한국 형법의 정당방위

손미숙(Son, Mi-Suk) 한국형사법학회 2014 형사법연구 Vol.26 No.2

이 글은 외국 독자들에게 한국 형법의 정당방위에 관한 규정과 논의 상황을 소개 하기 위해 쓴 것이다. 이러한 의도에서 한국 형법의 범죄체계론에서 형벌면제사유가 되는 것들을 먼저 개괄적으로 고찰하고, 그 다음 정당방위에 관한 개별 논의들을 분 석, 정리하고 있다. 형벌면제사유에 관한 규정들은 1953년 한국 형법전이 제정된 이후부터 지금까지 60년이 넘는 세월 동안 조금도 바뀌지 않고 그 원형을 고스란히 간직하고 있는 조문들 중의 하나이다. 구성요건에 해당하는 위법하고 책임 있는 행위 를 범죄라고 정의하는 이른바 3 단계 범죄체계론은 한국 형법의 특징이라고 할 수 있으며, 형법전의 형벌면제사유에 관한 규정들로부터 우리형법은 이미 제정당시부터 위법성조각사유와 책임조각사유를 구분하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 특히 형법전의 위법성조각사유 (정당행위, 정당방위, 긴급피난, 자구행위, 피해자의 승낙) 에 관한 규정들은 한국 형법전의 총칙에서 체계적으로나 내용적으로 가장 완벽한 것으로 평가되기도 한다. 위법성조각사유 중 가장 중요한 것이기도 한 정당방위는 일종의 자연법상의 권리로서 자기보호와 법질서수호라는 두 가지 근본원칙에서 유래한다. 정당방위가 성립하기 위해서는 객관적 요건으로 정당방위상황과 정당방위행위 및 방위행위에 대한 상당한 이유가 있어야 하며, 주관적 요건으로는 방위의사를 필요로 한다. 정당 방위성립에 필요한 이 요건들은 형법 제21조 제1항에 규정된 법문으로부터 직접 도출되는 것이다. 정당방위의 법적 효력의 핵심은 방위행위의 위법성을 제거하는 것이며, 정당방위의 효과는 오로지 행위자에게만 미친다. 본문에서 소개하는 이러한 정당방위의 내용은 오랫동안 논의되고 있는 정당방위에 관한 한국 형법의 자화상의 한 단면이라고 할 수 있으며, 또 고도의 추상적인 개념들로 이루어진 한국 형법전의 위법성조각사유에 관한 규정들은 우리 형법이 판례법이 아닌, 체계적인 연관성 속에 있는 개념들로 이루어진 제정법이라는 현행법의 근원을 상기시키는 대표적인 예라고 할 수 있다. In this paper, the entire grounds for excluding criminal liability are first briefly presented in order to give better understanding to self-defense as a ground for justification in the Korean criminal law to the foreign reader. Then to go into the details of self-defense in the Korean Penal Code. The three-stage structure of criminal offences (Fulfillment of the Legal Elements of the Respective Offence, Unlawfulness, and Culpability) is characteristic for the Korean criminal law, according to which the offense is a factual excessive, unlawful and culpable action. Offences include prohibition and mandatory standards. They are not absolute, their validity can be set by special permit rates for certain individual cases except force. These permission sets are found not only in the Korean Penal Code, but also in other areas of law. They normalize the duty to tolerate the true factual moderate but allowed behavior of the offender. Such a permission set is commonly referred to in the Korean criminal law as a ground for justification. The self-defense rule is one of the most important grounds for justification in the Korean criminal law. The self-defense rule in § 21 Korean Penal Code reads as follows:§ 21 Korean Penal Code (Self-defense) : (1) An act is performed in order to prevent impending and unjust infringement of one's own or another person's legal interest shall not be punishable if there are reasonable grounds for that act. (2) When a preventive act has exceeded normal limits, a punishment may be mitigated or remitted according to the extenuating circumstances. (3) In the case of the preceding paragraph, an act performed through fear, surprise, excitement or confusion in the night or under other extraordinary circumstances shall not be punishable. The self-defense right consists of objective and subjective elements. The objective conditions of self-defense forms a self-defense situation, the self-defense action, and the reasonable grounds for a self-defense action. Subjective prerequisite is the will of the defense. All self-defense elements result directly from the wording of § 21 para 1 Korean Penal Code. The effect of self-defense is that it illegally eliminates a defense action (§ 21 para 1 Korean Penal Code) . The effect of self-defense is limited to the agent itself.

