미국 불법행위법상의 기여과실 - 기여과실론으로부터 비교과실론으로의 발달 -

장준혁 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.66 No.-

The history of American tort laws in the last two hundred years reveals a significant change of position on the important question of how to treat the plaintiff's fault. The earlier common law rule was contributory negligence rule. Under this rule that was first pronounced in the English case, Butterfield v. Forrester, the plaintiff shall be denied any compensation if he or she was contributorily negligent. This rule soon came to be recognized as part of common law in the United States. On the other hand, however, critics pointed to the harshness and impropriety of this rule for the victim and attacked the socio-legal basis of this rule as being one-sidedly pro-industry. The initial response from courts was the coinage of the last clear chance doctrine. However, this doctrine stopped at seeking to complement the contributory negligence rule in the context of causation in law. Ultimately, many states in the United States changed their position, either through statutory legislation or change of common law, to the rule of comparative negligence, whereby the plaintiff's fault shall only diminish the amount of compensation in proportion to his or her fault. However, state laws in the United States have tended to make this change relatively late and slowly. There are still a few states that remain faithful to the traditional rule of contributory negligence. It is submitted that Korean lawyers may find a few lessons or implications that can be learned from the historical development of and doctrinal discussion on the rule on the victim's fault in the United States. First, it should be noted that common laws in the United States approach the issue of the plaintiff's fault in tort law and not as part of the general law of obligations covering both contract and tort law. Korean Civil Code stipulates on this issue in the law on the obligor's failure to perform and draws on this same provision in tort law. Korean legislator could reconsider whether this way of legislation is preferable, in view of different policy implications in contract and tort law and the virtual abondonment of art. 396 in actual cases of Korean contract law. Second, one may note that contributory negligence rule is still adopted in a few states in the United States. Among others, the modified comparative negligence rule merits special consideration in the context of possible legislative reform of Korean Civil Code. There are cases where mutuality of the parties does exist in the real world, especially in traffic accident where two cars are involved. For example, a driver of a not expensive car who is minimally negligent should be protected from having to compensate the harm inflicted to the other driver who drove an expensive car and was severely negligent. A modified comparative negligence rule will prove its value by exempting the former driver from having to answer for his or her small proportion of fault. In the meantime, the author is not necessarily supporting the 50% or 49% rule. Korean legislator might also be interested in a more moderate reform of Korean law, e.g., by denying any compensation to a party who is more than doubly (such as 67%) negligent compared to the other party. Third, Korean court practice of allocating the loss on percentage basis may find collateral support as well as further guidance on related issues such as contribution from the United States practice. Fourth, American tort laws illustrate a tendency of possibly treating intentional torts differently from negligence, and this tendency also pertains in handling the plaintiff's fault. A special treatment of intentional tort is unknown to Korean Civil Code. However, it may be worthwhile to consider a legislative or interpretive approach of possibly treating intentional tort differently, and this may also include the scope of applicability of the rule on the plaintiff's fault.

