부진정부작위범의 불능미수범 성립 가능성

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-gon) 한국형사법학회 2010 형사법연구 Vol.22 No.1

Von formaler Seite des Delikts sei der unechten Unterlassungsdelikt ein Erfolgsdelikt, der Verbindungsform der Handlung und des Erfolgs, deshalb verursacht die Unterlassung einen tatbestandmässigen Erfolg wie der Begehungsdelikt, obwohl der echten Unterlassungsdelikt ein Verhaltensdelikt sei. Wenn der unechten Unterlassungsdelikt die Form des Erfolgsdelikts hätte, so das Entstehungsproblem des Versuchs kommt hier notwendig in Frage. Im Falle, daß eine Unterlassung ohne denSchaden als Erfolg des Delikts über dem Rechtsgut passiert, würde der Versuch des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts dogmatisch entsteht. Aber gegen den Begehungsdelikt hat der Tat des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts keine formale Figur, sondern bespricht ‘nicht tun' als Tat, also die Frage der Bestimmung des unmittelbaren Ansetzens für die Entstehung des Versuchsdelikts wird sehr kompliziert Problem, wegen der strukturelle Eigentümlichkeit des Unterlassungsdelikts sollte die Tat mit dem gafährlichen Zustand beurteilen werden. Weiter, wenn es die Unterlassung gibt, es das gefährlichen Zustand zum Subjekt von Rechtsgut zu erst nicht gibt oder unmöglich ist, wie kann man das lösungen? Diese Frage ist sog. Entstehungsmöglichkeit des untauglichen Versuchs eines unechten Unterlassungsdelikts. Für den Begehungsdelikt ist es möglich, daß im untauglichen Versuchsfall unmittelbares Ansetzen für das Entstehen des Versuchsdelikts bestimmt und die Strafwürdigkeit (ohne das Verhältnis mit dem Erfolg) zum Grund von die Gefährlichkeit der Tat erteilt wird, aber für den unechten Unterlassungsdelikt im gleichfalls ist es sehr schwer, daß der Grund der Strafwürdigkeit zu finden. Schließlich wenn der wesentliche gefährlichen Zustand zum Rechtsgutsobjekt nicht passiert, von der Seite des Unterlassungsdelikts oder des untauglichen Versuchs sollte der untauglichen Versuch des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts nicht strafbar sein. Nichts als Fall des Irrtum über die Möglichkeit der Abwendung eines deliktstatbestandsmäßigen Erfolges ist die Entstehungsmöglichkeit des untauglichen Versuchs des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts zu finden.

