피해자를 위한 나라는 없다 -국가범죄 피해자학적 관점에서 본 세월호참사 대응과제-

김한균 ( Han Kyun Kim ) 민주주의법학연구회 2015 민주법학 Vol.0 No.58

The Sewol Ferry disaster of 16th of April, 2014 in southern region of South Korea should be studied in terms of victimology of state crime as it is the matter of state crime and its victims. Victimization by the disaster has three structural characteristics: violence from the conventional idea of real victims; second victimization by state agencies; and repeated experiences of victimization. State responsibilities of the disaster have three dimensions: disregard of rescue and repressive control; concealment of the truth of the disaster; and protection of victims by state crime. Criminal justice and human security policy on the 4/16 disaster, should be based upon the perspective of the victimology of state crime. From the view of state crime victimology, victims tend to be among the least socially powerful actors. Victimizers generally fail to recognize and understand the nature, extent, and harmfulness of institutional policies. Victims of state crime are often blamed for their suffering. Victims of state crime must generally rely on the victimizer, an associated institution, or civil social movements for redress. Victims of state crime are easy targets for repeated victimization. Illegal state policies and practices, while committed by individuals and groups of individuals, are manifestations of the attempt to achieve organizational, bureaucratic, or institutional goals. Post-4/16 criminology and criminal justice policy in Korean society should take the tasks of securing equality in security and safety, and accomplishing state responsibilities on human security through criminal laws.

세월호 참사와 피해자의 인권

이재승 ( Jaeseung Lee ) 민주주의법학연구회 2016 민주법학 Vol.0 No.60

This essay approaches the sinking of the Sewolho ferry from the lens of criminology of state crimes and victims` rights. State crimes refer to state-corporate or state-societal crimes of the state from the viewpoint of political economy or political sociology. State crimes manifest themselves in multiple dimensions, since political, economic and social powers are interrelated. I define the sinking of Sewolho as a state crime in three stages. First, regarding the structural causes of the tragedy, policies reflecting neoliberal deregulation at the expense of safety and security brought about organized omission both at the corporate and government dimensions. At the structural level, state crimes appear most frequently as state-corporate crimes or crimes of policy. Second, putting aside the Ferry Captain`s inexplicable failure of duty, there is undoubtedly a state crime of omission or neglect at the rescue stage, for the marine police system completely failed to save the passengers. Nonetheless, the Commander of 123 Patrol Ship was the only public official tried in criminal court for failure to rescue. Third, in post-tragedy stage, the tactical behaviors of the government such as blaming victims, downplaying state responsibility and aggravating the ``Sewolho Fatigue`` could be termed a ``after-the-fact State Crime.`` In addition, I analyze victims` rights and give comments on the Special Acts on Sewolho in light of U.S Criminal Victims` Rights Act, the van Boven-Bassiouni principle, and the updated set of principles to combat impunity. I suggest the right to case with the result that victims should have the right not to be isolated or excluded from the conflict resolution process in general. This is the concept of strategic positioning which aims at protecting the victims` involvement in truth-finding, criminal/civil procedures, and subsequent restorative measures in the aftermath. Furthermore, I explain the victims` right to truth, their right to justice, and their right to reparation. The Sewolho Special Commission of Inquiry should establish new state practices by affirming the victims` rights during the conflict resolution process and the process of building a vision for a safe society.