전자금융거래법상 ‘이용자의 중대한 과실

김기창(Kim, Keechang) 한국정보법학회 2014 정보법학 Vol.18 No.3

전자금융거래법 제9조에 규정된 ‘이용자의 중대한 과실’은 ‘접근매체’가 노출된 경우인지, ‘추가적 보안조치에 사용되는 매체, 수단 또는 정보’가 노출된 경우인지를 구분하여 판단해야 하고, 후자는 오직 법 제9조 제1항 제3호로 신설된 유형의 사고거래 에서만 면책 사유로 고려될 수 있다. 계좌번호, 이체비밀번호, 보안카드비밀번호 등은 전자금융거래법상 ‘접근매체’가 아니다. 그러나 이런 정보만 있으면 아무나 쉽게 공인인증서를 온라인으로 즉시 입수할 수 있도록 인증서 재발급 과정을 은행들이 허술하고 방만하게 관리하기 때문에 보이스피싱/파밍 등의 공격이 극심하게 일어나고 있다. 은행과 금융결제원의 이러한 잘못된 행태를 마치 당연한 것처럼 전제로 삼고, 계좌비밀번호 등의 노출을 공인인증서 자체의 노출과 같은 것으로 확대해석해 줄 경우, 은행은 자신의 방만한 행위에 기대어 오히려 면책을 누리게 되는 부당한 결과가 생겨난다. 대법원은 중대한 과실을 일의적, 획일적으로 해석 적용하는 것이 아니라, 유형별로 상이한 정책적 고려를 반영하여 (1)주의 결여의 현저함만을 기준으로 삼거나(표의자,상속자의 중대한 과실), (2)주의 결여가 거의 고의에 가까운지를 기준으로 삼거나(실화자, 가해공무원의 중대한 과실), (3)거의 고의에 가까운 주의 결여 뿐 아니라, 공평의 관점에서 구태여 피해자를 보호할 필요가 없다고 봄이 상당한지를 기준으로 삼고 있다(피해자의 중대한 과실). 2013다86489판결은 중대한 과실의 법적 판단 기준에 대한 대법원 판결들은 일체 언급하지 아니하는 대신, 금융사고가 일어난 구체적인 경위등 유관한 모든 ‘사실관계’를 고려하여 판단해야 한다고 판시하고 있으나, 정작 해당 재판부가 전자금융사고 발생의 구체적 경위 등을 제대로 이해하였는지는 의문의 여지가 있다. 피싱/파밍 공격자에게 속아서 비밀번호 등 여러 정보를 시키는대로 고분 고분 입력해 준 이용자의 부주의함 만을 탓할 것이 아니라, 비밀번호 등을 입력하기만 하면 공인인증서를 온라인 상으로 즉시 재발급해 줌으로써 공인인증서의 보안가치를 스로 무장해제 시켜버린 은행의 잘못, 사고거래일 가능성이 ‘심각’하게 높다는 사실을 훤히알면서도 이체거래를 그대로 수행해버리는 은행의 무모하고 무책임한 행위도 적절히평가하여, ‘공평의 관점’에서 이용자의 중대한 과실 여부를 판단해야 할 것이다. 매년수천명씩 생겨나는 피싱/파밍 피해자들이 모두 ‘중대한 과실’이 있다고 보고 금융회사의 면책을 광범하게 인정할 경우, 은행들은 보다 안전한 금융거래 기술 도입을 위해 투자할 이유가 없고 국내 금융거래 보안 기술은 낙후성과 후진성을 벗어나기 어려울 것이다. Under Sec. 9 of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act of Korea (EFTA), ‘gross negligence’ of an individual user (as opposed to a commercial user) would provide a ground for full or partial immunity for financial institutions who would otherwise be strictly liable for loss caused by certain specified types of unauthorized fund transfers. The gross negligence under EFTA, however, is narrowly defined by the relevant ordinance so that court can find gross negligence only when the statutory “means of access” to one’s account is leaked or exposed. Account password, OTP, iTAN numbers are not included in the statutory definition of “means of access”. It would be wrong to find gross negligence on the ground that these passwords have been leaked or exposed by an individual who fell victim to phishing or pharming scheme. Supreme Court has maintained three different types of “gross negligence” reflecting different policy considerations. (1) In the case of gross negligence under Sec. 109 and Sec. 1019 of Civil Code, the court finds gross negligence when there is ‘manifest lack of attention’ and nothing more. (2) In the case of gross negligence under the Act Regarding Liability for Negligently Caused Fire and the State Compensation Act, the court would require more than manifest lack of attention. Gross negligence of a tortfeasor under these Acts will be found only when the carelessness is ‘close to deliberate knowledge’. (3) In the case of employer’s vicarious liability, the court would find victim’s gross negligence (which will bar the victim’s claim for compensation) when not only the carelessness of the victim is ‘close to deliberate knowledge’, but also ‘when there is a reasonable ground to conclude that, in fairness, the victim in question need not be protected’. Gross negligence of a victim of online fraud (under Sec. 9 of EFTA) should be determined in the same manner as the victim in employer’s vicarious liability cases. If the Court finds victim’s gross negligence on a low threshold and provides immunity for the banks relatively easily, then the banks would have little incentive to invest in better security standard to reduce the number of online fraud victims.

