http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 이병한 (검색결과 139 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
형사소송법 제253조 제3항의 공소시효정지사유로서 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’의 해석 기준
이병한 사법발전재단 2009 사법 Vol.1 No.8
이 글은 대법원 2008. 12. 11. 선고 2008도4101 판결에 관한 것이다. 대상판결은 “범인이 형사처분을 면할 목적으로 국외에 있는 경우 그 기간 동안 공소시효는 정지된다.”라고 규정한 우리나라의 형사소송법 제253조 제3항의 해석기준을 다음과 같이 제시하고 있다. 범인이 국외에 있는 것이 형사처분을 면하기 위한 방편이었다면 국외 체류기간 동안에는 별다른 사정이 없는 한 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’이 있었다고 볼 수 있고, 위 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’과 양립할 수 없는 범인의 주관적 의사가 명백히 드러나는 객관적 사정이 존재하지 않는 한 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’은 계속 유지된다고 보아야 한다. 한편, 국외에 체류중인 범인에게 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’이 계속 존재하였는지가 의심스러운 사정이 발생한 경우, 그 기간 동안 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’이 있었는지 여부는 당해 범죄의 공소시효의 기간, 범인이 귀국할 수 없는 사정이 초래된 경위, 그러한 사정이 존속한 기간이 당해 범죄의 공소시효의 기간과 비교하여 도피 의사가 인정되지 않는다고 보기에 충분할 만큼 연속적인 장기의 기간인지, 귀국 의사가 수사기관이나 영사관에 통보되었는지, 피고인의 생활근거지가 어느 곳인지 등의 제반 사정을 참작하여 판단하여야 한다. 이러한 기준에 의하여 볼 때, 통상 범인이 외국에서 다른 범죄로 외국의 수감시설에 수감된 경우, 그 범행에 대한 법정형이 당해 범죄의 법정형보다 월등하게 높고, 실제 그 범죄로 인한 수감기간이 당해 범죄의 공소시효 기간보다도 현저하게 길어서 범인이 수감기간 중에 생활근거지가 있는 우리나라로 돌아오려고 했을 것으로 넉넉잡아 인정할 수 있는 사정이 있다면 그 수감기간에는 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’이 유지되지 않았다고 볼 여지가 있고, 그럼에도 그러한 목적이 유지되고 있었다는 점은 검사가 입증하여야 한다. 우리나라의 형사소송법 제253조 제3항은 비교법적으로 예외적인 규정이어서 그 해석기준을 제시하는 것이 쉽지 않다. 필자는 대상판결이 그 어려움을 슬기롭게 해쳐나가면서 그 해석기준을 제시하고 있으며 궁극적으로 검사에게 입증책임이 있음을 명확히 하여 개별 사건에서 위 규정이 탄력적으로 운용이 될 수 있는 길을 터놓은 판결이라고 생각한다. This paper primarily examines and analyzes the Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101(“the Decision” hereinafter) delivered on December 11, 2008. In the opinion of the Decision, the Supreme Court articulated the standard as following in construing Subsection 235(3) of the Rule of Criminal Procedure which provides that the period of limitation for prosecution shall not run during the period of any time when the accused stays abroad with the intent of fleeing from justice such as avoiding prosecution or arrest . If the accused stayed abroad only for avoiding the prosecution without any special circumstances, the court can conclude that the accused had the intent of avoiding prosecution. Moreover, the court should determine that the accused maintained such intent afterward so far as the court can not find any objective evidence contrary to the intent to avoid prosecution. However, where there happened such an incident that the court becomes to be suspicious whether the intend above could have been maintained, the court should consider the factors or circumstances changed in totality as follows in deciding whether the intent existed continuously: the years of limitation for prosecution of the crime at issue; the reasons preventing the accused from returning to this country; whether the period of the incident is such a long time that the court can not identify the intent of avoiding prosecution any more; whether a notice of intent returning to this country was given to the Korean Embassy or an agency of criminal investigation by the accused; and the accused's customary place of resort. In viewing from the standard above, it is unlikely for the court to decide that the intent of fleeing from justice was maintained by the accused when the following incidents happened: the accused was convicted of a different crime by a foreign court and incarcerated there; the jail time for that crime committed abroad was such a far more longer one than the period of statute of limitation for prosecution of the other crime committed by the accused in this country that the court could easily acknowledge that the accused would have returned to this country. To rebut to the court's conclusion above , the prosecutor rather than the accused should prove with evidence showing that the intent of fleeing from justice was maintained by the accused. It is difficult for a court to provide a standard in interpreting Subsection 235(3) of the Rule of Criminal Procedure since a similar provision can not be identified in rules and regulations of the other country. In my view, however, in deciding the case at issue, the Supreme Court overcame the difficulties and ended up with a standard of construction of Subsection 235(3) opening a path for the judges to use the standard flexibly in applying the Subsection in their own cases.
-
-
-
-
李炳漢 서울대학교 1975 서울대학교 論文集 Vol.20 No.-
What most Chinese critics’typical approach pattern for Chinese Classical Poems has primarily concerned itself in it, beside the phrases actually used therein, its overall impression and spiritual grandeur implied between the lines. This tradition may be traced as far back as to the original book Shi-pin(詩品), one of the earliest examples written by Zhong-rong(鍾嶸 469-518). His approach pattern has long been followed suit and applied not only in China proper but even in Korea. Why has this approach pattern been so unanimously applied so far? The answer to this question may be epitomized as follows; (1)The Oriental tradition that sees things in a synthetic way rather than in an analytical way must have been, naturally, the backbone which makes most literary critics lay stress more on the spiritual aspect (deep structure) than on the outward form (surface structure). The farmer always comes first in the order of its criticism criteria. (2) The insurmountable restrictions and inevitalbe recursivenss due to the facts that the Chinese language itself consist of a definite number of isolated characters, Chinese poems are in most cases strictly numbered rhythmed verse, and most poetic phrases can hardly be genuinely original must have made the critics sense that what a poet has written is more important than how a poet has written. This traditional approach has been supposed to make it possible for critics to geneologically comprehend and evaluate a poet’s composition of knowledge, originality, refinement of intention, spiritual grandeur, and his techniques and command of poetic language. It has also been supposed to help a read arpreciate the works of a poet. Of course this approach pattern of criticism in the earliest stage, where neither clearcut, intenti -onal attempt of criticism nor logical statement of theory can be found, simply attempted to point out mutual similarity and influences between two poems by comparing one with the other chronolog-ically different. However, It has gradually concerned itself to actively abstract the originality, imitatation, or plagiarism from a poet’s work, as it has been equipped with the refinement of eyes and methods. This study is to show how this traditional approach of critisism for poems has been developed by examining some of actual examples of these critics’s work.
-
-
-
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