도둑뇌사사건을 통해 본 과잉방위의 의미와 인정기준

김정환 한국형사판례연구회 2020 刑事判例硏究 Vol.28 No.-

The point of contention was whether the defendant’s act of selfdefense could be rightfully seen as a self-defense and whether the consecutive self-defense makes the unjust current infringement situation continuously available. The stated case did not see the defendant’s action as one action but had divided the action of self-defense as ‘Initial Assault’ and ‘Additional Assault’, and ruled that the infringement was terminated after the initial assault. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered the defendant’s additional assault as an active act of aggression and refused to recognize it as an excessive self-defense, which could have reduced the level of penalty. The issue of excessive self-defense should be considered with the understanding that the situation of self-defense was within the scope of conducting the right of self-defense, therefore should be judged based on the existence of ‘equal self-defense situation’. Only in the presence of a ‘totally identical defense situation’ can the defendant’s actions constitute self-defense as a whole. In this case, the additional assault cannot be considered as being infringed of the current unjustly, such as having no imminent danger of serious body injury or death, thus, the defendant’s additional assault does not constitute excessive self-defense providing alleviation to its penalty. Also, the Supreme Court judged that in cases where excessive self-defense (Article 21, clause 2 of the Criminal Act) is due to fear, shock, excitement or embarrassment at night or other unstable conditions, the act cannot be punished (Article 21, clause 3 of the Criminal Act). Judging from the wording or system of Article 21 of the Criminal Act, it is not clear whether the acts prescribed by Article 21 (3) belong to excessive self-defense or self-defense. However, if you check the data at the time of enactment, it can be confirmed that it’s for the excessive self-defense as clause 3 is a mitigation provision for the case in clause 2. And while the clause 1 which prescribes the right of self-defense stipulates self-defense around the ‘action’, Article 21 clause 3 of the Criminal Law presents the psychological state of ‘actors’ as a requirement, therefore Article 21 (3) cannot be seen as a type of self-defense. In addition, the stated case referred to the existing Supreme Court ruling, explaining that the criterion for distinguishing between self-defense and excessive self-defense is ‘objectively reasonable fore’ and limitation to the excessive self-defense is dependent on the ‘socially acceptable action of defense’. The interpretation of ‘objectively reasonable force’ is natural when referring to the in the literacy statements of Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Law. Self-defense means an ‘objectively reasonable’ case of defense action, and it is reasonable to distinguish excessive self-defense as an excess of the degree of defense action. Given the reasons for recognizing self-defense and the regulatory system under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to interpret strictly whether it constitutes an action of objective and reasonable defense.Finally, the Supreme Court referred to the existing Supreme Court ruling and stated in the reason for the ruling that an act of excessive self-defense is limited to ‘socially acceptable action of defense’. According to Article 21 (1) and 21 (2), ‘excessive self-defense, which reduce or exempt the sentence’ is an act of self-defense which occurred under the circumstances that there is an unfair infringement of the current and the act of self-defense, although it is excessive, has ‘no probable cause but the situation’ allows alleviation of penalty. The law states the limitation to the excessive self-defense is the ‘situation’ not the ‘socially acceptableaction of defense’. The supreme Court seems to have used ‘socially acceptable action of defense’ as a criterion for ju...