강제추행죄가 성립하기 위한 강제추행의 요건

류부곤(Ryu Bu Gon) 한국형사법학회 2016 형사법연구 Vol.28 No.4

형법상 강제추행죄가 성립하게 되는 ‘강제추행’의 개념에 대해서는 대법원이 소위 ‘기습추행’을 그 형태의 하나로 인정한 이래로 실무와 학계 사이에 상당한 이견이 존재하고 있다. 강제추행이라는 개념의 성립에 있어 전제가 되는 ‘추행’행위의 내용적 성격에 대해 행위자의 관점에서는 ‘성적인 자극ㆍ흥분 또는 만족을 목적으로 하는 행위’라는 점과 피해자의 관점에서는 ‘일반인에게 성적 수치심과 혐오의 감정을 불러일으키는 행위’이면서 ‘성적 자유’를 침해하는 행위라는 것을 학계나 실무나 모두 대체적으로 동의하는 것으로 보인다. 그런데 어떠한 행위가 ‘강제추행’으로 평가되어 강제추행죄의 의율대상이 되는지의 여부에 대해서는 학계의 일반적인 시각과 실무에서 인정되는 범위가 큰 차이를 보이고 있다. 이러한 차이는 추행행위와 ‘강제적’ 추행행위가 개념적으로 구별되는 것인지에 대한 관점의 차이, 그리고 강제추행죄의 객관적 구성요건인 ‘강제추행’의 성립에 있어 그 수단으로 ‘폭행ㆍ협박’을 요구한다는 것의 의미에 대한 관점의 차이에서 기인하는 것으로 보인다. 이러한 문제에 대해 이 글은 대법원 판례로 나타나는 실무의 입장과 학계의 견해를 추행개념과 폭행협박의 의미로 나누어 분석하고, 이를 바탕으로 강제추행죄의 보호법익인 성적 자기결정권의 의미, 추행의 개념분석, 폭행협박과 추행의 상관관계에 대한 분석의 순서로 강제추행죄가 규정하는 강제추행의 의미를 규명하고자 하였다. 그리고 이러한 논의의 대안으로 단순추행죄의 입법필요성과 입법적 논의를 기술하였다. The concept of ‘indecent act by compulsion’ is necessary for a criminal offense to be established by korean criminal law. However, since the Supreme Court admits that ‘indecent act by blitz’ is one of indecent act by compulsion, there is a difference in opinion on the concept of indecent act by compulsion between the legal practice and legal academia. The concept of indecent act by compulsion includes sexual molestation. The concept of the sexual molestation that academics and practitioners generally agree is as follows. The content of sexual molestation is an act in which an actor acts for sexual stimulation, excitement, or satisfaction, and is an act that causes the victim to feel feelings of sexual shame and disgust, and is an act that infringes the victim s sexual freedom. However, there is a great difference between the general interpretation of the academic community and the interpretation of the practice in relation to the specific scope of indecent act by compulsion, which is the subject of criminal offense. The reasons for this difference are as follows. First, there is a difference in opinion as to whether conceptual distinction can be made between simple indecent act and forced indecent act. And the objective constitution of the forced indecent act is forced assault by means of assault or threat, where there is a difference in opinion on the meaning of assault or threat. This paper analyzes Supreme Court precedents and academics viewpoints to solve these problems. The purpose of this study is to analyze the meaning of sexual molestation and threat and assault expressed in cases and doctrines and analyze the meaning of sexual self - determination right, the essential characteristics of sexual molestation, and the threat and assault. In conclusion, I can not agree with the interpretation that the present indecent act by compulsion as criminal offense includes indecent act by blitz, and I think that it is necessary to legislate a crime of simple indecent act in order to punish indecent act by blitz.

공동주거에 대한 주거침입죄의 성립여부

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 한국형사법학회 2021 형사법연구 Vol.33 No.3

이 글은 타인이 공동거주자 중 1인의 승낙을 받아 공동주거에 들어간 경우 주거침입죄가 성립하는지 여부에 대해 논의한다. 우선, 주거침입죄의 보호법익에 대한 사실상 평온설에서 사실상 평온을 무엇이라고 설명하는지와는 별개로 이 문제에 대해 주거침입죄를 긍정하는 입장과 부정하는 입장이 혼재하는 이유는 보호법익의 규명하는 것과 범죄구성요건인 침입개념을 해석하는 문제는 서로 다른 문제이기 때문이다. 주거침입죄에서 침입의 개념은 주거자의 의사에 반한다는 것은 전제되어 있지만, 의사에 반하는 어떠한 형태의 진입이 침입에 해당하는 것인지는 객관적 차원의 별도 논의가 필요하다. 주거침입죄의 보호법익에 대해 일단 사실상 평온설의 입장을 채택한다는 전제에서, 공동거주자 중에 누구라도 반대의사를 가진 경우에는 곧바로 침입이 성립한다든가, 현 거주자의 승낙을 받았다면 사실상 평온은 깨어질 수 없다는 주장이 모두 타당하지 않다면 결국 이 문제는 공동주거에서 공동거주자 간 의사충돌의 상황을 평온의 침해라는 관점에서 어떻게 처리할 것인가의 문제가 된다. 이에 대해 공동거주자 간의 (계약적)관계에 기초하여 일방의 진입동의의 한계일탈 여부로 침입의 여부를 가리자는 주장도 있지만, 공동거주인 간의 의견대립은 공동체 내부의 문제로 보아 법적 평가의 대상에서 제외하고, 주거에 진입하는 상황에 대한 외연적 평가로 침입의 여부를 판단하는 것이 바람직하다. 사적인 공간을 공유하는 사람들은 신뢰관계로 연결된 이익을 공유하는 것이므로 신뢰관계 손상으로 인한 사생활침해의 결과는 공유자들 간에 감수해야 할 문제이며, 주거침입죄는 고의범이자 법치국가원리의 제약을 받는 형 This article discusses whether or not a crime of trespassing is established when another person enters the shared residence with the consent of one of the co-residents. First of all, from the standpoint of the de facto serenity theory on the legal interests of protection of the crime of trespassing, there is a mixture of positions that affirm and deny the crime of trespassing on this issue. The reason is that identifying the legal interests of protection and interpreting the concept of intrusion, which is a component of a crime, are different. It is premised that the concept of trespassing in the crime of trespassing is against the will of the resident, but it is necessary to discuss separately objectively what type of entry against the will corresponds to trespassing. In this paper, as an alternative, I would like to propose the existence of a refusal to enter, which can be recognized from the entrant s point of view, as a criterion for intrusion. This refusal to enter can be expressed by any co-resident, but it must be a situation that can be recognized or recognized realistically by the entrant, whether explicitly or implicitly. And the act of entering the dwelling refusing or ignoring the expressed refusal to enter can be evaluated as intrusion because it can be evaluated as crossing the protection line of privacy set and expressed by the dweller. In this case, the disagreement of intention between co-residents as to whether or not to deny entry is only an internal problem between the co-residents and does not affect the evaluation of the entrants entry as intrusion. In the situation where the entrant enters the dwelling due to any background and process, if the intention of refusal to enter is not expressed so that the entrant can be recognized, the entry cannot be evaluated as intrusion.

