개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
If intimidation is classified as an endangering offense (i.e., Gefahrdungsdelikt), then it can be considered completed as soon as a notice of threat is received by the intimidated person. This will expand the punishable range of the offense. Moreover, the range of the punishment for the offense must be expanded because current criminal law punishes attempted intimidation. This is not desirable. If it cannot be denied that a punishment brings with it pain that a human being is unable to endure, we should confine punishability to socially unacceptable acts, where punishment cannot be avoided. On this ground, we need to pay attention to the fact that there are few cases of legislation that punish criminal attempts of endangering offenses.
Above all, criminal law, as it stands, stipulates the constituent elements of a concrete endangering offense, stating that one who can be considered guilty of such offense is “(a) person who … causes danger of ….” Thus, while we should confine abstract endangering offenses to behavior offenses, we have to restrain ourselves from regarding a resulting offense as an endangering offense, except that it is not possible to interpret the constituent elements of an abstract endangering offense in another way because if an illegal act is classified as an abstract endangering offense, the range of its punishment will be expanded. The expansion of punishability with interpretation, however, violates the principles of “nulla poena sine lege” and “in dubio pro reo,” and criminal law has the article “causation” in its general part. This means that criminal law works on the principle of punishing a resulting offense or a completing offense, which is premised on causation, except for particular grounds that merit it to be treated differently. Therefore, a crime whose mere attempt is punished can be regarded as a resulting offense or a depriving offense, which has no particular provision in criminal law.
The articles on attempt in criminal law have established that attempted crime must be categorized as a begun attempt, an incomplete attempt, or a voluntary attempt. Criminal law states: “When an intended crime is not completed or if the intended result does not occur, it shall be punishable as an attempted crime”(Article 10, clause 1). Article 26 also stipulates the abandonment of a crime, which could be categorized as passive abandonment to quit the action or active abandonment to prevent the result of the culmination. This proves that attempts can be categorized as begun attempts, incomplete attempts, or voluntary attempts in criminal law. Thus, attempted intimidation, which is punishable, should be categorized as any one of these three attempts as well, except for a reasonable exception.
Although we confirm every sort of attempt, we say that notwithstanding the punishment of the attempted intimidation, although intimidation is classified as an endangering offense, we may on one hand confirm every sort of attempt but on the other recognize a begun attempt absolutely while denying an incomplete attempt and a voluntary attempt. This interpretation is unreasonable in criminal law.
Considering the attribute of intimidation from various points of view, as stated above, it is hard to accept that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court and that of Prof. Jeong, Young-Seok regard or classify intimidation as an endangering offense. On the contrary, it is a reasonable interpretation that intimidation is classified as a depriving offense. Therefore, we should deny the Supreme Court’s interpretation: “… tell to inflict harm … irrelevant that the intimidated person actually feels fear, the intimidation is completed by satisfying the constituent elements, such as the notice of harm.” Instead, intimidation should be classified as a depriving offense and, as such, it is not completed unless a notice of harm is received by the other party. It is completed if the intimidated person feels fear, and in this case, the defendant would be punished for his completed act of intimidation. If not so, to punish the defendant for attempted intimidation is reasonable in light of the current criminal law. For this reason, the minority opinion is more just and valuable than the majority opinion in the Supreme Court.
Above all, criminal law, as it stands, stipulates the constituent elements of a concrete endangering offense, stating that one who can be considered guilty of such offense is “(a) person who … causes danger of ….” Thus, while we should confine abstract endangering offenses to behavior offenses, we have to restrain ourselves from regarding a resulting offense as an endangering offense, except that it is not possible to interpret the constituent elements of an abstract endangering offense in another way because if an illegal act is classified as an abstract endangering offense, the range of its punishment will be expanded. The expansion of punishability with interpretation, however, violates the principles of “nulla poena sine lege” and “in dubio pro reo,” and criminal law has the article “causation” in its general part. This means that criminal law works on the principle of punishing a resulting offense or a completing offense, which is premised on causation, except for particular grounds that merit it to be treated differently. Therefore, a crime whose mere attempt is punished can be regarded as a resulting offense or a depriving offense, which has no particular provision in criminal law.