북한 도발 억제를 위한 자위권 적용에 대한 연구: 북핵 위협에 대응위한 선제적 자위권 적용을 중심으로

이성훈 세종연구소 2014 국가전략 Vol.20 No.2

The purpose of this research is to identify conditions for securing legitimacy of "anticipatory self-defense," derive situations that can be applied to a variety of North Korea's threats, and suggest the ideal direction to be taken in terms of building military capabilities required for executing anticipatory self-defense. Self-defense, which is a right that nations are inherently entitled to for responding to external threats, can be classified as either anticipatory self-defense or preventive self-defense depending on when the move is executed. Anticipatory self-defense is executed when it is clear that the enemy's attack is imminent whereas preventive self-defense is executed earlier in preparation for a possibility that the enemy might decide to attack. Therefore, anticipatory self-defense is regarded as a legitimate way for a nation to defend itself because it is propelled by the concern that enormous damages are expected to occur should the enemy launch the attack first. The conditions that need to be fulfilled for anticipatory self-defense to gain legitimacy can be summarized as "necessity" and "proportionality." "Necessity" refers to whether the use of force is absolutely necessary considering the possibility of solving conflict. In other words, necessity in this context refers to the necessity to eliminate the enemy's imminent threat in an anticipated manner because not doing so would lead to having to sustain excessive damages from the enemy's attack. The second condition to be fulfilled is "proportionality."Whereas necessity is based on fulfilling conditions to be met before the execution of anticipatory self-defense, proportionality provides conditions that dictate purpose and means in actually executing self-defense. Proportionality means that the use of force is limited to the extent that is necessary to defeat or stop the enemy's attack in terms of magnitude, scope, and time duration for which the force is used. However, this principle does not entail that the amount of force to be used has to mathematically correspond to anything; it simply needs to not exceed the amount of force needed to stop or defeat the attack or threat. Within the framework of Korea's security situation, threats posed by nuclear weapons and WMDs constitute good examples of situations in which the concept of anticipatory self-defense can be applied. Therefore, we need to conduct anticipated self-defense through Kill Chain when it becomes clear that North Korea will resort to the use of nuclear weapons. The crux of this research is that it must be our cardinal priority to secure the forces necessary for conducting such anticipated self-defense. 이 연구의 목적은 ‘선제적 자위권’의 정당성 확보 조건을 식별하고, 다양한 북한 위협에 적용할 수 있는 상황을 도출한 후 선제적 자위권 행사시 요구되는 군사력의 건설방향을 제시하고자 하는 것이다. 외부의 위협에 대응하기 위한 국가의 고유 권한인 자위권은 행사시기에 따라 선제적 자위권과 예방적 자위권으로 구별할 수 있다. 선제적 자위권은 적의 공격이 급박하고 확실할 때 행해지는 자위권으로 적의 공격이 발생할 경우에 대비하여 미리 행사되는 예방적 자위권과는 구별된다. 즉, 선제적 자위권은 먼저 공격을 받을 경우 막대한 피해가 예상되는 점을 우려하여 시행함으로써 정당성을 인정받고 있다. 이 선제적 자위권의 정당성 확보 조건을 종합해보면 ‘필요성’과 ‘비례성’으로 요약될 수 있다. ‘필요성’이란 분쟁해결 가능성을 고려할 때 무력행사가 반드시 필요한지 여부를 말한다. 즉, 적의 임박한 적대행위를 선제적으로 제거하지 않으면 너무나 큰 피해를 입게 되므로 자위차원에서 먼저 무력공격을 해야 하는 필요성을 의미하는 것이다. 다음으로 충족되어야 하는 것이 ‘비례성’이다. 즉 필요성이 선제적 자위권 행사 시점 이전의 조건을 충족시키는 것이라면, 비례성은 자위권을 행사할 당시의 목적과 수단에 대한 조건을 제시해주는 것이라 할 수 있다. 비례성이란 무력공격을 격퇴 및 저지하는데 필요한 만큼으로 무력행사의 크기, 범위, 기간 등을 제한해야 하는 것을 의미한다. 그러나 이 원칙은 사용되는 무력의 양이 반드시 산술적으로 일치되어야 한다는 말이 아니라 무력공격 또는 위협을 중지 또는 격퇴시키기에 필요한 정도이어야 한다는 것을 의미한다. 한국의 안보상황하에서 ‘선제적 자위권’을 적용할 수 있는 상황은 핵 및 대량살상무기에 의한 위협이 대표적이다. 따라서 북한의 핵사용 위협이 명확할 시 우리는 Kill Chain 을 통하여 선제적 자위권을 행사해야 하며, 이를 위해 관련된 전력 확보가 최우선적으로 이루어져야 한다는 것이 이 연구의 핵심이다.