횡령죄와 배임죄에 대한 최근 대법원 판결의 검토 : 민사상 계약관계에 위배되는 처분행위를 중심으로

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 한국형사법학회 2022 형사법연구 Vol.34 No.1

최근 대법원은 명의신탁과 이중매매, 담보권설정 등의 계약에 따라 형성된 관계에서 그러한 계약의 내용에 위배되는 행위를 한 사례에 대해 횡령죄나 배임죄의 성립여부와 관련하여 과거와 다른 입장을 내어놓는 경향을 보이고 있다. 명의신탁의 경우종래 다수 유형의 명의신탁사례에서 수탁자의 처분행위는 횡령죄를 구성한다는 입장이었으나, 최근 각 유형별로 순차적으로 횡령죄의 성립을 부정하는 판결을 차례로 내어놓고 있다. 배임죄와 관련해서도, 부동산 이중매매의 경우에는 종래의 입장을 유지(배임죄 성립)하는 판결을 내렸지만, 부동산 이중저당, 동산 양도담보물의 처분에 대해서는 종래와 달리 배임죄의 성립을 부정하는 판결을 내렸다. 이 글에서는 횡령죄나배임죄라는 범죄성립의 근거가 되는 형사법적 가벌성을 어디서 찾아야 하는지, 최근의 대법원 판결의 변화가 이러한 형사법적 가벌성에 대한 적정한 평가와 반영에 근거하고 있는 것인지를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 결론적으로, 명의신탁 사례에서 횡령죄의 성립을 일률적으로 부정하는 대법원의입장은 ‘형사의 행정종속화’를 야기할 우려가 있다. 명의신탁계약에 대한 부동산실명법의 규제효과를 곧바로 ‘형사적으로 소유권이 보호받지 못하는 법적 근거’로 치환하여 신뢰위탁관계를 악용하여 타인의 소유권을 침해한 행위자를 결과적으로 형법적가벌성의 영역에서 배제하는 것은 행정규제법의 취지에 형법적 가벌성 판단을 전적으로 일치시키는 것으로 재고의 대상이 되어야 한다. 그리고 배임죄의 본질을 ‘우월적 지위를 남용’하여 타인에게 재산상 손해를 야기하는 범죄로 해석하면서, 사회경제적 질서에 대한 신뢰에서 사무를 위임한 재산권자의 형법적 보호필요성이 도출된다면, 채권자의 담보물권을 침해한 행위에 대해 배임죄의 성립을 부정한 대법원의 입장 역시 재검토될 필요가 있다. Recently, the Supreme Court tends to take a different position from the past with respect to the establishment of the crime of embezzlement or breach of trust in the case of acts that violate the contents of the contract in the relationship formed by the title trust, double sale of real estate, and security right establishment. In the case of title trust, it was the position that the disposition of the trustee constituted the crime of embezzlement in many types of title trust cases. However, recently, the Supreme Court has issued judgments denying the establishment of the crime of embezzlement for each type in turn. Regarding the crime of breach of trust, in the case of double sales of real estate, a judgment was made to maintain the conventional position (constitution of breach of trust), but unlike the past, the judgment was denied in the case of double mortgage on real estate and disposition of movable collateral for bond. In this article, I focused on where to find criminal punishment, which is the basis for the establishment of crimes such as embezzlement or breach of trust, and whether the recent changes in Supreme Court judgments are based on appropriate evaluation and reflection of such criminal penalties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court s position, which uniformly denies the establishment of the crime of embezzlement in the case of title trust, may cause subordination of the criminal to the administration . It is not right to replace the regulatory effect of the ‘Real Name Act’ on title trust contracts with ‘legal basis for which ownership is not protected criminally’, and consequently not punish those who infringe on the ownership of others by abusing the relationship of trust. Because this is to make the judgment of criminal punishment entirely consistent with the purpose of the Administrative Regulation Act. And the essence of the crime of breach of trust should be interpreted as a crime that causes property damage to others by ‘abusing one’s superior position’, and the need for criminal protection of the property owner who has entrusted the affairs is derived from trust in the socio-economic order. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the position of the Supreme Court, which denied the establishment of the crime of breach of trust in the act of infringing the creditor s right to collateral.

