최신판례분석 : `대향범`과 공범 - 대법원 2016. 10. 13. 선고 2014도17211 판결 -

김성돈1 ( Kim Seong Don ) 법조협회 2016 法曹 Vol.65 No.9

대상판결은 `거래 상대방의 대향적 행위의 존재를 필요로 하는 유형의 배임죄`의 경우 거래 상대방이 적극가담에 해당할만한 행위기여가 있을 것을 조건으로 하여 공범이 성립할 수 있다는 취지를 담고 있다. 이러한 취지의 판결은 `대향범 일반사례`의 경우 상대방의 행위기여가 어느 정도인지와 무관하게 공범성립이 가능하지 않다는 취지의 대법원판결의 태도와 상반된다. 따라서 이 글은 대상판결에서 문제된 유형의 사례가 대향범 일반 사례와 본질적으로 다른 사례인지에 관한 의문을 출발점으로 삼는다. 이에 따라 이글은 관련 대법원 판결들을 비교분석하면서 불가벌적 대향자에 대해 예외적으로 공범성립의 가능성을 인정한 대상판결의 취지가 `대향범 일반`사례에 대해서도 적용되어야 하는 것인지를 검토하였다. 그 결과 대법원이 대상판결의 취지가 대향범 일반사례의 경우 적용되지 말아야 특단의 근거를 찾을 수 없음을 확인하였다. 뿐만 아니라 이미 대법원은 범인도피죄와 같은 경우에도 불가벌적 대향자인 범인의 교사범 또는 방조범의 성립을 인정하고 있다. 결론적으로 대향자의 행위기여 정도에 따른 공범성립 가능성 인정이라는 대상판결의 논리를 `대향범 일반`사례의 경우에 적용하지 않고 있는 대법원의 태도는 사례의 평등취급이라는 자의금지원칙에 반하고 법적 안정성을 위태롭게 하는 것이므로 법치국가원칙에 반한다. 따라서 대상판결의 취지가 `대향범 일반`사례의 경우에도 적용되어야 할 도그마틱이 되어야 한다면, 최근 국정농단사건에서 문제 되고 있는 범죄인 공무상비밀누설죄의 경우의 경우에도 누설의 상대방도 누설행위에 기여한 정도에 따라 공범성립이 가능하다는 결론을 얻어내는데 문제가 없을 것으로 보이고, 이에 관한 종래 대법원의 태도도 변경되어야 할 것으로 보인다. In the case of `a type of Untreue, which requires the existence of a counterparty`s counteraction,` the target judgment contains the intent that the counterparty can establish an accomplice on the condition that the counterpart has an act contribution that corresponds to the active and positive participation. The meaning of this judgment is in contradiction with the attitude of the Supreme Court decision that the accusation can not be established irrespective of the degree of the contribution of the conterparty in the case of the `Begegnungsdelikte general case.` Therefore, this article starts with the question of whether the case in question by target judgment is an inherently different case from the `Begegnungsdelikte general case.` In this regard, I reviewed the relevant Supreme Court rulings and examined whether the target judgment that recognized the possibility of establishing an exception to the counterparty should be applied to the case of `Begegnungsdelikte general case`. As a result, there is no reason that the meaning of the ruling of target judgment must not be applicable to the `Begegnungsdelikte general case.` In addition, the Supreme Court of Korea has already acknowledged the establishment of an occomplice of the counterparty, even in the case of another criminal offense(“Strafvereitelung”). In conclusion, the ruling of the Supreme Court, which does not apply the logic of the target judgment, contradicts the prohibition principle of equality and jeopardizes legal stability and is against the rule of law. For this reason, the meaning of the target judgment should be applied to the case of `Begegnungsdelikte general case`, even in case of the `Verletzung des Dienstgeheimnisses`. It seems that the ruling of the Supreme Court should be changed.