損害賠償 訴訟上의 醫療過失 -論點의 分析과 提言에 중점 두어-

손용근 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

This thesis seeks to provide a brief account of several problems associated with medical negligence in medical malpractice actions to recover damages and suggest some new ideas from the critical point of view. The summary of the thesis is as follows. First, more refined definition and analysis is due on medical negligence as one of medical treatmentrelated terms. So far, it is not yet well distinguished in its concept and coverage from treatment negligence and medical malpractice. Second, medical negligence is part of civil negligence approached from the medical perspective. Thus, the legal application of the notion of negligence should be studied with the secret, discretionary, and a prompt judgmental nature of medical acts in mind. Third, medical negligence poses a central issue in the medical malpractice actions to recover damages, regardless of whether claims arise under tort or in contract law. Although civil medical negligence to be established in the medical malpractice actions for damages is a so-called “abstract negligence,” the duty of care owed by average or customary practitioners is that of the highest attention duty of care. Nonetheless, the term “highest attention duty” has been understood as an abstract standard, which is a mere combination of several elements at the most. It is hoped that more studies should be devoted to the refinement of its meaning. Fourth, the precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea attributes the highest attention duty of care to medical practitioners, and negligence is practically presumed in the proof of medical negligence. However, such an approach has been a matter of dispute because it is ambiguous which duty of care is violated, and medical negligence is merely inferred from the totality of circumstantial facts such as a close proximity in time in the occurrence of events or the absence of intervening causes, etc. A refinement and further development is in demand. A continued use of some legal expressions, which have been established by the Supreme Court precedents since the 1990s, constitutes another problematic area. Some scholars, who are probably confused because of ambiguous expressions in the precedents, argued that the presumption of negligence is based on the so-called theory of probability. As an example, one of the hardened expressions “the burden of proof is alleviated … under the presumption of causal relation between medical negligence and damage” should be modified to the more accurate statement that “the burden of proof is alleviated … under the presumption of both medical negligence and the causal relation between medical negligence and damage.” The Court in its precedents has maintained its position requiring that negligence be established in the areas of both common knowledge and specialized medical knowledge. Such problematic position should be settled to the direction in which medical negligence is established by practically presuming negligence in the specialized medical knowledge. The highest attention duty of care is required to a medical practitioner, i.e., an average or customary practitioner. The highest attention duty, although it has only an abstract meaning, remains as a constant in its relation to medical negligence; whereas the level of best medical knowledge and clinical medical practice constitutes variables measured in the framework of relevant time period and local environment. Negligence shall be established by considering the functional relation between the above constant and variables, uninterruptedly examining whether the balance between them has remained intact, and searching for a new factor triggering a shift in the balancing point. As an example of one novel variable, we might want to consider adding a normative standard level to the standard of care, as it had been already adopted in Japan, not limiting relevant factors to merely social and environmental elements in clinical medical practice. It is high time for us...

미국에서의 의료과오에 대한 형사과실과 그 판단기준

최대호(Choi, Dae-Ho) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學論文集 Vol.44 No.2