부진정부작위범의 실행의 착수시기 - 대상판결

류부곤(Bu-gon Ryu) 한국형사법학회 2023 형사법연구 Vol.35 No.2

대상판결은 그동안 실무상 다루어지지 않았던 부진정부작위범의 미수범 성립에 관련하여 실행의 착수시기에 대한 구체적 판단기준을 제시한 첫 사례라는 점에서 상당히 주목할 만하다. 대상판결은 부진정부작위범의 실행의 착수 판단기준으로 ‘구성요건적 결과 발생의 위험이 구체화한 상황’이라는 요건을 제시하였지만, 다음과 같은여러 점에서 결론적으로 타당한 기준이라고 보기 어렵다. 우선 대상판결이 제시한 기준은 조문의 내용과 구성이 현저히 다른 독일형법의 해석론을 상당부분 그대로 수용한 것으로 볼 수 있다는 점에서 근원적인 한계를 가지고 있다. 부작위범의 근거가 되는 작위의무를 ‘결과발생의 방지’로 직접 규정하고 있는 독일형법과 달리 우리 형법 제18조는 ‘위험발생의 방지’로 규정하고 있으므로 우리 형법의 해석론에서 부진정부작위범의 실행행위성은 결과발생이 아닌 위험발생과의 관련성에서 구해져야 한다. 따라서 부진정부작위범의 실행행위는 결과발생의 가능성이라는 ‘위험을 발생시키는 행위’라고 할 수 있고, 실행행위의 시작이라고 할 수 있는 실행의 착수는 그러한 ‘위험을 발생시키는 행위의 시작’이라고 보아야 한다. 대상판결을 비롯하여 대법원은 업무상배임죄를 구체적 위험범으로 파악하고 있으므로 대상판결이 제시하는 기준은 ‘위험발생 위험의 구체화’라고 할 수 있다. 그런데전자의 위험은 재산상 손해의 위험이지만 후자의 위험은 단지 재산상 손해의 위험을발생시킬 수 있는 가능성을 가진 실행행위로서의 부작위가 지속될 위험일 뿐이므로결과발생에 대한 위험이 임박하였을 필요는 없다는 점에서 대상판결의 기준은 미수가 아닌 기수의 시점에 가까운 기준이라고 할 수 있다. 오히려 대상판결의 사안에서행위자가 일시적인 부작위의 상태에 머무르는 것을 넘어 자신의 임무를 방치한 채그 직을 벗어나는 행위를 했다는 것은 행위자에게 부여된 임무의 종국적 불이행이라는 점에서 부작위로 인한 위험발생의 위험성과 관련하여 규범적으로 행위자의 행위는 완수되었다고 볼 수 있다. This decision is quite noteworthy in that it is the first case to present specific criteria for the commencement of the commission in relation to the establishment of an attempted crime of an omission that has not been dealt with in practice. Although this decision presented the requirement of ‘a situation in which the risk of occurrence of a componentrequired result is materialized’ as a criterion for commencement of the commission in the omission, it is difficult to conclude that it is a valid criterion in the following points. First of all, the criterion presented by this decision has a fundamental limitation in that it accepts the interpretation theory of German criminal law, which is significantly different from our criminal law, as it is. Unlike the German Criminal Code, which directly stipulates the duty to act, which is the basis for the crime of omission, as ‘prevention of consequences’, Article 18 of the Korean Criminal Code stipulates ‘prevention of danger’. Therefore, in the interpretation theory of Korean criminal law, the act of execution of the crime of omission should be related to the occurrence of risk, not the occurrence of consequences. The act of omission can be said to be the 'act that creates danger' that is the possibility of the occurrence of a result, and the initiation of execution, which can be said to be the beginning of the act of execution, should be regarded as the 'beginning of the act that creates danger'. Since the Supreme Court, including this decision, identifies the crime of breach of trust in business as a specific dangerous crime, the criterion presented by this decision can be said to be ‘specification of the risk of occurrence of danger’. However, the former risk is the risk of property damage, but the latter risk is only the risk that the omission as an action that has the possibility of causing the risk of property damage will continue. Therefore, it is not necessary that the risk of the result occurring is imminent, and the criterion for this decision can be said to be the criterion close to the point of the completion of the crime, not the attempted. Rather, in the case of this decision, the actor went beyond staying in a state of temporary omission and neglected his duty and acted out of his position. This is the ultimate failure of the task assigned to the agent. Therefore, it can be seen that the actor's action is completed normatively in relation to the risk of occurrence of risk due to omission.