성적 자기결정권의 형법적 의의와 기능

이얼 ( Eol Lee ),김성돈 ( Seong Don Kim ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

This study is intended to analyze the meaning and function of sexual self-determination, and to predict what the sexual self-determination will be meaningful in the criminal justice system. The Constitutional Court defines the sexual self-determination as `the right to determine the sexual act status and the sex partner` with respect to the adultery. As an active meaning, the sexual self-determination can be understood as `the right to have sex freely by sexual moral`. Also, the sexual self-determination includes `the right not to receive an illegal sexual assault(passive meaning)`. The criminal law limits the active meaning`s sexual self-determination, on the other hand, it protects the passive meaning`s sexual self-determination. In particular, it strongly protects the sexual self-determination of persons who don`t have the self-determination ability like the mentally and physically handicapped persons or minors. The following describes the trends of the present criminal justice system that the sexual self-determination is stressed. First, the adultery still exists but it is highly likely to be subject to decriminalization as people say that the law possibly violates the constitution. Second, the Constitutional Court defines that the man and woman`s sexual self-determination must be respected as it judges that the crime of sexual intercourse under pretence of marriage is unconstitutional. Third, wife is highly likely to be recognized as an object of rape by husband. Also, the rape without consent is highly likely to be introduced. Fourth, with respect to the lascivious crimes, the regulation for adults has been relaxed, but the regulation for minors becomes stronger. In the present criminal justice system, it can be confirmed that the criminal law`s role has been reduced when the sexual self-determination is stressed. Such the situation is not limited to the sexual self-determination, and will produce the same result in all areas that the self-determination can be discussed. However, as the result of trusting the self-determination limitlessly, considering the benefit and protection of other laws must not be neglected. That is, the self-determination must be exercised within the limit of not infringing the other person`s determination. Also, there must be the attitude not to neglect the national and social benefits of law as a citizen who lives in the community.

인터넷상의 웹하드 서비스제공자의 형사책임

김성돈(Kim, Seong Don) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.2

Recent controversy has been rising over whether or not criminal responsibility should be taken by the online service provider in the case of the service users’ involvement in illegal activity, and if so, what kind of criminal responsibility is to be given. The paper has examined the following standpoints concerning whether or not the service provider can face charge of aiding of offence if obscene contents banned from release according to ‘Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network’(Act on Communications Network) are distributed over online web-hard service. Firstly, in contrast to the case of portal service, digital contents stored in online web-hard service are not open to every person and therefore, it would not be reasonable to ask the same obligation and responsibility that are normally relevant to general online service provider to the web-hard service provider. Secondly, as far as obscene contents banned from release is concerned, it is difficult to find grounds in Act on Communications Network on which service provider is legally obliged to prevent illegal distribution, just as the case of illegal files protected by copyrights law. Thirdly, Since contents protected by copyrights law from illegal distribution contains personal legal rights, the individual possessor of legal rights could demand web-hard service provider to remove or prevent them and as result, there may arise set specific personal legal responsibility about the service provider. Nonetheless, because such as obscene contents prohibited by Act on Communications Network carry contents about societal legal rights, web-hard service provider has no specific personal legal responsibility. Consequently, as long as Act on Communications Network is not revised to reinforce more detailed obligation of the web-hard service provider, it is problematic to acknowledge the provider’s aiding of offence through omission.

회복적 사법형 형사조정제도의 법제화 방안

김성돈(Kim Seong Don) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

Criminal Mediation is defined as a process in which the victim and offender reach a voluntary agreement through the third person(mediator) about the harm caused by crime and future action-plan. It is regarded internationally as the alternative ways of responding to crime. Criminal Mediation sets its prime goal towards being a measure for communicative "reconciliation" between victim and offender, not a "punishment" of the later. In Korea, Criminal Mediation has been enforced in criminal practice with minor crimes being complained to the prosecutor from 2007, as the target. With Criminal Mediation being incorporated within the reformative draft of the Victim of Crime Protection Act, it is being deliberated in the Parliament as of November 2008. The degree of measure of the legalization of the Criminal Mediation can differ, depending on its goals, appropriate phases of the criminal procedure, individual case's scale, as well as its effect on criminal law. Criminal Mediation can be categorized, according to its purpose, into two main models: "problem-solving oriented" and "restorative justice oriented" The purpose of this paper lies in revealing why the restorative justice oriented model is more fitting for the korean criminal system, and at the same time, searching the specific plans for the successful adoption of the system. To reach this purpose, the argument was developed in order of the followings. 1. Tracing the background history and the justification of the criminal mediation model. 2. Brief look at the arguments for the criminal mediation while analysing the shortcomings and flaws existent within the current practice('mediation implemented in stage of prosecution') and reformative Victim Protection Act. 3. The rebuttals of the opposed and refutations, as well as construction of the legalizing plan. 4. Lastly, a number of misconceptions of the criminal mediation and explanations to clarify them.