텍스트 마이닝(text mining) 분석을 통한 호신술 및 자기방어 인식과 역할탐색

곽정현 한국무예학회 2020 무예연구 Vol.14 No.3

본 연구는 호신술 및 자기방어의 현황을 파악하고 이를 기초자료로서 제공하는데 연구의 필요성 및 목적을 두고 텍스트 마이닝 분석을 활용하여 연구를 수행한 결과를 토대로 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 호신술 및 자기방어에 대한 빈출단어 빈도 분석결과 호신술, 자기방어가 가장 많이 나타났고, 다음으로 여성, 다이어트, 운동, 주짓수, 무술, 복싱, 태권도, 건강 순으로 나타났다. 빈출단어의 TF-IDF 가중치 분석결과는 여성, 호신술, 운동, 다이어트, 주짓수 순으로 나타났으며, 연결중심성 분석결과에서는 호신술, 운동, 여성, 주짓수, 무술 순으로 나타났다. 둘째, 호신술 및 자기방어와 관련하여 의미연결망 분석인 CONCOR 분석을 실시하여 나타난 4개의 군집은 호신술 관련 무술로 명명된 군집 1, 사회적 약자와 체력으로 명명된 군집 2, 자기방어 기술로 명명된 군집3, 호신술, 자기방어의 습득으로 명명된 군집4로 구성되었다. This study is based on the results of the study using text mining analysis with the necessity and purpose of the study to understand the current status of self-defense martial art and self-defense and to provide it as basic data. First, as a result of analyzing the frequency of frequent words for self-defense martial art and self-defense, self-defense martial art and self-defense were the most common, followed by women, diet, exercise, jujitsu, martial arts, boxing, taekwondo and health. The TF-IDF weight analysis of the frequent words was in the order of women, self-defense martial art, exercise, diet, and jiujitsu, and in the connection oriented analysis, it was in the order of self-defense martial art, exercise, women, jiujitsu, and martial arts. Second, the four clusters that appeared by conducting CONCOR analysis, which is a semantic network analysis related to self-defense martial art and self-defense, consisted of cluster 1, named as self-defense martial arts; cluster 2, named as disadvantaged and physical strength; cluster 3, named as self-defense technique; cluster 4 named as the acquisition of self-defense and self-defense.