국제형사재판소의 관할대상 범죄로서 침략범죄의 준국가 무력충돌에의 적용 가능성

이혜영(Lee Hye Young) 국제법평론회 2016 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.44

The crime of aggression, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is only applicable to inter-state armed conflicts. There is, however, a gray area when an armed conflict erupts in the territory of a recognized state and initially looks like civil war, but has international elements such as the involvement of a quasi-state whose status and rights are disputed in international law. Resolving the issue of whether the crime of aggression is applicable to armed conflicts involving quasi-states is important because (1) there are many quasi-states throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa; and (2) quasi-states are a major source of war due to the inherent nature of their militarized society and the long-term tensions that exist between a quasi-state, its mother state, and its external patron state. The applicability of the crime of aggression to quasi-states depends on the interpretation of the meaning of “state” in the context of aggression. The meaning of “state” reflects a contradiction, because although state-like entities exist regardless of whether they receive recognition, recognition performs a function in determining which entities are qualified to join institutional clubs. Like recognized states, unrecognized quasi-states have been both perpetrators and victims of aggression. Yet, because they lack recognition, they have neither been protected nor prosecuted under the crime of aggression. This dissertation offers a suggestion for how “state” should be defined in the crime of aggression, and consequently, how the crime of aggression should be applied to armed conflicts involving quasi-states.