조선전기 형사법과 형정운용에 나타난 愛民的 刑事政策

김성돈(Kim Seong Don) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.1

It is possible to detect traces of criminal policy involving tolerance and forgiveness through examining the penalty-related article in the Record of Choson Dynasty. The purpose of this research is to uncover to what extent this criminal policy for the people occupied significance in criminal practice of Choson dynasty. If the operation of criminal system of Choson emphasized on not oppression provoking ruthless fear, but on tolerance, forgiveness and Caring people, then this is moral crux either today’s philosophy of punishment or criminal practice should succeed. Consequently, the research has abstracted examples of commiserative penal administration that showed up from the founding of Choson to codification of Gyonggukdaejon. As a result, it can be said that the early Choson’s commiserative criminal practice came to be the basis of today’s criminal practice as the breakthrough to carry out constitutional and moral state harmoniously. Moreover, as a consequence of such practice having penalty as a measure of displaying generosity and embrace to the people and hence drawing loyalty from them, rather than as a means of oppression and fear, it was possible to perceive that it became essential points in the process of penalty.

조선시대의 죄형법정주의의 이념적 기초와 실천적 함의

김성돈(Kim Seong-don) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.2

  The primary objective of this article is to examine which practical implication based on which ideological base is possessed by the principle of legality of Joseon. In addition, this article seeks to appreciate which values of Joseon"s principle of legality can be handed down to today"s criminal law, which is equipped with modern rationalism. The article also looks briefly into the exterior of Joseon"s principle of legality had adopted for the two subjects mentioned above.<BR>  Having explored the principle of legality of Choson I concluded as following: Joseon mobilised constitutional governance to implement Confucionism into their social politics. This process caused the criminal law to display more of the doctrin of mandotory sentencing rather than the principle of legality. The substantial reason to advocate the doctrin of mandotory sentencing was to primarily guarantee an equal penal application by eliminating the judge"s discretion. Judges planned for an objective and equal legal application to reach the ultimate goal of Confucionism in democracy. This was not a simple principle of division of power, but an expression of love of the people by the king, who was the at the peak of the kingdom"s authority. His consideration of an objective and equal legal application had been displayed as the doctrin of mandotory sentencing. In addition, objective law acted as a strict standard for legislative institutions. Merciless punishments sentenced to legislative officials reflects the trict standard, so does their permanent resignation, which limits them from being appointed into office.<BR>  Like so, Joseon"s principle of legality is an important implication which is relevant to today"s penal execution of Korea. In the Korean society, the application of criminal law barely reflects the formal significance of the principle of legality, and is distinctly expressed in the famous Korean quote, "yujeon-mujoe, mujeon-yujoe (money talks and bullshit walks)." Furthermore, significant cases of subjective and unfairlegal application are being strictly applied in crimes committed by the people, whereas relatively light penalties are sentenced for corruption by an authority or crimes committed by government officials. Korea"s distorted criminal policy (perspective), where illegal acts by politicians or government officials are neglected, and law-abiding spirit is emphasised and foced upon the citizen, must seek for basic reconsideration from its past through Joseon"s principle of legality.

3차원 측정 데이터를 이용한 자유곡면 가공물의 오차해석

김성돈(Seong-Don Kim),이성근(Sung-Gun Lee),양승한(Seung-Han Yang),이재종(Jae-Jong Lee) 한국정밀공학회 2001 한국정밀공학회 학술발표대회 논문집 Vol.2001 No.5월

형사사법과 회복적 사법

김성돈(Kim Seong-Don) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.1

"Restorative Justice" is the main phrase used worldwide to describe alternative ways of responding to crime. The term "Restorative Justice" is commonly applied to a wide variety of practices that seek to respond to crime in a more constructive way than conventional criminal justice system. This paper explores not only the definition, goal and main philosophy of restorative justice, but also the historical background and the development of restorative justice. Restorative Justice processes, in their purest form, involve victims and their offenders in face-to-face meetings and it is these participants who determine how best deal with the offence. Three practices currently fully these requirements: mediation, conferencing and circles. Although there are paradoxes and problems of restorative practices, are also to be find promises of these new paradigm. Therefore, I argue in this paper that there exist possible ways out of the current dilemmas and problems and that the time is ripe for steps to be taken towards restorative justice also in korean criminal justice system.