The articles on attempt in criminal law have established that attempted crime must be categorized as a begun attempt, an incomplete attempt, or a voluntary attempt. Criminal law states: “When an intended crime is not completed or if the intended result does not occur, it shall be punishable as an attempted crime”(Article 10, clause 1). Article 26 also stipulates the abandonment of a crime, which could be categorized as passive abandonment to quit the action or active abandonment to prevent the result of the culmination. This proves that attempts can be categorized as begun attempts, incomplete attempts, or voluntary attempts in criminal law. Thus, attempted intimidation, which is punishable, should be categorized as any one of these three attempts as well, except for a reasonable exception.
Although we confirm every sort of attempt, we say that notwithstanding the punishment of the attempted intimidation, although intimidation is classified as an endangering offense, we may on one hand confirm every sort of attempt but on the other recognize a begun attempt absolutely while denying an incomplete attempt and a voluntary attempt. This interpretation is unreasonable in criminal law.
Considering the attribute of intimidation from various points of view, as stated above, it is hard to accept that the majority opinion in the Supreme Court and that of Prof. Jeong, Young-Seok regard or classify intimidation as an endangering offense. On the contrary, it is a reasonable interpretation that intimidation is classified as a depriving offense. Therefore, we should deny the Supreme Court’s interpretation: “… tell to inflict harm … irrelevant that the intimidated person actually feels fear, the intimidation is completed by satisfying the constituent elements, such as the notice of harm.” Instead, intimidation should be classified as a depriving offense and, as such, it is not completed unless a notice of harm is received by the other party. It is completed if the intimidated person feels fear, and in this case, the defendant would be punished for his completed act of intimidation. If not so, to punish the defendant for attempted intimidation is reasonable in light of the current criminal law. For this reason, the minority opinion is more just and valuable than the majority opinion in the Supreme Court.
목차
[사실관계]
[소송의 경과]
【대법원 판결요지】
Ⅰ. 문제제기
Ⅱ. 협박죄의 본질에 관한 학계와 판례의 입장
Ⅲ. 협박죄의 보호법익과 미수범처벌규정의 의미
Ⅳ. 결론(침해범으로서 협박죄와 기수시기)
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (12)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2007. 9. 28. 선고 2007도606 전원합의체 판결
[1] [다수의견] (가) 협박죄가 성립하려면 고지된 해악의 내용이 행위자와 상대방의 성향, 고지 당시의 주변 상황, 행위자와 상대방 사이의 친숙의 정도 및 지위 등의 상호관계, 제3자에 의한 해악을 고지한 경우에는 그에 포함되거나 암시된 제3자와 행위자 사이의 관계 등 행위 전후의 여러 사정을 종합하여 볼 때에 일반적으로 사람으로 하여금
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
추상적 위험범에 대한 비판적 검토
동아법학
2010 .05
-
위험범의 문제점과 제한적 해석ㆍ적용
동아법학
2011 .05
-
미국 형법상 불능미수의 가벌성
형사법연구
2013 .01
-
사이버범죄와 국제형법 : 추상적 위험범의 범죄지 및 형법 제6조의 적용 범위를 중심으로
형사정책연구
2005 .09
-
구체적 위험범으로서 범인도피죄
형사법연구
2013 .01
-
미수범 분야 개정방향
형사법연구
2009 .01
-
결과발생시의 행위와 결과사이의 미수범 평가(評價) : 日本에서의 논의를 중심으로
동북아 문화연구
2012 .03
-
형법 제263조의 적용범위
중앙법학
2012 .09
-
협박죄의 기수시기에 대한 평론 - 대법원 2007.9.28. 선고 2007도606 전원합의체 판결 -
외법논집
2008 .01
-
형법상 미수범 감경규정의 특가법 적용문제
한양법학
2013 .08
-
위험운전치사상죄와 음주운전죄의 관계
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
中國 刑法上 犯罪過程에서의 犯罪形態
법학연구
2005 .06
-
범죄사실의 동일성에 관한 대법원과 미국의 연방대법원 판례의 비교 고찰
형사법연구
2007 .01
-
불능미수에 관한 형법 제27조의 해석상 문제점과 해결방안
중앙법학
2007 .10
-
트럼프 행정부의 대북정책 : 대중국 압박과 믿을만한 위협(credible intimidation)의 실현
EAI 논평
2017 .03
-
조선시대의 형사법제 연구 : 조선 형사법제와 현행 형법과의 비교법적 검토(각론)
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2016 .12
-
북한형법과 인권
형사정책연구
2002 .12
-
『공동정범의 과잉』에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 준강도 및 (준)강도상해죄의 공동정범 성립에 관한 대법원의 태도를 중심으로 -
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
電子政府(Electronic Government) 硏究試論
사회과학연구
1997 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018413389