본 논문은 최근 의료과오에 대한 형사소추 사건이 증가하고 있는 추세를 보이고 있는 미국의 형사판례를 분석하고, 이를 통해 우리나라에서의 의료과오에 관한 형사과실을 판단기준을 모색하였다. 그 내용을 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 미국에서는 의료과오사건이 주로 면허취소 등 행정처분이나 민사상 손해배상의 문제로 추급되고 있는 점을 고려한다면 미국에서의 의료과오사건에 대한 형사판례를 우리나라와 단순히 비교할 수는 없다. 특히 미국은 주(州)마다 차이를 보이고 있으므로 일률적으로 비교하기도 곤란하다. 그렇다고 하더라도 미국에서는 의료과오가 통상의 위험을 초과하는 중대한 위험이라고 평가되는 경우, 즉 ‘주의기준으로부터의 중대한 일탈’ 또는 ‘중대한 비난가능성’에 해당하는 경우 등을 형사과실의 판단기준으로 삼고 있다. 둘째, 미국판례에서는 의료인의 ‘주관적 사정’이 형사과실을 판단하는 데 큰 역할을 하고 있다. 의료과오는 복잡한 의학적 쟁점이 얽혀 있는 경우가 많고, 또 인과관계 및 주의의무의 기준을 평가하는 데 상당한 어려움이 있다. 이로 인하여 형사과실을 판단함에 있어 타인의 안전을 ‘완전히 무시’하거나 실질적으로 ‘정당화할 수 없는 위험을 의식적으로 경시’하는 경우 등 의료인의 주관적 측면을 많이 고려하게 된다. 이에 비해, 우리나라에서는 의사가 결과발생에 대한 예견가능성이 인정되더라도 당시 의료수준에 입각하여 그 결과에 대한 회피가능성을 인정할 수 없는 경우에는 형사과실을 부정하게 된다. 셋째, 우리나라에서는 의료과오에 대한 의료관계자의 형사과실에 대하여 형법 제268조의 ‘업무상과실·중과실치사상죄’가 적용된다. 중과실치사상죄의 경우에서 ‘중대한 과실’이란 일반적으로 주의의무위반의 정도가 현저한 경우 즉 사소한 주의를 기울임으로써 주의의무를 다할 수 있었음에도 이를 태만히 하여 범죄결과를 발생시켰기 때문에 중한 법적 비난을 가하여야 할 경우를 의미한다. 그런데 미국에서의 중대한 과실 또는 중대한 일탈이란 단순한 민사상 과실과 구별되는 ‘중대한’이며, 그 중대한은 형사과실의 하한으로서 기능하고 있을 뿐이다. 마지막으로 단순한 실수의 경우 우리나라에서는 형사과실로 인정되는 경향이 높지만, 미국에서는 누구나 범할 수 있는 실수로서 형사과실로 인정되지 않는다. 단순한 조작적 실수처럼 보이는 경우에도 구체적인 상황에 따라서는 회피하기 곤란한 경우도 있기 때문에 ‘초보적인 실수’라는 이유만으로 과실을 쉽게 인정하는 것은 위험하다. 이에 비해, 진단 및 수술의 경우에는 의사의 전문적인 지식 및 기술, 경험에 좌우되고 광범위한 재량도 인정되고 있기 때문에 과실이 중대한지 여부를 판단하는 데에는 의학적 지식이 필요하게 되는 경우가 있다. This paper analyzes criminal precedents in the United States, which show a trend of increasing criminal prosecutions against medical malpractice in recent years, and by doing so, sought criteria for judging criminal negligence in medical malpractice in Korea. the contents are as follows. First, in the United States, considering the fact that medical malpractice cases are mainly promoted due to administrative dispositions such as license cancellation or civil damages, the criminal case for medical malpractice cases in the United States cannot be simply compared with Korea. In particular, the United States is different from state to state, so it is difficult to compare uniformly. even so, in the United States, medical errors are assessed as serious risks that exceed normal risks. in other words, cases that fall under “critical deviation from state standards” or “significant criticism” are used as criteria for criminal negligence. Second, in the US case, the “subjective assessment” of medical personnel plays a large role in judging criminal negligence. the medical mistakes are often complicated by medical issues, and there are significant difficulties in evaluating causality and standards of care. as a result, in judging criminal negligence, the subjective aspects of the healthcare practitioner, such as “completely ignoring” the safety of others or actually “consciously neglecting risks that cannot be justified,” are considered. on the other hand, in Korea, even if the doctor predicts the possibility of the occurrence of the outcome, the criminal negligence will be denied if the possibility of avoidance of the outcome cannot be recognized based on the medical level at the time. Third, in Korea, the “offenses for business negligence and gross negligence” of Article 268 of the Criminal Code are applied to the criminal negligence of medical personnel for medical malpractice. “the gross negligence” generally refers to a case where the degree of violation of the duty of duty is remarkable, that is, even though it is possible to fulfill the duty of caution by paying little attention, the neglect of this has resulted in a crime, and serious legal criticism is to be applied. however, serious negligence or serious deviation in the United States is “significant” that is distinguished from simple civil negligence, and its significance only serves as the lower limit of criminal negligence. Lastly, in the case of simple mistakes, the tendency to be recognized as criminal negligence in Korea is high, but in the United States, it is not recognized as criminal error as a mistake that anyone can commit. even if it seems like a simple operational mistake, it may be difficult to avoid the error simply because it is a “elementary mistake” because it may be difficult to avoid depending on the specific situation. on the other hand, in the case of diagnosis and surgery, medical knowledge is sometimes required to determine whether negligence is serious or not, because it Depends on the doctor s professional knowledge, skills and experience, and also extensive discretion is recognized.