특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기 -결합범의 구조적 유형화에 기반한 모색-

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 한국비교형사법학회 2011 비교형사법연구 Vol.13 No.1

Im kStGB §334 abs. 1 wird mann nach dem schweren Raub gestaft, wenn er zur Wohnung des Anderes in der Nacht eindringt und dann den Raub macht. Weil dieser schwere Raub von der zweimalen Handlungen gebildet wird, wird er als zusammengesetztes Delikt betrachtet. Im allgemeinen ist die Handlung in einem unmittelbaren Ansetzen zum zusammengesetzten Delikt die erste Tat. Nach dieser Lehre musst das unmittelbaren Ansetzen zu diesem schweren Raub das Eindringen zur Wohnung des Anderes sein. Aber das sei nicht richtig aus dem zweien Grunde. Zuerst, der Typus des zusammengesetzten Delites fur diesen schweren Raub ist nicht gleich mit dem im allgemeinen. Nach meiner Meinung wird der Typus des zusammengesetzten Deliktes im ``wesentliche`` zusammengesetzten Delikt und ``formliche`` zusammengesetzten Delikt eingeteilt. Der letztere sei gleichartig mit dem mehraktiges Delikt. Die erste Handlung im wesentliche zusammengesetzten Delikt kann die unmittelbare Behandlung zur Verletzung zum ganzen Rechtsgut sein werden. Doch die erste Handlung im formliche zusammengesetzten Delikt sei eigentlich als die Vorbedingung dieses Deliktes oder der Erschwerungsgrund des Strafes, denn die kann nicht gerade die Verletzungshandlung sein werden. Zweitens, zur Ausforschung des unmittelbaren Ansetzens des formliche zusammengesetzten Deliktes muss mann das geschutzte Rechtsgut fur dieses Delikt ausfinden. Im Verbindung mit dieser Frage wird die Uberprufung zum Eindringshandlung im Nacht gefordert. D.h. der Hauptpunkt ist dass, ob die Ruhe im Wohnung das geschutzte Rechtsgut fur den schweren Raub ist oder nicht. Dieser schwere Raub ist nicht qualitativliche verschieden vom normalen Raub, sondern ist der nur die Aggravationsbedingung. Daher die Eindringshandlung im Nacht macht den Rauber zum ``schweren`` Raub. Zum Schluss, das unmittelbare Ansetzen zum schweren Raub im kStGB §334 Abs. 1 wird angeerkennt, wenn mann die gewaltige oder drohende Handlung fuhrt aus.