정당방위 요건으로서 ‘침해의 현재성’ 개념의 확장 가능성 ― 한국ㆍ일본ㆍ독일 판례를 중심으로 ―

오채은 연세대학교 법학연구원 2025 법학연구 Vol.35 No.1

본 논문은 정당방위의 성립요건 중 ‘침해의 현재성’에 대한 법리에 관하여 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2020도6874 판결(노사갈등 대표이사 폭행 사건)을 중심으로 ‘침해의 현재성’ 요건이 주요한 쟁점이 되었던 국내외 판례들을 분석하였다. 정당방위는 부당한 법익침해 상황에서 자신이나 타인의 법익을 보호하기 위한 행위로, 법익침해의 현존, 방위의사의 존재, 그리고 방위행위의 상당성이 그 성립요건으로 요구된다. 이때 ‘침해의 현재성’이 인정되는 범위에 관하여, 단순히 법익침해가 시작되거나 진행 중인 상태에 국한되지 않고, 침해가 형식적으로 종료된 후에도 추가적인 침해의 실질적인 발생 가능성이 객관적으로 인정되는 상황까지 포함될 수 있을지에 대한 논의, 예방적 정당방위에 대한 논의, 지속적 위험에 대한 논의가 존재한다. 대법원은 대상 판결에서 피고인의 행위가 ‘침해의 현재성’ 및 상당성 요건을 충족하여 정당방위에 해당하는지 판단을 진행하였는데, 특히 ‘침해의 현재성’에 대해서는 단순히 침해자의 법익침해 행위 중 일부가 형식적으로 기수에 이르렀다고 해서 실질적인 법익침해 상황 전체가 종료되는 것은 아니며, 객관적 사정을 바탕으로 전체적인 법익침해 상황의 연속성을 고려하여 정당방위의 요건 중 ‘침해의 현재성’ 요건을 인정할 수 있음을 확인하였다. 기존에 대법원은 ‘폭력 남편 폭행 뇌사 사건’에서 법익침해 상황의 종료 시점을 엄격하게 적용하여 법익침해 직후 이루어진 피고인의 폭행에 ‘침해의 현재성’을 인정할 수 없다고 보아 정당방위 성립을 부정한 적이 있고, 한편 ‘의붓아버지 살해 사건’에서는 기존에 침해행위가 존재하였고 그러한 침해행위가 장래에 반복될 가능성이 인정된다면 부당한 법익침해 상황이 지속하는 것으로 볼 수 있다며 ‘침해의 현재성’이 인정될 여지를 남기기도 하였는데, 대상 판결은 ‘침해의 현재성’ 요건을 완화하여 객관적 사정으로부터 실질적인 법익침해가 계속된다고 인정할 수 있는 경우 정당방위가 성립할 수 있다는 법리를 제시하였다는 점에서 의의가 있어 보인다. 일본 최고재판소와 독일 연방대법원의 정당방위 판례를 비교함으로써, 각국이 방위행위에 ‘침해의 현재성’을 인정하는 데 구체적 사안에 따라 유연하게 해석의 여지를 남기고 있다는 점을 살펴 위 대법원 판례의 ‘침해의 현재성’ 요건을 완화하는 해석이 국제적인 흐름과도 일치하는 것임을 확인하였고, 또 그러한 해석의 필요성을 부각하였다. 결론적으로 본 논문은 대법원 대상 판결이 객관적 사정을 바탕으로 전체적인 침해 종료 여부를 기준으로 정당방위 여부를 판단할 수 있다는 점을 명확히 함으로써 실체적인 측면을 고려하여 위법성을 조각할 수 있도록 하였다는 점에서 긍정적으로 평가하고, ‘침해의 현재성’의 판단에 있어서는 객관적 상당성의 범위 내에서 현재성을 인정할 수 있다면 족하다고 제안하며, 따라서 객관적 사정을 바탕으로 한 지속적 위험의 경우에는 ‘침해의 현재성’을 인정할 수 있지만, 주관적 판단에 기반하는 예방적 정당방위의 경우에는 ‘침해의 현재성’을 부정할 여지가 있다고 본다. This paper analyzes domestic and foreign cases where the “presentness of infringement,” as one of the requirements for the establishment of self-defense, became a central issue, focusing primarily on the Supreme Court Decision 2020do6874 sentenced on April 27, 2023. Self-defense refers to an act of protecting one’s own or another’s legal interests from an unjust infringement, which requires: (1) the presence of the infringement, (2) the existence of a defensive intent, and (3) the proportionality of the defensive act. Regarding the scope of “presentness of infringement,” debates have arisen as to whether it might extend not only to infringements that have begun or are ongoing, but also to situations in which, even if the infringement appears formally concluded, there is an objectively recognized possibility of further infringement. These debates encompass the notion of preventive self-defense as well as situations of continuing risk. In the judgment of April 27, 2023, the Supreme Court examined whether the defendant’s actions satisfied the “presentness of infringement” and “proportionality” requirements of self-defense. With respect to presentness in particular, the Supreme Court clarified that even if certain parts of the infringer’s acts have formally reached completion, this does not necessarily mean the broader infringement situation as a whole has ended. Rather, based on objective circumstances and the continuity of the overall infringement, the “presentness of infringement” of self-defense may still be acknowledged. Previously, in a “violent husband assault leading to brain death” case, the Supreme Court strictly applied the point at which the infringement had ended, ruling that the defendant’s assault immediately after the victim’s aggression could not be deemed to meet the presentness requirement, thereby rejecting self-defense. On the other hand, in a “stepfather homicide” case, the Supreme Court indicated that if an infringement had already taken place and there was a possibility it would be repeated, the unjust infringement could be viewed as continuing, leaving room to recognize “presentness of infringemnet”. The judgment of April 27, 2023 is significant in that it adopts a more relaxed interpretation of the “presentness of infringement,” suggesting that self-defense may be established where the overall situation still poses a substantial risk of continued infringement based on objective factors. By comparing precedents on self-defense from the Supreme Court of Japan and Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, this paper shows that each jurisdiction leaves open a degree of flexibility in interpreting “presentness of infringement” depending on the specific circumstances of the case. It thus confirms that the relaxed interpretation of the presentness requirement in the Supreme Court decision aligns with global trends and underscores its necessity. Ultimately, this paper views the Supreme Court judgment of April 27, 2023 favorably, as it clarifies that, based on objective circumstances, courts may determine self-defense by assessing whether the entire infringement situation has truly ended—thereby allowing a consideration of substantive justice in excluding illegality. It concludes that if “presentness of infringement” can be recognized within the bounds of objective proportionality, that is sufficient. Accordingly, in cases involving continuing risk based on objective factors, “presentness of infringement” may indeed be acknowledged, whereas in purely subjective assessments of preventive self-defense, there is room to deny “presentness of infringement.”

