배임죄의 불법과 치역(値域)

송희식(Song, HeeSik) 한양법학회 2011 漢陽法學 Vol.35 No.-

January 20, 2011, Supreme Court of Korea decided that double sale of movable property is not a crime. The majority opinion states that the delivery obligation of movable property of vendor is not another’s affairs administrated by vendor, but affairs(business) of vendor himself. This decision will be a significant case about the boundary between crime and contractual obligation. But in the minority opinion, if the vendor had signed the contract of property sale and had taken the down payment and the part payment, he entered into the phase at which he cannot cancel the contract freely, so his contractual obligation should be regarded as another’s(vendee’s) affairs administrated by vendor. So double sale of movable property confirms to the breach of trust. It means that the vendor takes the unallowable benefits with bringing about the remarkable and serious danger to the vendee accompanied by his violation of obligation. The minority opinion is not of the meaning of ‘administrating another’s affairs of Article 355② in Criminal Act. It is of the legal evaluation that the vendor’s act of double sale should be punished because of its social harm and its illegality. Here, we must distinguish the meaning of criminal action and the evaluation of the crime. The former is called as the domain of concept, the latter is called as the range of concept in functional concept theory of logistic. For example, homicide has two conceptual dimensions, one is a domain of homicide; “the killing of a human being by a human being”. The other is a range of homicide, that is “social harmfulness, blameworthiness of that wrongful results, conduct, attendant circumstances, etc.” The domain and range of concepts have functional correspondence. In Frege’s analysis, y = f(x), values of x constitutes domain, values of y constitute range. The illegality and culpability of homicide are the range of homicide, which corresponds functionally to each element in the domain of homicide. Thus, if we introduce the domain and the range of the crime, we can find that the majority opinion is on the domain of ‘another’s affairs’ in the breach of trust, and the minority opinion is on the range of it. The majority opinion of this decision on the domain of ‘another’s affairs’ concept will be judge-made law. But the minority opinion of this decision on the range of breach of trust will bring about more results, because its approach may contribute to the establishment of the illegality concept of breach of trust. The illegality of breach of trust is realizing the unallowable benefits with the remarkable and serious danger accompanied by his violation of obligation.

증거법이론에 있어서 인식과 진술 - 증거법 일반이론의 모색 -

송희식(Song Heesik) 대검찰청 2013 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.39