2019년 ‘인도에 반한 죄의 방지 및 처벌에 관한 ILC조문초안’에 대한 평가와 개선방향의 제시

최태현 한양대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학논총 Vol.40 No.2

Three typical international crimes - the crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity - are the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and the target crimes which is determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes. The first two former is already the subject of global conventions that require States within their national laws to prevent and punish such crimes, and to cooperate among themselves towards those ends. There is, however, no such a global convention dedicated to preventing and punishing the crimes against humanity and promoting inter-State cooperation in that regard, The International Law Commission(ILC) submitted the final Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity to the UN General Assembly(the Sixth Committee) in 2019 after second reading of it and recommended the elaboration of a convention by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the Draft Articles. In 2022 session, the Sixth Committee decided through its resolution that it should resume its consideration of all aspects of the Draft Articles over two sessions, one in April 2023 and the second in April 2024. The Draft Articles seem to be aimed at strengthening the international legal framework for the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of the crimes against humanity. The Draft Articles will facilitate the cooperation of States with the International Criminal Court and other international courts and tribunals as well as between states, in accordance with international standards, in both the legal and the practical sense, A general evaluation of the Draft Articles is that a new international set of rules to regulate the crimes against humanity in the future should supplement and be complementary to existing treaty structures. In particular, ensuring consistency with the Rome Statute is the key in strengthening the mutual cooperation. Therefore the choice underpinning the Draft Articles to incorporate the definitions of crimes against humanity of the Rome Statute would be welcomed. The obligation to establish national jurisdiction over crimes against humanity in domestic legal systems follows from various treaties and from customary international law. The lack of specific and adequate international standards or norms regarding the regulation of the crimes against humanity, however, could hamper the effectiveness and speediness of the investigation, prosecution and punishment of these crimes. Therefore, important gaps need to be filled in order to further shape, through the imposition of some new obligations of establishing national jurisdictions to States, more specifically efficient, effective, and practical mechanism in combating the crimes against humanity. To improve the effectiveness of the Draft Articles in achieving its desirable objective, this article suggests some revisions as follows. i) The meaning of the “civil population” in the chapeau of Art. 2 of the Draft needs to be reinterpreted and extended. ii) The scope of the definition of the crimes against humanity provided in Art. 2(1)(h) of the Draft in relation to the crime of “persecution” needs to be extended. The phrase of “in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph” should be deleted. iii) The term of ‘acquiescence’ in the crime of “enforced disappearance” in Art. 2(2)(i) of the Draft Articles should be deleted or the meaning of ‘acquiescence’ should be in line with the policy requirements expressed in the footnote in ‘the Elements of Crimes’ of the Rome Statute. iv) In the commission of the crimes against humanity, it should be explicitly stipulated in the Draft Articles that State responsibility is also incurred besides individual criminal responsibility in order to enhance the preventive effect. v) Amnesties should be explicitly prohibited in relation to the crimes again... 집단살해죄, 전쟁범죄, ‘인도에 반한 죄’라는 세 가지 국제범죄는 국제공동체 전체가 염려하는 가장 심각한 범죄이며, 이러한 범죄를 행한 자에 대한 불처벌을 종식시켜야 하는 대상이 되고 있다. 앞의 두 가지 범죄에 대해서는 이미 세계적인 협약이 체결되어 국가들이 그 국내법을 통하여 그러한 범죄들을 방지하고 처벌할 것과 그러한 목적으로 국가간 협력할 것을 요구하고 있다. 그러나 ‘인도에 반한 죄’와 관련하여서는 이 범죄를 방지하고 처벌하는 것과 이를 위하여 국가간 협력을 증진시키는 데 기여하는 세계적인 협약은 아직 마련되고 있지 않다. 국제법위원회(ILC)는 2019년 제2차 독회를 마친 후 ‘인도에 반한 죄의 방지 및 처벌에 관한 조문초안‘을 UN총회(제6위원회)에 제출하였고, 이 조문초안에 근거하여 UN총회 또는 국제적 전권대표회의에서 협약을 마련해 줄 것을 권고하였다. ILC조문초안은 ‘인도에 반한 죄’의 방지, 수사, 기소 및 처벌을 위한 국제적인 법적 장치를 강화하고 있는 듯이 보인다. 이 조문초안은 법적인 측면 및 실제적 측면에서 국제적 기준에 따라 국가들의 협력 도모뿐만 아니라 국가들의 ICC 및 기타 국제적 법원 및 법정과의 협력을 수월하게 할 것이다. ILC조문초안에 대한 일반적 평가는 장래에 ‘인도에 반한 죄’를 규율할 새로운 국제규칙들은 현행 조약상 규범을 보완하고 보충해야 한다는 것이다. 특히 로마규정과의 합치성을 보장하는 것은 상호간의 협력을 강화하는 데 있어서 긴요하다. 따라서 ILC조문초안이 로마규정상의 ‘인도에 반한 죄’의 정의를 도입하고자 한 선택은 환영받을만 하다국내법체계에서 ‘인도에 반한 죄’에 대해 관할권을 확립할 의무는 여러 조약 및 관습국제법에서 나타나고 있다. 그러나 ‘인도에 반한 죄’에 대한 규율과 관련하여 특정하고도 적절한 국제적 기준이나 규범이 부재하는 경우 이 범죄에 대한 수사, 기소 및 처벌의 실효성과 신속성이 저해될 수도 있다. 따라서 국제사회는 ‘인도에 반한 죄’를 진압함에 있어서 국가에게 국가관할권을 확립할 여러 가지 새로운 의무의 부과를 통하여 좀 더 효율적이고 실효적이며 실제적인 장치를 도입하기 위해 그와 같은 중대한 간극들이 채워질 것을 요구하고 있다. 이러한 바람직한 목표를 달성하고 ILC조문초안의 실효성을 증진시키기 위하여 이 논문은 다음과 같이 몇 가지 개선방향을 제시한다. i) 조문초안 제2조 두문에 있는 “민간주민”의 의미는 재해석되거나 확대되어야 한다. ii) “박해”죄와 관련하여 조문초안 제2조 제1항 h호에 규정되어 있는 ‘인도에 반한 죄’의 정의의 범위는 확대되어야 한다. 따라서 “이 항에 언급된 모든 행위와 관련하여”라는 문구는 삭제되어야 한다. iii) 조문초안 제2조 제2항 i호의 “강제실종”죄의 구성요건인 “묵인”이라는 용어는 삭제되거나 또는 그 ‘묵인’의 의미가 로마규정 범죄구성요건문서의 각주에 명시되어 있는 정책요건과 합치하도록 해야 한다. iv) ‘인도에 반한 죄’ 발생에 대한 억지효과를 제고하기 위하여 ‘인도에 반한 죄’를 행하는 경우 개인의 형사책임뿐만 아니라 국가책임도 발생한다는 점을 조문초안에 명시해야 한다. v) ‘인도에 반한 죄’의 강행규범적 성격을 고려하여 이 범죄에 대한 사면은 명시적으로 금지되어야 한다. vi) 로마규정 제27조 제2항에 규정되어 있는 바와 마찬가지로 공적 지...