빅데이터 분석을 활용한 범죄와 호신술의 연관어 분석

김건희 한국치안행정학회 2024 한국치안행정논집 Vol.21 No.1

Modern society is changing rapidly, and crime is constantly occurring. Amid the threat of various crimes, self-defense can be a way for individuals to protect their own personal safety, and it can act as a factor that can lower fear and anxiety about crime by training the mind as well as physical training. Therefore, in this study, big data from the last 10 years (20131.1.1.2023.12.31) was collected using the keyword "Crime + Self-Defense," and network analysis, CONCOR analysis, and Sentiment analysis were conducted. Through this, we tried to lay the foundation for the development of self-defense technology and provide basic data by grasping the public's perception and interest in self-defense technology in crime. As a result of network analysis, education, women, targets, crime prevention, safety, prevention, lectures, and crime cities were found in the order of frequency, and the frequency of simultaneous occurrence was high in the order of education, target, safety, women, and crime prevention. As a result of the CONCOR analysis, the group with the largest number of words had necessity and method, followed by preventive education and target, crime city, and recommendation. As a result of emotional analysis, it was confirmed that positive keywords were 17.6% more than negative keywords, and through emotional word cloud analysis, words such as good, recommendation, anxiety, relief, scary, crying, special, want, worry, and difficult were confirmed. The conclusions obtained through the analysis results are as follows. First, in order to prevent crime, systematic self-defense education for women needs to be newly prepared, and self-defense needs to be further exposed in a positive direction through various movies and media. Second, self-defense can be a very important countermeasure to personal threats. Third, it is necessary to create an image of self-defense that is more interesting than the present, reduce rejection, and develop self-defense techniques that can be learned more intuitively and efficiently than difficult and difficult self-defense techniques. This study is significant in that it collects vast amounts of data, studies text data containing both crime and self-defense techniques, provides basic data for future self-defense-related research, and draws important implications for the development of self-defense techniques. It is hoped that self-defense skills developed from crimes in the diversified modern society will establish themselves as a good countermeasure.

과잉방위 규정의 역사적 발전과정

김정환 연세대학교 법학연구원 2023 法學硏究 Vol.33 No.1

In view of the fact that excessive self-defense claim is rarely accepted in practice, the legislative background was evaluated to determine whether it would be reasonable to have various types of excessive self-defense prescribed in Article 21 of Criminal Code. To this end, the development process of excessive self-defense in German Criminal Code and Japanese Penal Code, the model forms of Korean Criminal Code, was examined. This would also be an attempt to account for why provisions on excessive self-defense should exist. In Germany, self-defense and excessive self-defense first appeared in the Bamberg Criminal Code in 1507 and developed according to the social setting. Excessive self-defense was stipulated to be applied complementarily to cases in which the requirements for self-defense were not met. In the development process of excessive self-defense, the range of excessive self-defense varied depending on the strictness of self-defense requirement. Whereas the range of excessive self-defense was relatively wide when the requirements for self-defense were rigorous, the range was comparatively restricted when the requirements for self-defense were eased. Self-defense was stipulated in Japan in 1880, but excessive self-defense only appeared in 1907. Compared to the 1871 German Imperial Criminal Code, the example of the enactment of the Japanese Penal Code in 1907, the provisions of self-defense at the time were very similar to each other. However, excessive self-defense in Japanese Penal Code was abstractly defined as its effect was widely prescribed in that the punishment was discretionarily exempted or mitigated. In light of the development history of self-defense and excessive self-defense provisions in Germany, the scope of excessive self-defense in Japan was presumed to be widely defined. On the contrary, self-defense provision of the Japanese Penal Code was interpreted as a strict standard, resulting in a balance of self-defense and excessive self-defense. In South Korea, the government draft at the time of enactment only stipulated excessive self-defense for a mitigated punishment, such as the old law (Japanese Penal Code), but the amendment proposed by the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee revised the requisite for self-defense from ‘necessity standard’ to ‘considerableness standard,’ while adding unpunishable excessive self-defense in addition to the existing excessive self-defense for a reduced punishment. The amendment of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was similar to the 1925 German Criminal Code Amendment and the 1940 Japanese Penal Code Amendment. The 1925 German Criminal Code Amendment, also an example of the 1940 Japanese Penal Code Amendment, emerged for a legislative improvement in the 19th century when the requirements for self-defense were eased according to the liberal trends. The 1925 German Criminal Code Amendment changed the requirement of self-defense to ‘considerableness standard’ that could be interpreted more restrictively than the existing ‘necessity standard’ while stipulating various types of excessive self-defense so that excessive self-defense could be widely used. After examining the development process, it was verified that the current legislative form - Paragraph 1 of Article 21 stipulates the self-defense requisite as the ‘considerableness standard’ that can be strictly interpreted and applied while Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 21 stipulate excessive self-defense to be widely applied - is in accord with the essence of excessive self-defense. Since the various types of excessive self-defense stipulated in the Criminal Code seem reasonable from a legislative view, the fact that excessive self-defense claim has been rarely accepted in practice would be virtually an issue of interpretation and application.