한국에서는 증거법에 대한 해석에 있어서 독일이나 미국의 증거법이론을 적용하는 것이 일반적이다. 그러나 독일과 미국의 증거법은 대단히 다르며, 이론도 접점이 거의 없다. 한편 증거법은 그 자체의 고유의 논리성을 가지고 있어, 각국 증거법을 포괄하여 해석할 수 있는 일반이론이 가능한 것으로 여겨진다. 이러한 일반적 이론이 구성될 수 있다면 각국의 증거법을 보편적 관점에서 이해하고, 증거법의 발전방향을 설정하는 데도 유용할 것이다. 증거법의 일반이론을 모색함에 있어 가장 먼저 설정할 수 있는 주요개념은 ‘인식’이라는 개념이 유력하다. 증거법이론의 최우선 전제로 작용하는 배심제와 전문법관제라는 재판제도가 증거법의 관점에서는 ‘증거인식’의 주체의 문제이기 때문이다. 배심제에서는 증거인식의 주체가 배심원이고, 전문법관제에서는 판사이다. 배심제에서는 인식주체의 성격에 때문에 증거법의 모든 문제는 배심원에게 어떠한 증거를 현출하여 인식하게 할 것인가 하는 주제로 귀결된다. 이것은 증거의 허용성의 문제로서 그 기준은 증거자료의 차원에서 규정된다. 특히 진술증거와 관련해서는 어떠한 ‘법정외 진술’을 허용할 것인가 하는 전문법칙이 중요한 증거법이론을 구성하게 된다. 이에 대해 전문법관제에서는 담당 재판부 이외에도 증거인식의 예외적 주체가 있다. 그것은 증거보전절차의 판사, 경질된 이전의 판사, 수탁판사 등이다. 결국 이들의 증거인식을 재판부가 받아들이는데, 이것은 본질적으로 타인의 인식을 재인식하는 것으로‘인식의 인식’이다. 이렇게 보면 수사기관의 조서도 수사기관의 인식을 재판부가 다시 인식하는 문제가 된다. 여기에 ‘인식의 인식’을 증거로 삼기 위해서는 어떠한 요건을 설정할 것인가 하는 문제가 증거법이론에서 중요한 주제로 등장한다. 동시에 진술과 인식을 어떻게 다른 범주로 설정할 것인가 하는 문제도 증거법적 이론에서 중대한 문제로 제기된다. 이렇게 타인의 진술이나 인식을 법정으로 가져오는 문제가 증거법이론의 기본주제이다. 이 주제를 확장하여 사실인정의 자료로 삼을 수 있는 증거의 자격으로서 증거능력의 개념을 보편적 개념으로 설정할 수 있다. 독일 증거법이론에서는 증거능력이라는 개념이 아예 없지만, 법정의 증거조사절차의 대상이 되는 증거방법이라고 해석될 수 있다. 이것은 증거방법의 기준에서 규정되는 것이다. 미국 증거법이론에서는 증거자료의 차원에서 배심원 인식에 대한 허용성이라는 개념이 증거능력의 개념에 대응될 수 있다. 이에 대해 일본 ․ 한국의 증거법에서는 증거능력의 개념에서 증거는 증거방법과 증거자료 모두를 포괄한다. 이렇게 보면 일본 ․ 한국의 증거법이론이 오히려 좀 더 일반적이고 보편적이라는 결론이 된다. 그리하여 진술과 인식, 증거방법과 증거자료, 증거능력 등의 개념이 증거법 일반이론의 체계론적 개념으로 설정될 수 있다. 이런 관점에 비추어 보면, 일본 ․ 한국의 수사기관의 조서에 관한 증거법 규정들은 타인의 인식을 법정에 가져오는 증거방법으로 해석되어야 한다. 그리고 그것과 독립하여 수사기관에서의 진술 그 자체에 대해서는 증거자료로서 조서(인식)와 독립한 진술로서 해석될 수 있다. 이렇게 할 때에만 조서의 증거법적 의의, 조서와 진술을 구별하는 문제, 사경피신과 조사자증언의 근거문제 등이 해명될 수 있다. 그리고 이러한 일반이론의 관점을 받아들이면 새롭게 해명되어야 할 많은 문제들이 제기되며, 아울러 한국 증거법 규정들의 의미와 평가, 발전방향에 대하여 새로운 비전을 찾을 수 있다. This study starts with the assumption that the general theory of evidence law can be developed since evidence law has its own innate logic. Every country has its own evidence laws. So if there were a theory about evidence law and it could explain evidence laws of every country then it can be considered the general theory of evidence laws. The first concept of evidence laws in the general theory is the cognition. The jury trial system and bench trial system are different in the aspect that who recognize the evidence; the subject of cognition about evidences. In jury trial system the subject of evidence cognition is the jury. In bench trial system the subject of evidence cognition must be the judge; this is called ‘principle of directness.’ The exception of this principle of directedness is renewal of proceedings. In the renewal of proceedings, the judge accepts other’s cognition in the forms of protocol. Beweisfäigkeit(the qualification of evidence) is the competence to be legal evidence in fact-finding. It is the admissibility of evidence in jury trial system. In bench trial system it corresponds to legal competence to be written as evidence in judgement paper of guilty. Beweisfäigkeit has two dimensions: cognition and statement. Beweisfäigkeit is the qualification that the judge can accept other’s cognition as evidence, and Beweisfäigkeit is the qualification that judge can accept out-of-court statement as evidence. The latter is the hearsay rule. And the former is the evidence rule of all kinds of protocol. So the concepts of Beweisfäigkeit of cognition and statement are the systems of general theory about evidence law. If we look at evidence laws from this point of view, all evidence laws must be reviewed through the general theory; Special theories cannot be explained by other special theories.

기대가능성의 시니피앙

송희식(Song, HeeSik) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

The purpose of this study is to examine the concept of 'expectability' in criminal law by using the linguistic analysis tools. When we can expect everyone to act legally, we call it expectability of legal-act. The concept of expectability had been debated by many criminology researchers during the last century in Germany. So, this study reviews the history of expectability concept in Germany, and gropes for new approaches to the expectability theory by using linguistic and philosophical analysis. A linguistic sign is a link between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is the hearer's psychological impression of a sound. The sound pattern of a linguistic sign is called its 'signifiant' in French word, as Ferdinand de Saussure referred. The concept of a linguistic sign is called its 'signifie'. The link between signifiant and signifie is arbitrary. So there is no common signifie matching to a signifiant in all its contexts. At most, there is only a family resemblance (Familienanlichkeiten) in all signifie of one siginfiant. According to the framework of our study using linguistic analysis tool, the old theory can be interpreted by presuming that there is one essential signifie of jurisprudential siginfiant, however, which is impossible. In the long history of the studies about the concept of expectability, there was fallacy of conceptism in the belief that expectability had independent-seperated one signifie. It is presumed that there is a unique distinctive feature in signifie of jurisprudential siginfiant. It is assumed that jurisprudential signifie presupposes a case, such as an accident, an affair, an event, a criminal case. So we call jurisprudential signifie as 'case signifie'. The 'case signifie' has a semantic structure and structural meaning of that case. Furthermore in terms of linguistic tools, 'the subject of story' is the subject in the jurisprudential sentences, 'the subject of enunciation' is the speaker of jurisprudential sentences, and also there are behaviors, objects, results, situations and others in the case text. In Korea, plentiful cases about expectability were accumulated in last half century. In terms of our study, The case signifie of expectability in Korea has structure-meaning, for example, Grenzsituation (extreme situation), general expectation, Humana Fragilitas(humane fragility). The case signifie of expectability of jurisprudential siginfiant has two sides. One side is expectation of the subject of enunciation. The other side is the possibility of other action than the case (of the subject of story). The synthesis of those two sides is expectability and blameworthiness of normative culpability theory. In conclusion, the substantial difference between our study and the old theory lies in the meaning of expectability referred as case signifie having structural semantics. The subject of expectation and the subject of other possibile legal action are seperated from each other.