사람의 신체와 법

김성돈(Kim, Seong Don) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.1

Since modern times the law has been able to respond to most legal disputes over human bodies by the proposition that the body is not property and therefore cannot be owned, bought or sold. But as technologies develop and bodies become potentially valuable resources, complex disputes over the ownership of body and commercial dealings in body are increasingly being raised, because the conflict between legal regulation as system of values and markets as systems of demand and supply is particularly problematic in the domain of the scientific dismemberment of human bodies. In this context this paper aims at the possibilites and objections in considering the sale and donation of organs and the other body parts. At a very simple level legal commentators tend to divide into two camps. There are those who argue that the principle of autonomy is a fundamental one in our law and that people should be free to donate or sell their bodies or parts of their bodies as they wish. On the other hand, there are those who argue that the body should not be commercialised and the law must restrict extreme misuse of the body in order to uphold its unique status. There are two objections against selling and buying body parts: one is the commodities objection and another is exploitative objection. Even if the commercial use of body parts or particles raises serious ethical questions, and organ transplant sales are not like the sale of other body parts such as hair, neither of objections against commercialization are strong enough to undermine the possible sale of body parts, although they to point to the necessity of regulating organ sales. For that reason, it is high time to change the traditional understanding of law in relation to the body.

국가폭력과 형법, 그리고 헌법

김성돈 ( Kim Seong Don ) 법조협회 2018 法曹 Vol.67 No.5

1. 우리는 그동안 국가폭력의 주체를 형사처벌한다는 차원의 ‘정의’를 실현해본 경험을 거의 해 보지 못했다. 이 때문에 국가폭력에 대한 응분의 처벌을 가능하게 하는 방법론을 찾는 것은 과거청산의 차원에서는 물론이고 국가폭력의 예방차원에서도 절실히 요구되는 일이다. 이글은 국가폭력에 대한 형법적 대응에 걸림돌이 된 장애물이 무엇인지를 확인하고 그 장애물이 제거된 새로운 형법적 대응모델을 찾는 것을 목표로 한다. 2. 주지하다시피 국가폭력에 대한 형법적 대응의 장애물은 다른 모든 형사범죄의 처벌에 있어 형벌권의 한계로 작용해온 헌법의 법치국가적 원칙들이고, 그 가운데 특히 국가폭력의 경우에는 공소시효와 일사부재리의 원칙이 결정적인 걸림돌이라 할 수 있다. 이 글은 장애물이 제거된 새로운 형법적 대응모델을 찾기 위해 국가폭력이 가진 불법의 본질을 규명하는 일을 출발점으로 삼았다. 그 결과 국가폭력은 형법적 불법이외에도 헌법적 불법을 구성하는 이중적 불법구조를 가지고 있고, 따라서 형법적 불법만을 가진 일반 형사범죄에 대한 대응과 국가폭력에 대한 대응은 차별화되어야 하는 것이 헌법상 평등원칙에 부합하는 일이라는 인식에 도달하였다. 이에 따르면 일반 형사범죄를 범한 기본권 주체의 경우와는 달리 국가폭력을 행한 공권력행사의 주체의 경우에는 형벌권의 한계원칙들의 일부가 적용이 배제되거나 상대화될 수 있다는 생각에 이르게 된다. 3. 헌법은 국가폭력을 행한 공권력의 행사주체는 기본권을 보호해야할 의무주체로 보고 있는 반면, 형벌권의 한계원칙은 기본권 주체에게만 적용되는 것으로 설계되어 있다. 이에 따르면 기본권 주체의 기본권을 침해하는 국가폭력의 주체에게는 기본권 주체에 대해서와 동일한 정도로 형벌권의 한계원칙을 적용할 수 없게 된다. 이로써 국가폭력을 자행한 공권력의 행사주체에 대해서는 장애물이 제거된 새로운 형법적 대응모델이 적용될 수 있다. 새로운 모델은 공권력의 주체는 기본권 주체와는 달리 신뢰보호와 법적안정성에 기초한 공소시효제도나 일사부재리원칙의 우산아래 피할 자격이 없다는 점을 핵심내용으로 한다. 4. 새로운 형법적 대응모델은 공권력의 주체인 국가(국가기관)에 대해서는 물론이고 국가의 기능수행자인 공무원에 대해서도 적용될 수 있다. 특히 국가의 기능수행자인 공무원에 대해서 새로운 대응모델을 적용하는 것은 현행형법과 헌법의 체계적 해석을 통해서도 얼마든지 가능하다. 뿐만 아니라 새로운 형법모델은 국가(기관)에게 형사책임을 귀속시키는 입법으로도 탄생시킬 수 있다. 국가기능 수행자의 행위와 구조적으로 연결되어 순환적으로 결합관계에 있는 국가의 행위는 그 기능수행자의 행위와 귀속형식면에서만 차이가 있기 때문이다. 5. 헌법의 규범논리적 관점에서 보면 시민의 기본권을 국가폭력의 형태로 침해한 ‘괴수’국가를 ‘민주’국가가 형사처벌을 하는 것은 법치국가원칙과 민주주의원칙을 상충되게 하는 것이 아니라 오히려 조화롭게 한다. 이와 같이 국가도 형벌권의 대상이 되게 하는 패러다임의 전환은 개인만을 형사처벌의 대상으로 삼아온 근대국가의 ‘사회계약’도 현대적 헌법국가의 관점에서 다시 고쳐 쓸 것을 요구하고 있다. 1. We have rarely experienced the realization of the justice of the level of criminal punishment of the subject of state violence. For this reason, finding a methodology that makes possible the punishment of state violence is desperately required not only in terms of past liquidation but also in the prevention of state violence. The aim of this article is to identify the obstacles impeding the punishment of state violence and to find a new model of coping with the obstacles removed. 