국가범죄로서의 세월호 참사

박영대 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2023 민주주의와 인권 Vol.23 No.3

There are two prevailing perspectives on the Sewol ferry tragedy: the ‘disaster/safety’ frame and the ‘state crime/security’ frame. Viewing the tragedy through a ‘disaster/safety’ lens characterizes it primarily as a ‘maritime accident.’ Accordingly, the investigative commission is seen as a body charged with exploring accidents or disasters, focusing predominantly on the technical causes of the sinking. In this context, granting the commission compulsory investigative and prosecutorial powers becomes a secondary consideration. The main objective, within this frame, is ‘safety,’ aimed at minimizing the risk of accidents or disasters. On the other hand, the ‘state crime/security’ perspective sees the tragedy as essentially a ‘state crime.’ The commission, in this case, is seen as an investigative body probing state crime. Its focus extends beyond the sinking's cause to the broader operation of the state. This includes the Coast Guard's rescue operation, the Blue House's response, the intelligence agencies' inspection of victims, and the government-wide obstruction of the investigation. In this frame, the critical question becomes whether or not to grant the commission compulsory investigative and prosecutorial powers. The objective here is ‘security’—freedom from wrongful exercises of state power. Viewing the tragedy through the ‘disaster/safety’ frame may downplay or overlook aspects of the Sewol ferry tragedy, such as the role of the Blue House, victim inspections, and investigation obstruction. The spatial and temporal scope of the tragedy is then confined to the sea off Jindo on April 16, 2014. This framing effectively depoliticizes the Sewol ferry tragedy. Conversely, the ‘state crime/security’ perspective encompasses all aspects of the tragedy. This includes the cause of the sinking, the Coast Guard's rescue operation, the Blue House's response, victim inspections, and investigation obstruction. The temporal scope of the tragedy extends from April 16, 2014, to the present, while the spatial scope goes beyond the sea off Jindo to include the Blue House, Paengmok Port, Jindo Gymnasium, media outlets, and related state institutions. Regardless of the approach―whether it's social harm, social response, or a legalistic perspective―the Sewol ferry tragedy fulfills the criteria of a state crime. Understanding the Sewol ferry tragedy as a state crime enables us to comprehend the essential nature of the tragedy, understand the challenges in establishing the truth, and identify the tasks that lie ahead.