영미형법에 있어 정당방위의 구조

박상진(Park, Sang Jin) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.1

The self defense is the area that is largely affected by a particular country's or a society's culture. Even though Anglo-American legal system and continental legal system are different from each other, they are in the same western tradition in terms of location and culture. Both system has a broad scope of application of self-defense rules, whereas in our system korean supreme court does not seem willing to expand the applicable scope of self-defense. Like this, the rules of self defense is the products of history and culture. Therefore, it varies depending on time and place. The target of comparative method in this paper is to draw better understanding of our self-defense rules by comparing and contrasting it with those outside of us. Under this aim, we will see through the self defense system in Anglo-American criminal law. That is, by examining the way of understanding self defense, the structure of it, the legal consequence of it, we will try to find out what will be This article focuses especially on the issues justifications and excuses(especially self-deffense) in Anglo-American criminal system. Also, my own study has been to emphasize on the structure of self-deffense so as to provide the relevant information of Anglo-American system which will be substantial concerns of Korean scholar, especially those who deal with comparative research. In addition, the other purpose of this paper is to provide the basis of new perspectives on defense issues for further discussion of our own system. Most issues regarding the application of defensive force arise in the context of homicide and attempted murder prosecutions. Therefore, this article primarily is about the question of when deadly force may be used in self-deffense. The defense of self-deffense contains: (1) a "necessity" component; (2) a "proportionality" requirement; and (3) a reasonable-belief rule that overlays the defense. For the analysis of American doctrines of defense, I mainly refer to the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code is a statutory type of proposed statute which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALL) in 1962. The purpose of the MPC was to stimulate and assist many states' legislatures in making an effort to update and standardize the penal law of the United States. The Model Penal Code is not the actual law in most of jurisdictions of the United States. Nonetheless, at least 37 states have adopted revised version of the Model Penal Code.

판례분석을 통한 오상방위의 해석

하태인 한국형사법학회 2019 형사법연구 Vol.31 No.4

The Self-defense is which the domain of concepts and the range of concepts have functional correspondence. The problem of putative self-defense has been one of the most controversial topics in Korean criminal law. The establishment and extent of self-defense should be judged at the time of the act. The problem of putative self-defense is concerned with the scope of Self-defense. Traditionally, the West with a spirit of individualism and liberalism has had a culture of active self-defense with the principle of widespread acceptance. However, the East, influenced by the communal traditions, can be presumed to be a passive self-defense culture with narrow recognition of self-defense. For this reason, the issue of self-defense in Korea is not dealt with well in practice. Furthermore, even if there is no objective justification situation, it can be said that our legal culture cannot recognize party defense even more in case of recognition of justification. Furthermore, it can be said that our legal culture cannot recognize self-defense when the actor subjectively has justification recognition but there is no objective justification situation. Since the 1970s, Korea has been very active in demanding justice and claiming justice through exposure to Western liberalism. The response to this change can be found in the Supreme Court's ruling on misleading defenses, but our criminal law community has not yet changed and tried to solve this problem only by theories. Inorder to eliminate the illegality, there must be an objective justification situation and a subjective justification factor. In this case, the theory insists on ex post and objective judgment, but the Supreme Court considers the situation of self-defense by the judgment at the time of act. The existence of self-defense situation is not judged with the subjective cognition of the actor, but can be said to belong to the objective judgment of right reasons. Thus the conflict of views on the putative self-defense is meaningless. 학설은 행위자가 정당방위의 객관적 상황을 잘못 인식하였다면 거의 모두 오상방위로 해결하려고 하였다. 그런데 대법원의 해석과 같이 오상방위의 문제가 위법성이조각될 수도 있다면, 오상방위상황에서 정당방위로 포섭될 수 있는 부분이 있는가라는 연구는 필요한 것으로 보인다. 대법원은 정당방위 상황은 행위자의 인식을 기준으로 하여 일반인의 관점에서 판단하고 있다. 즉 정당방위의 상황을 행위자가 인식한 주관적인 측면을 기준으로 하여 객관적인 관점(정당한 이유)에서 판단하기 때문에행위시를 기준으로 하여 객관적으로 판단하고 있다. 위법성조각사유는 범죄성립여부와 관련되어 있으며, 범죄성립은 행위자의 행위 당시의 사정으로 평가되어야 한다. 따라서 비록 행위자의 인식과 객관적 사실이 불일치하는 경우라고 하여도 그것이 행위자의 탓으로 돌릴 수 없는 경우에는 불법하다고 할 수 없다. 이는 불법의 본질과관련되는 것으로서 행위반가치가 존재하지 않는 경우에는 결과반가치 역시 부정되어야 한다. 고의의 이중적 기능을 인정하는 한 불법으로서의 고의를 인정할 때 책임에 매개하는 역할을 할 수 있으며, 또한 고의는 동일한 실체로서 불법요소적 측면과 책임요소적 측면을 동시에 가지며, 불법은 책임에 상응하여야 하며, 책임은 양형의 기초가되어야 한다. 2단계냐 3단계냐의 문제는 범죄체계론과 관련된 논쟁으로서, 사안에 대한 접근은법률과 그에 대한 해석을 전제로 한다. 오상방위 사안에서 책임고의의 등장은 법률에 규정하지 않은 가벌성기준이다. 오상방위의 해결문제로서 책임고의의 등장은 가벌성기준은 법률에 따라야 한다는 것에 어긋난다고 할 수 있다. 결론적으로는 오상방위에서 정당한 이유가 존재하는 경우에 이를 위법성 조각으로 해결하든 불법고의를 조각하든 그 결론에 있어서는 달라질 것이 없다고 할 수 있으나, 정당방위 성립여부를 검토하지 않고 책임문제로 해결하려는 입장은 문제가 있다. 또한 정당한 이유가 없는 오상방위의 사안에서 행위당시의 사정으로 보아 행위자가 주의를 하였다면 객관적 정당화 사정이 존재하지 않는다는 것을 알 수 있었음에도 불구하고 이를 태만히 하여 발생한 결과에 대하여 과실의 책임을 묻는 것은 형법의 체계와도 부합한다. 따라서 불법고의를 인정하는 소극적 구성요건표지이론이타당하다.

