 393-, 1990

50 大塚 仁, "刑法槪說" 有悲閣 81-, 1997

51 阿部純二, "刑法基本講座 第4卷" 法學書院 144-,

52 曾根威彦, "刑法の重要問題" 成文堂 327-, 2005

53 前田雅英, "刑法の基礎總論" 有悲閣 363-364, 1998

54 前田雅英, "刑法の基礎總論" 有悲閣 363-364, 1998

55 內田文昭, "刑法Ⅰ" 靑林書院 61-, 1986

56 류전철, "“위험사회와 위험형법”, “위험사회와 위험형법”" 전남대학교법학연구소 18 : 243-, 1998

57 Kurt Seelmann, "“위험사회” 그리고 환경형법과 마약형법에서 위험사회의 “상징적 입법”" 9 (9): 238-239, 1998

58 Ransieck, "Unternehmensstrafrecht" 67-,

59 Renzikowiski, "Täterbegriff und fahrlässige Beteiligung" 282-, 1997

60 "Schmidhäuser, AT., 14/30"

61 Ulich Beck, "Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne" 1896

62 Weisser, "Kausalitäts- und täteschaftsprobleme bei der strafrechtlichen Würdigung pflichtwirdiger Kollegialentscheidungen" 146-, 1996

63 Dencker, "Kausalität und Gesamttat" 179-, 1996

64 Otto, "Grundkurs Straftrecht AT" 298-, 2000

65 Weißer, "Gibt es eine fahrlässige Mittäterschaft?" 236-, 1998

66 Küpper, "GA"

67 Walther, "Eigenverantwortlichkeit und strafrechtliche Zurchnung" 117-, 1991

68 Kamm, "Die fahrlässige Mittäteschaft" 175-, 1999

69 Wessels, "AT." C.F. Müller 221-, 2001

70 內田文昭, "(刑法における)過失共同の理論" 61-, 1975