국가를 위한 배상명령에 관한 소고

김대룡(Kim, Daeryong) 대검찰청 2022 형사법의 신동향 Vol.- No.74

본 연구는 범죄로 인한 국고손실에 대해서는 범죄자를 상대로 별도의 국가소송을 제기하는 것보다 󰡔소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법󰡕에서 정한 배상명령절차를 이용하면 더 신속하고 효율적으로 국고를 환수할 수 있을 것이라는 생각에서 출발하였다. 그동안 배상명령에 대한 논의와 연구는 주로 배상명령이 제도적인 면이나 운용의 면에 있어서 제한적이라는 인식 아래 그 문제점과 원인을 분석하고 이를 개선하는 데 초점이 맞추어진 것으로 보인다. 배상명령은 대상범죄의 피해자(상속인 포함)의 신청 또는 법원의 직권으로 배상을 명할 수 있도록 규정되어 있고 달리 범죄피해자를 자연인으로 한정하고 있지 않다. 따라서 국가가 사기죄, 횡령죄 등의 피해자인 경우 국가도 범죄피해자로서 신청 또는 직권에 따른 배상명령을 받을 수 있다고 판단된다. 국가가 국고손실을 환수하는데 배상명령을 활용할 수 있다면 별도의 민사소송을 제기하여야 하는 데서 발생하는 소송지연과 여러 가지 부담을 줄일 수 있다. 국가의 적극적인 기능 강화로 인한 국가재정의 증가와 함께 국가를 상대로 하는 범죄로 인한 국고손실도 늘어나고 있는 현실에서 배상명령을 활용할 필요성이 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이에 대한 논의나 연구는 찾아보기 어렵다. 소송수행자들이 개별적으로 국가를 위한 배상명령을 신청한 사례가 8건, 그중 인용된 사례는 1건만 확인될 뿐이다. 󰡔소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법󰡕은 배상명령신청에 대한 각하에 대하여 불복을 허용하지 않는다. 이는 범죄피해자의 권리를 침해하는 것으로서 이에 대한 개정이 필요하다. 국가를 위한 배상명령절차는 국가소송에 해당한다. 따라서 󰡔국가를 당사자로 하는 소송에 관한 법률󰡕에 따라 검사가 소송지휘를 하게 되므로 효율적인 소송수행이 가능하다고 할 것이다. 이 연구를 계기로 국가를 위한 배상명령에 대한 많은 논의가 있기를 기대한다. This study suggests that the government treasury can be recovered more quickly and efficiently by using the compensation order procedure stipulated in the ｢Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings｣, rather than filing a separate state litigation against criminals for the loss of the national treasury due to crime. started with thinking. In the meantime, it seems that the discussion and research on the compensation order has been mainly focused on analyzing the problems and causes and improving them under the recognition that the compensation order is limited in terms of system and operation. The compensation order is stipulated to be ordered by the victim (including heirs) of the targeted crime or by the court ex officio. Therefore, if the state is a victim of fraud or embezzlement, it is judged that the state can also receive a compensation order as a victim of a crime or ex officio. If the state can use the compensation order to recover the national treasury loss, the delay in litigation and various burdens caused by having to file a separate civil lawsuit can be reduced. With the increase in national finances due to the active strengthening of the state’s functions, it is necessary to utilize the compensation order in the reality that the loss of the state treasury due to crimes against the state is also increasing. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find discussions or studies on this. There were eight cases in which the litigants individually applied for a compensation order for the state, and only one case was cited. The ｢ Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings｣ does not allow an appeal against the rejection of an application for a compensation order. This infringes on the rights of crime victims and requires revision. The procedure for ordering compensation for the state is the state litigation. Therefore, according to the ｢Act on Litigation to which The State is a Party｣, the prosecution will lead the litigation, so it will be possible to conduct litigation efficiently. With this study as an opportunity, it is expected that there will be many discussions about the compensation order for the state.

외국 형사관할권으로부터 국가공무원 면제의 제한: 국제범죄에 대한 유엔 ILC 초안 규정(제7조)을 중심으로

이춘선(LEE, Chunseun) 서울국제법연구원 2024 서울국제법연구 Vol.31 No.2

State Immunity has been changed in the two aspects after the Second World War. The first change is that most States have accepted the doctrine of restrictive immunity from that of absolute immunity. Under this restrictive immunity, UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property was signed in 2004. However, this convention do not cover criminal proceedings. States and their officials continue to enjoy the absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction.<BR/> The second change is that there has been a discernible trend towards limiting immunity from jurisdiction against the international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crime, torture, ect.<BR/> Regarding these issues, UN International Law Commission (ILC) has started the codification under the title of ‘Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction’ in 2007 and has adopted the first reading draft articles in 2022. UN ILC is now making the second reading draft articles in consideration of the comments and observations by governments on the first reading draft articles.<BR/> The most important and also controversial issue in these draft articles is the limitations and exceptions to immunity ratione materiae in respect of 6 crimes under international law such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, apartheid, and enforced disappearance. The limitation of immunity against the great violation of human rights is supported by majority of States for international criminal justice and the fight against impunity, but some States such as USA, Russia, and China are against this Article due to the lack of state practices and reflections of customary law. However, the limitation of immunity on the international crimes would be desirable in the progressive points of view for the future development of international law.<BR/> Therefore, UN ILC has to make more efforts to build a valuable consensus among the ILC members and more collaborations for the second reading of the draft article included with the new elements for all Stats.<BR/> UN ILC has a good experience in the adoption of ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in 2001. ILC, If necessary, may take the enough time to properly digest and consider States’ comments and observations for the balanced draft articles.