과잉방위에 관한 고찰

조규홍 전남대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학논총 Vol.31 No.1

Excessive self-defense requires all elements of self-defense except reasonableness of the defense. Korean criminal act provides two kinds of excessive self-defenses:excessive self-defense as a reason of discretionary reduced punishment and exempted excessive self-defense. To explain the feature of excessive self-defense,the theory of decrease of illegality and liability may be proper. Exempted excessive self-defense can be viewed as the reason to dissolve criminal liability. Negligently excessive self-defense is one without recognition of excessiveness. It is improper to limit establishment of excessive self-defense by the concept of societal and ethical restriction constructing Korean criminal law which recognizes excessive self-defense as an element of discretionary reduced punishment. Quantitatively excessive self-defense can be recognized as excessive self-defense if continuous defensive acts are considered as a series of connected defensive conduct. In addition, as for co-principals, the possibility of excessive defense must be decided based on whether each co-principal satisfies elements of excessive self-defense. In general, excessive self-defense must be recognized if defensive act satisfies all elements of self-defense, but is not reasonable. However, in analyzing cases,excessive self-defense has been denied applying an ambiguous criterion, societal unacceptability etc. Accordingly, since 1987, none of cases has admitted excessive self-defense. The precise judgement of excessive self-defense is demanded. 과잉방위는 정당방위의 다른 요건을 충족하고 다만 방위행위의 상당성을 인정할 수 없는 경우에 성립한다. 우리나라는 형의 임의적 감면 사유인 과잉방위와 면책적 과잉방위의 두 가지 종류의 과잉방위를 인정하고 있다. 과잉방위의 성격에 관하여는, 임의적 감면사유인 과잉방위는 위법·책임감소설이 타당하다고 생각한다. 면책적 과잉방위의 경우는 책임조각사유로 보아도 될 것이다. 과실의 과잉방위는 과잉성에 대한 인식이 없는 과잉방위로서, 오상방위의 일종으로 보아야 할 것이다. 과잉방위의 성립을 사회윤리적 제한 개념에 의하여 제한하려고 하는 것은 임의적 감면사유인 과잉방위를 인정하고 있는 우리 형법의 해석상 부당하다. 양적과잉방위의 경우는 계속되는 방위행위가 연속된 일련의 방위행위로 인정될 때에는 과잉방위로 인정될 수 있을 것이다. 그리고, 공동정범의 경우 과잉방위의 성립 여부는 공동정범 별로 각각 과잉방위의 성립여부를 판단하여야 한다. 판례를 분석하여 보면, 방위행위가 정당방위의 다른 요건을 충족하고 상당성이 없으면 과잉방위를 인정하여야 함에도 그렇지 않고 사회통념상 용인될 수 없다는 등의 모호한 기준으로 과잉방위를 배척하고 있다. 이로 인해 1987년 이후에는 과잉방위를 인정한 판례가 1건도 없는 실정이다. 과잉방위에 대한 명확한 판단이 요구된다고 할 것이다.