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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2023.2
- 수록면
- 89 - 108 (20page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2023.2.34.1.89
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article, starting with the problem of indirect criminal error, tried to reconsider and organize the existing discussions on the nature of indirect criminal, the concept of indirect criminal, the distinction between principal criminal and accomplice, and the criteria for distinguishing between regular criminal and accomplice, and tried to find more reasonable and practical results or solutions.
First of all, I tried to raise the issue through the following cases commonly mentioned in relation to indirect criminal: Doctor A had a nurse B give an injection to his wife. Doctor A thought nurse B didn"t know it was a poisoned injection, but nurse B knew that the injection A gave was a poisoned injection, and B, who usually adored A, gave her a poisoned injection to kill A"s wife. Is A an indirect criminal?
No special academic discussion has been produced since the theory of Roxin’s Tatherrschaft has been used in the theory of accomplices regarding errors in indirect criminal. When using the concept of Tatherrschaft theory, it is simply summarized as the conclusion that it is not a principal criminal because there was no controll of intention. According to the theory of Tatherrschaft, a principal criminal is a person who can restrain or complete the realization of the constituent requirements according to his or her will with deliberately induced behavioral domination as the central person in the case, und an accomplice is a person who encourages the execution of a crime or creates the execution in other ways as a peripheral person in the actual case process without controlling his or her actions. As a result, Doctor A was the central figure in the case, and according to the deliberately induced behavioral control, nurse B was ordered to inject. If the doctor changed his mind and stopped the nurse, if a subjective doctor was formed in which the nurse could be stopped, the doctor is a complete intention controller. The theory of Tatherrschaft believes that the fact that the doctor simply made the nurse do it without knowing this situation, but did not recognize the nurse"s intention is transferred to the nurse, and doctor becomes nothing but a neighbor. This is because we only saw objective facts about the possibility of realistic control of the relevance of the constituent requirements of the theory of Tatherrschaft that the nurse"s intention was not recognized, but the subjective factors were not considered at all. Objectives that do not consider subjective factors cannot properly grasp the substance.
First of all, I tried to raise the issue through the following cases commonly mentioned in relation to indirect criminal: Doctor A had a nurse B give an injection to his wife. Doctor A thought nurse B didn"t know it was a poisoned injection, but nurse B knew that the injection A gave was a poisoned injection, and B, who usually adored A, gave her a poisoned injection to kill A"s wife. Is A an indirect criminal?
No special academic discussion has been produced since the theory of Roxin’s Tatherrschaft has been used in the theory of accomplices regarding errors in indirect criminal. When using the concept of Tatherrschaft theory, it is simply summarized as the conclusion that it is not a principal criminal because there was no controll of intention. According to the theory of Tatherrschaft, a principal criminal is a person who can restrain or complete the realization of the constituent requirements according to his or her will with deliberately induced behavioral domination as the central person in the case, und an accomplice is a person who encourages the execution of a crime or creates the execution in other ways as a peripheral person in the actual case process without controlling his or her actions. As a result, Doctor A was the central figure in the case, and according to the deliberately induced behavioral control, nurse B was ordered to inject. If the doctor changed his mind and stopped the nurse, if a subjective doctor was formed in which the nurse could be stopped, the doctor is a complete intention controller. The theory of Tatherrschaft believes that the fact that the doctor simply made the nurse do it without knowing this situation, but did not recognize the nurse"s intention is transferred to the nurse, and doctor becomes nothing but a neighbor. This is because we only saw objective facts about the possibility of realistic control of the relevance of the constituent requirements of the theory of Tatherrschaft that the nurse"s intention was not recognized, but the subjective factors were not considered at all. Objectives that do not consider subjective factors cannot properly grasp the substance.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 간접정범의 본질에 대한 논의
Ⅲ. 정범과 공범의 구별
Ⅳ. 정범과 공범의 구별기준
Ⅴ. 맺는 말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
간접정범의 규정과 그 본질
형사법연구
2021 .09
-
강간 상황극과 간접정범 - 대법원 2021. 2. 25. 선고 2020도17776 판결 -
법학연구
2024 .12
-
간접정범의 본질과 성립범위에 대한 고찰
일감법학
2023 .04
-
간접정범과 정범우위성에 관한 연구
원광법학
2015 .01
-
형법 제34조 제1항과 정범배후(正犯背後)의 정범(正犯)의 적용문제
법학연구
2018 .12
-
공동정범의 이론구성에 관한 비교법적 연구
비교형사법연구
2016 .01
-
간접정범과 교사범의 구별 및 공소장 변경의 필요성- 일본 판례의 비교법적 고찰 -
법학논총
2018 .01
-
간접정범의 공동정범? - 국제형사재판소(ICC) 판례와 독일 및 국내의 논의를 중심으로 -
형사법연구
2017 .01
-
형사정책연구 30년의 성과와 과제(II) : 형사법 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2019 .03
-
국제형사법상 간접정범 규정의 적용 근거 - 정범 배후 정범 해석 문제와 관련하여 -
법조
2022 .08
-
형법 제34조 ‘간접정범’
형사법연구
2017 .01
-
존재론적 공동정범표지
비교형사법연구
2015 .01
-
Criminal Procedure of Korea
Journal of Korean Law
2024 .02
-
Understanding Criminal Law in Korea
Journal of Korean Law
2024 .02
-
직접정범과 간접정범의 구별 및 자수범에 관한 고찰 - 피해자를 피이용자로 하는 강제추행죄와 관련하여 -
홍익법학
2020 .01
-
프랑스 형법상 공범의 유형과 처벌체계
법학논총
2023 .10
-
간접정범의 실행의 착수시기
법학연구
2020 .09
-
간호사의 업무로서의 ‘진료의 보조행위’에 대한 소고
법이론실무연구
2021 .08
-
북한형법상 공범규정의 체계 및 특징
동아법학
2015 .02
-
조선시대의 형사법제 연구 : 총칙의 현대 형사법 편제에 따른 재정립
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2015 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0