형법상 업무상과실과 중과실의개념 및 적용에 대한 고찰

고명수 인하대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學硏究 Vol.23 No.3

This study deals with professional negligence and gross negligence, which are punished more severely for increased illegality and guilt than negligence. From the point of view that this aggravated punishment should be justified according to the principle of criminal liability, the reason for this aggravated punishment is analyzed. Each concept and standard judgment of both types of negligence is also presented. And through case analysis, suitable measures are sought for professional negligence, gross negligence and professional gross negligence. The focus of the aggravated punishment between professional negligence and gross negligence is different. Professional negligence is not related to the degree of violation of duty of care in the specific negligent act. There is only an increase in the illegal assessment of the occurrence of consequences, in that the social status of the worker objectively requires a higher ability to predict or avoid the occurrence of consequences. The aggravated punishment for gross negligence, on the other hand, is due to the occurrence of consequences that could have been avoided with a little care. In other words, a serious violation of duty of care must be confirmed. It could therefore be pointed out that the aggravated punishment for professional negligence is not only less justified than that for gross negligence, but also in fact a double punishment. However, professional negligence and gross negligence are stipulated in parallel and selectively and have the same statutory punishment. In the same context, it is not correct to treat professional negligence and professional gross negligence equally. The violation of the duty of care is the essence of the punishment for negligence, so a differentiated punishment should be determined according to the degree of the specific illegality of the act. In the case of professional negligence, it should therefore always be specifically determined whether it is professional gross negligence according to the criteria of gross negligence; this should be reflected in the stage of determination of punishment. 본고는 보통과실에 비해 가중 처벌되는 업무상과실·중과실을 다룬다. 각 과실에 대한 가중 처벌은 책임원칙에 의해 정당화되어야 한다는 관점에서 관련 판례를 분석하고 각 개념·판단척도·가중 처벌근거를 고찰한다. 이를 바탕으로 업무상과실·중과실, 그리고 업무상중과실에 대한 바람직한 취급방안을 모색한다. 형법상 업무상과실과 중과실은 병렬적·선택적으로 규정되어 있고 동일한 법정형으로 규율된다. 그런데 업무상과실과 중과실은 각기 다른 이유로 보통과실에 비해 가중 처벌된다. 업무상과실은 중과실과 달리 주의의무위반의 구체적인 정도를 문제 삼지 않는다. 업무자는 일반인보다 높은 주의능력을 갖추어야 한다는 규범적 요청에 근거하여 -이때 업무자가 해당 사안에서 실제 그러한 고도의 능력을 갖추었는지는 불문하고-, 업무상과실은 보통과실과 동일한 정도의 주의의무위반이지만 그 위반에 대한 불법성이 가중 평가된다. 그에 반해 중과실에 대한 가중 처벌은, 약간의 주의만 기울이면 결과발생을 회피할 수 있었음에도 그렇게 하지 않은 가중된 불법 또는 책임에 기인한다. 즉, 구체적으로 발생된 중대한 주의의무위반이 요구된다. 따라서 행위책임의 관점에서 업무상과실에 대한 가중 처벌은 중과실의 경우보다 정당성이 부족하다. 게다가 업무성은 그 자체로 (객관적) 주의의무위반, 즉 (보통)과실범 성립을 위한 기준에 영향을 미친다. 구성요건요소로서 주의의무위반은 행위자의 범주에 있는 평균적 사람을 기준으로 객관적으로 판단되기 때문에 업무자 지위에서 행한 과실행위는 일반인의 동일한 행위에 비해 (보통)과실범 성립이 더 용이하다. 이를 고려할 때, 업무상과실과 중과실에 대한 동일한 규율의 타당성을 재고해볼 필요가 있다. 그리고 업무상과실 성립범위를 엄격히 해석할 필요가 있다. 그 성립을 위해서는 생명·신체를 침해할 위험이 있는 업무에 직접적이고 구체적으로 관련되어야 하고 그 위험성을 일반인은 알기 어려운 사정이 인정되어야 한다. 또한, 주된 업무 외에 그에 부수되는 업무의 범위는 업무 평균인의 객관적인 주의능력이 실질적으로 미칠 수 있는지를 기준으로 하여 결정되어야 한다. 같은 맥락에서 업무상과실과 업무상중과실 간 동일취급은 바람직하지 않다. 인과관계 규명이 어려운 의료영역에서의 중과실 사안(의료중과실)에 대해 독일에서처럼 정책적으로 입증책임전환·경감을 고려해볼 수는 있다. 그러나 업무상중과실이라는 이유로 과실과 결과발생 간 인과관계가 추정되어야 할 이유는 없다. 주의의무위반이 과실범의 본질이고 따라서 행위불법의 구체적인 정도에 따른 차별화된 선고형이 결정되어야 하는 바, 업무상과실 사안에서 해당 과실의 중과실 여부를 중과실 판단기준에 따라 항상 구체적으로 판단하여 이를 업무상과실범의 양형에 반영하여야 할 것이다. 이를 통해 업무상과실범에 대한 선고형이 업무상중과실의 경우와 유형화·차등화 되어 합리적으로 조정되고 주의의무위반의 구체적인 정도가 선고형 결정에 반영될 수 있다.