고소의 객관적 불가분 원칙의 적용 범위 재검토-서울서부지방법원 2017. 9. 28. 선고 2017노818 판결

여한울 사법발전재단 2024 사법 Vol.1 No.69

With the prohibition of private revenge, the era of the monopoly of the state penalty has begun. Under the monopoly of the state penalty, the state exercised the right to punishment formally in proportion to the guilt without being influenced by the victim. Under the monopoly of the state penalty, all crimes were set as offences prosecutable without a complaint, and criminals were punished unconditionally even if the victim expressed his or her intention not to be punished. To a certain extent that the will of the victim may be respected, an offence prosecutable upon a complaint was set as an exception to the monopoly of the state penalty, but according to the objective indivisibility principle of the crime complaint, the victim’s right to sue was restricted. Under the objective indivisibility principle of the crime complaint, the victim can merely decide whether to punish the whole of the crime but cannot file a complaint seeking punishment only for the part of the crime. Even if such a complaint is made, the complaint will affect the whole of the crime. However, the objective indivisibility principle of the crime complaint was merely created at the request of the formal exercise of the state penalty, and there is no basis for it under the legal provisions. There is no reason to mechanically apply the objective indivisibility principle of the crime complaint to today’s spirit of reflecting the victim’s intentions more in criminal proceedings. Rather, further reflecting the victim’s intention in criminal proceedings by weakening the formalization of the exercise of the state penalty is reasonable.