부작위범의 불법구조 -부작위범의 불법근거와 형법 제18조의 해석을 중심으로

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 한국비교형사법학회 2013 비교형사법연구 Vol.15 No.1

Fur die Entstehung des unechten Unterlassungsdeliktes im Artikel 18 des kStGB ist das Tatbestandsmerkmal die Stellung als Garant fur die Schadensabwehr, aus denen sich die Pflicht ergibt, grundlich. Ubrigens, wenn die Handlung durch Unterlassen den Tatbestandserfolg durch Tat bewirkt, woher kann man das Unrechtsgrund des unechten Unterlassungsdeliktes auffinden im Zusammenhang mit dem Unrechtsinhalt des unechten Unterlassungsdeliktes? Die Lehre Beihilfe, daß die Teilnahme durch Unterlassen mit dem Tater begeht Tatbestand die Beihilfe grundsatlich nach Standpunkt des Tatherrschaft wird, und die Lehre, die die mit Art der Handlungspflicht oder die Gleichsstellung unterseidet wird, sucht das Unrecht des Unterlassen vom Zusammenschluss sowohl Erfolgsunwert und Handlungsunwert, dh. dualistiche Unrechtslehre. Aber, die Lehre, die das Unterlassungsdelikt als Pflichtsdelikt betracht, oder die es fur das Unterlassungsdelikt noch einige Taterschaft nach Auslegung des kStGB gibt, sucht das Unrecht des Unterlassen vom Vergehen der Rechtspflicht. Im diesen Aufsatz, nach der Auslegung des kStGB und theoretische Diskussion hat die Lehre von Pflichtsunrecht nicht die Losung fur den Zwiespalt zwischen Unrecht des Vergehen der Pflicht und Unrecht des Taterschaft, trotz die anscheinende Eigentumlichkeit uber das Pflichtsdelikt. Außerdem, wenn es dis besondere Handlung des Tater gibt, kann das Unterlassen tatsachlich als der bestimmte Beitrag fur Tat funktionieren. Weil kann die Lehre von Pflichtsunrecht nicht dieses sich einhehmen, kann sie nicht die Unrechtsgrund des unechten Unterlasungsdeliktes im kStGB sich erklaren. Zum Schluss wird die Unrechtsgrund des unechten Unterlasungsdeliktes mit der dualistiche Unrechtslehre begreift. Dadurch hat der Begriff der Gleichstellung um den Sinn als normative Ursachskraft zum Unterlassen im Sicht von der Notwendigkeit, wird der als Tatherrschaft wie die Begehungsdelikt versteht.

형사전자소송의 현황과 미래

류부곤 ( Ryu Bu-gon ) 한국비교형사법학회 2017 비교형사법연구 Vol.19 No.1

In this era when everything is electronic, only criminal proceedings proceed analogue way. However, since 2010, the actualization of e-proceeding in the area of korean civil litigation has had a certain impact on the scope of criminal proceedings. Since 2010, the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services(KICS) has been established to facilitate the electronicization of criminal justice affairs by integrating the electronic systems of criminal justice organizations in the area of criminal cases. In the same year, An electronic summary proceedings have been initiated to electronically process procedures for a certain type of crime. In this article, under the heading `Status of Electronic Criminal Procedure`, I study on the present state of the criminal justice information system and the electronic criminal procedure that is currently being constructed and operated, and discuss the direction of improvement of these systems in order to advance the goal of criminal electronic litigation under the heading `Future of Electronic Criminal Procedure`. The proposal for the future of electronic criminal procedure through these discussions is as follows. First, the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services(KICS) should be restructured as a criminal justice document distribution system centering on the court and, in principle, it should be given the character of the electronic processing system of individual event data to implement the criminal electronic procedure. And for the current electronic procedure, emphasizing that electronicization of the criminal procedure is the preparation stage for the implementation of the criminal proceedings, it is necessary to improve the system that allows the electronic summary proceedings to be applied more closely to general electronic procedure. For example, if aperson who has been given an summary order through an electronic summary proceedings want to ask a formal trial, we should improve the system so that defendants(attorneys) can submit litigation material electronically. Ultimately, for the establishment and settlement of electronic criminal procedure, it is necessary to clarify the direction of the adverse effect that electronic procedures can reverse the principle of oral argument or trial centeredness. Specifically, serious reflection on the following philosophical problems is required : Requirements of Proof without reasonable doubt for criminal evidence, Frames of reality awareness based on human senses, Validity of pursuing absolute truth in criminal proceedings.