2. As we all know, the obstacle to punishment of state violence is constitutional principles, which have served as the limit of punishment for all other criminal offenses. In particular, in case of state violence, statute of limitations and prohibition against doble jeopardy are decisive obstacle. This article starts with addressing the nature of the illegal nature of state violence in order to find a new response model with obstacles removed. As a result, state violence has a dual illegal structure that constitutes constitutional illegal in addition to criminal law illegal. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate the response to general criminal crime with criminal law illegal only and the response to state violence with a dual illegal structure. From perspektive of equalitarian principles is this differentiating demanded. According to this, unlike the case of the basic right holder who committed a general criminal offense, in the case of the subject who exercises the public power to perform state violence, some of the principles of the limitation of the punishment could be excluded or relativized. 3. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea see to the subject of public power as those are responsible for protection of the fundamental right of sitizens, while the principle of limitation of the punishment is applied only to citizens, which are subject of the fundamental rights. According to this, it is impossible to apply the principle of limitation to the actor of state violence who infringes the fundamental rights of citizen to the same degree as we do to the subject of fundamental rights who is infringed their consitutional rights by the actor of state violence . As a result, a new response model, in which the obstacles are removed, can be applicable for the actor of public power who perform state violence. The new model is based on the fact that the actors of public power should not be entitled to avoid under the umbrella of the statute of limitations and prohibition against double jeopardy based on trust protection and legal stability, unlike the subject of fundamental rights. 4. The new response model can be applied not only to the state (organs) that is the subject of public power but also to the public officials who perform the state functions. In particular, it is possible to apply the new response model to civil servants who are functioning state actors through the interpretation of the current criminal law and the current constitution. In addition, from a theoretical and legislative point of view, the new model can also be applied to the state (organs). This is because the act of a state in a cyclical association with act of a public officials who perform the state function is structurally related and differs only in the form of attribution of their act. 5. From a norm-logical standpoint of the Constitution, making “leviathan” state which misused the delegated state power and infringed the citizens’ basic rights in the form of state violence the object of the punishment through “democratic” state does not conflict with the principle of rule of law and democratic principle, but rather harmonize with them. In this way, the sift of the paradigm that makes the state also the object of punishment demands us that the “social contract” of the modern nation which has made only citizens the object of punishment, ought to be rewritten from the viewpoint of the modern constitutional nation.