기후위기 시대에 기후범죄에 대한 소고–기후범죄의 개념, 유형 및 성격을 중심으로-

김재윤 한국법학회 2025 법학연구 Vol.98 No.-

"Climate change" is both a transformation of nature and one of the most dramatic threats faced by humanity—so severe that it is often discussed as a matter of human "existential crisis." In this era of climate crisis, criminal law scholars and criminologists can no longer dismiss the issues of global warming and climate change as merely policy matters. Therefore, it is necessary for scholars in the field of criminal law to clearly define the concept of climate crimes, examine the various types of such crimes, and analyze their characteristics—moving beyond the traditional notion of environmental crime. In this paper, "climate crimes" are defined as “acts that significantly contribute to global warming and climate change by infringing on the rights of nature or violating environmental protection laws, resulting in species extinction, ecosystem destruction, or the permanent alteration of natural cycles.” Regarding the types of climate crimes, the paper examines four categories proposed by American criminologist Ronald C. Kramer. According to Kramer, climate crimes can be broadly classified as follows: ① Climate crimes as carbon crimes — involving the continued extraction of fossil fuels and the resulting increase in carbon emissions; ② Climate crimes as political inaction — involving the failure to reduce carbon emissions due to political negligence or omission; ③ Climate change denial crimes — involving the organized denial or rejection of climate change through conservative think tanks; ④ Imperial climate crimes — involving oil wars, military emissions of greenhouse gases, and unjust, militarized forms of adaptation to the climate crisis. Climate crimes are characterized as "state-corporate crimes," arising from the interaction between state policies and corporate agendas. Additionally, they may also be regarded as a form of ecocide. In relation to the study of climate crimes, beyond the conceptual definition, classification, characteristics, and considerations for criminalization reviewed in this paper, further in-depth research on a range of related issues is necessary. However, among Kramer's typology, "carbon crimes" may be the most suitable for actual criminalization. Carbon crimes include violations of greenhouse gas emission regulations, false reporting, and illegal disposal of hazardous substances. Some countries, such as France, have already begun to enact legislation in this area. Thus, rather than immediately resorting to criminal penalties, it is advisable to first attempt alternative policy measures, and only consider criminalization as a last resort if these measures fail. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a catalyst for more active discussions on climate crime within the field of Korean criminal law. ‘기후변화(climate change)’는 자연의 변화인 동시에 인간에게 가해진 위협 중 가장 극적인 사례로 인간의 ‘실존적 위기’를 논할 정도로 심각하고 중대한 문제로 인식되고 있다. 이러한 기후위기의 시대에서 형법학자 또는 범죄학자는 지구온난화와 기후변화의 문제를 그저 기후정책의 문제로 치부할 수만은 없다. 따라서 형법학자는 종래 환경범죄를 넘어 기후범죄의 개념을 명확하게 정립하고 기후범죄에는 어떠한 유형이 있는지, 그리고 어떤 성격을 갖는지 검토할 필요가 있다. 이 글에서 ‘기후범죄(climate crimes)’란 “자연의 권리를 침해하거나 환경보호 관련 법규를 위반하여 종의 절멸, 생태계의 훼손 또는 자연 순환의 영구적 변경을 가져오는 지구온난화와 기후변화의 중대한 원인을 제공하는 행위”로 정의했다. 또한 기후범죄의 유형과 관련하여 미국 범죄학자인 로널드 크라머(Ronald C. Kramer)가 제시한 네 가지 유형을 살펴보았다. 즉 크라머는 기후범죄를 크게 ① 계속되는 화석연료 추출과 그에 따라 탄소배출량을 증가시키는 ‘탄소범죄로서 기후범죄’, ② 정치적 부작위를 통해 탄소배출량 감소 실패를 야기하는 ‘정치적 부작위로서 기후범죄’, ③ 보수적 싱크 탱크를 통해 조직적으로 기후변화를 거부하거나 부인하는 ‘기후변화 부인 기후범죄’, ④ 석유 전쟁, 군사적 온실가스 배출, 기후위기에 대한 부당하고 군국주의적인 적응 형태를 포함하는 ‘제국의 기후범죄’로 구분하였다. 그리고 기후범죄는 국가와 정부기관이 추구하는 정책과 기업이 추구하는 정책이 서로 상호작용을 일으켜 발생하는 범죄를 의미하는 ‘국가-기업범죄’로서의 성격을 갖는다. 또한 기후범죄는 생태학살(ecocide)로서의 성격도 갖는다. 기후범죄 연구와 관련하여 이 글에서 검토한 기후범죄의 개념정의, 유형, 성격, 그리고 실정 범죄화에 있어 유의점 이외에도 향후 여러 쟁점 사항에 대해 깊이 있는 연구가 필요하다. 다만 크라머의 기후범죄 유형 중 ‘탄소범죄’가 가장 실정 범죄화에 적합할 수 있다는 점, 탄소범죄는 온실가스 배출 규제위반, 허위 보고, 유해물질 불법 폐기 등을 포함하며, 프랑스처럼 일부 국가에서 이미 법제화가 시작되었다는 점, 이에 형벌보다 다른 정책수단을 우선 시도하고, 이것이 실패할 경우 최후수단으로 탄소범죄를 실정 범죄화하여 형사처벌을 고려할 필요가 있다. 향후 이 글을 계기로 한국 형법학계에서 기후범죄에 대한 논의가 보다 활성화되길 기대한다.