대명률(大明律) 보고한기(保辜限期)규정의 형사법적 의의

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 한국비교형사법학회 2010 비교형사법연구 Vol.12 No.1

In ``Ta Ming Lu(大明律)``, penal code of the Joseon Dynasty, there are provisions titled by ``Bogo-Hanki(保辜限期)``. It contains that : if someone beats or injures victim, it needs to have a fixed period for the conclusion of criminal result and due the period he/she is assigned to some duty. Concretely, at first in aspect of the conclusion of criminal result, several terms are defined for several types of heating or injury and then the result, only in that terms occurred, will be a basis of purnishment. Thus, if the victim die in that terms due to the injury, offender will be purnished as bodily injury resulting in death. But if out of that terms will be purnished only as bodily injury. At second in that terms the charge of restoration of criminal damage is imposed to the offender. If the damage is recovered well by the treating of offender, the punishment for offender will be decreased as a necessity. As a record of the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty these rules are applied rigorously for the serious consideration of human life, because these rules conrol whether the offender die or not. The rule of ``Bogo-Hanki`` in ``Ta Ming Lu`` has twice means in aspect of modern criminal law : a requisite of the offense, a rule for restoration of criminal damage. At first it will be a problem that whether these provisions are objective condition of punishment or not. But these rules have a function to determine the legal result of cirme directly, so these must be treated by a condition of completion for crime. In detail it is more reasonable to consider these rules as a concretive measure of objective Imputation, determining whether the normative danger is realized or not on the assumption that the causation for the crime is completed. Second one, in aspect of recovery of criminal damage these rules show that the ``Ta Ming Lu`` intend to restoration of victim as a important purpose of punishment, in comparison with modern criminal law, it excludes the victim for the status of the party concernd. In this regard these rules can stand comparison with modern Case-Managing Mediation.

특집 2 : 아동학대범죄와 형사정책 ; 아동학대범죄의 개념과 처벌에 관한 법리적 검토

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 한국형사정책학회 2015 형사정책 Vol.27 No.1

About the penal terms for the child abuse in korean ‘Child Welfare Act’ and ‘special Act on Punishment of the Child Abuse’, this thesis highlights the illegal characteristics of the child abuse and argues the coverage of penal terms and the necessity of punishment compared to the normal criminal factor. At first, about the punishment of emotional abuse, the conduct of emotional abuse in Child Welfare Act is for the protect of health, welfare and well-growth of child. So it should be treated with separate type of crime, because the emotional abuse and normal criminal abuse are different from the contents and dimension. This is also true for the physical abuse which is included the physical damage. But it is needed to improving the current regulations to more detailed forms to consistent with the principle of clarity. On the other hand, current criminal regulation for the neglect act does not have a legislative adequacy in terms of universality and abstractive omission. Child abuse commonly has a problem about distinction with the discipline conducted by parents or child care teacher. In this case, if we can recognize the damege of child victim definitely, then we should concede it as a child abuse crime in principle, but to restrain the excessive criminal intervention the introduction of regulation for the special terms of illegality exclusion like a Article 20(socially just acts) in korean Criminal Law can be discussed. In addition, to complement the problem caused by legislative-technical limitation of crime factors for child abuse, some institutional plan for the professional investigative procedures should be debated.