국가폭력범죄의 개념과 국가 책임구조 - 국가의 범죄행위 주체성을 중심으로 -

김혜경 대검찰청 2018 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.58

Many kinds of violent crime has been emerged or focused as serious theme of philosophy of our society in these days. Especially the violence by state is most perilous and uncontrolable because national violences always hide the name of law. For example, our society has experienced citizen's death by a police water cannon two years ago. It was the reason that the abuse of police power superficially but ulterior implication is that the state violent crime, the violence exercised by the state, has been done by nation whom just we call as 'citizen's protective coat'. But law systems have nature of both side so they control state as well as citizen. So criminal law system should operate against state, especially state violence crimes. But to accomplish this aim, it must be overcome how nation can commit crimes or how nation is able to receive punishment. In this paper I tried to solve these problems by deriving the concepts of the nature of the state compensation and the responsible subjects of administrative law fields and a critical review on the corporate criminal liability in terms of the responsibility principle. those systems and structures are very similar but not coincident. But the core of those areas is very valuable to let state be offender under existing law system. 당위적인 법과 존재하는 법 사이의 간극의 본질은 ‘국민의 법감정’이다. 당위 또는 지향하고자 하는 법의 이상이 존재하는 법으로 충전될 수 없을 때, 그 모든 괴리를 해석상의 문제로 환원하여 해결할 수는 없다. 국민의 법감정에 부합하도록 행한 법해석이 헌법의 허용할 수 있는 한계를 넘어설 때에는, 이는 자의적 해석으로 전락한다. 국가권력에 의한 범죄가 국민의 기본권을 침해하였음에도 불구하고, 법령 또는 명령에 의하여 집행한 국가기관으로서의 공무원만을 처벌하고 국가기관 자체는 범죄행위의 주체가 될 수 없다는 이유로 언제나 면책되는 결과가 국민의 법감정에 반한다면 일차적으로는 해석에 의존하여 이를 해결하고자 할 것이다. 형법은 국민에 대한 통제기능과 국가에 대한 통제기능을 모두 가지고 국민과 국가, 양자에 대한 양면적 구속성을 가져야 한다. 국가통제기능으로서 형법은 국가권력으로서의 국가작용 및 국가형벌권의 통제 작용을 하여야 하는바, 국가 역시 법에 위반하는 국민의 기본권 침해 작용을 하지 않아야 한다는 국가권력 통제 및 국가형벌권의 행사가 실질적 법치주의에 위반되어서는 안된다는 통제기능이 그것이다. 이는 국가의 국민보호의무와 불법·부당한 국가권력행사의 금지 의무를 의미한다. 이를 기초로, 구체적으로 책임의 사상 또는 본질은 국가책임이 손해배상의 형태로 이루어지고 있는 행정법상의 자기책임원칙, 특히 신자기책임설이나 위험책임설적 자기책임설에서 차용하고, 책임의 구조는 형법상 법인의 형사처벌에 관한 이론들의 원용 가능성을 근거로 설정하고, 구조적인 지위의 대체 가능성을 기초로 한 행위자의 면책가능성을 살펴보고자 한다. 국가의 행위주체로서 의사결정 능력은 국가권력의 행사 및 작용상 의사결정구조의 기능이고, 국가권력 행사는 의사결정구조의 결단에 따라 행해지는 국민과의 상호작용으로서의 외적 변화이다. 그리고 그것이 형법에 위반될 경우 국가 역시 국민과 동등하게 형법의 적용을 받는 고유한 범죄능력의 귀속자가 될 수 있다. 즉, 국가에 의한 전체적인 사회적 상호작용을 통해 불법성을 총체적으로 먼저 판단하고, 불법한 외적 변화에 대한 가담여부와 정도를 통해 각각의 책임의 양을 결정하는 것이다. 현대 국가의 본질이나 기능은 전통적인 형법상 책임주의를 완성한 근대 국가와는 많은 차이가 있다. 그러한 책임주의의 틀에 갇혀서 당위적으로 요구되는 법적 장치들을 포기하여야 한다면, 책임주의의 본질을 재조명하는 것도 우리 시대의 임무일 것이다. 그리고 이를 바탕으로 시대와 관념의 변화를 수용하고, 진정 국민의 자유와 권리를 보호하는 방안이 무엇인가를 찾아야 할 것이다.