업무상과실 및 중과실에 관한 고찰

이효진 忠南大學校 法學硏究所 2021 法學硏究 Vol.32 No.3

우리 형법은 과실의 개념을 명문으로 규정하고, 업무상과실 및 중과실 을 보통의 과실에 비해 가중처벌하거나, 보통의 과실은 처벌하지 않으면 서 업무상과실 및 중과실만을 처벌하는 입법 태도를 취하고 있다. 주관적 주의의무위반을 과실범의 구성요건요소에 포함시키거나, 개인의 주관적 능력을 과실의 판단기준으로 삼으려는 학설이 유력하게 제기되고 있으 나, 우리 형법이 “정상의 주의”를 과실의 본질적인 개념 표지로 밝히고 있다는 점에서, 이러한 학설을 그대로 받아들이기는 어렵다. 통설인 이중 적 지위설과 객관설을 따르되, 우리 입법에 맞는 해석론을 정립해야 할 필요가 있다. 업무상과실을 보통의 과실에 비해 가중처벌하는 우리의 입 법 태도는 기본적으로 업무상과실이 보통의 과실에 비해 불법이 가중된 다는 점에 이론적 근거를 두고 있지만, 일반예방적 효과를 거두고자 하는 규범적 요청 및 책임이 가중된다는 점도 함께 반영된 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 이러한 이론적 근거들을 종합적으로 고려할 때, 업무상과실의 “업 무” 범위는 해당 범죄의 보호법익을 침해할 위험을 수반하는 업무로 제 한되는 것이 타당하다. 중과실은 주의의무위반의 정도가 중하여 불법이 가중되기 때문에 가중처벌하는 것이나, 어떠한 경우가 여기에 해당하는 지를 판단하는 것은 쉽지 않은 문제이므로, 중과실에 대한 구체적인 판단 기준이 정립될 필요가 있다. 업무상과실에 있어 “업무”를 제한적으로 해 석한다면, 실무상 좀 더 적극적으로 중과실에 대해 검토할 것이고, 그 과 정에서 중과실에 대한 구체적인 판단기준이 정립될 것으로 기대된다. 또 한, 업무상과실에 해당하는 점이 확인될 때에도, 형사절차에 있어 적정한 양형이 가능하도록 중과실 해당 여부에 대해서도 충분한 수사나 심리를 한다면, 피해자의 민사상 구제 측면에서도 바람직한 결과가 될 수 있다. South Korean criminal law differs from German criminal law in that it has a conceptual rule on negligence, it punishes professional negligence and gross negligence more than ordinary negligence, or punishes only professional negligence and gross negligence without punishment of ordinary negligence. While theories are widely suggested to include subjective violations in the components of negligence or to use individuals’ subjective abilities as the basis for judgment of negligence, it is difficult to accept this theory as ‘normal attention’ is an essential concept of negligence. It is necessary to take dual-status theory and objective theory, which are popular theories on negligence, but to establish interpretations that fit South Korean legislation. South Korean legislative attitude, which punishes professional negligence stronger than ordinary negligence, is based on the theory that professional negligence is more illegal compared to ordinary negligence, but it can also be seen as reflecting normative requests for general preventive effects and more responsibilities. Considering these rationale comprehensively, it is reasonable that the scope of “profession” is limited to profession that involves the risk of infringing on the protective interests of the crime. South Korean criminal law punishes gross negligence stronger than ordinary negligence because the degree of violation of the duty of caution is so severe that illegalities are aggravated. However, it is not easy to determine which cases correspond to it, so specific criteria for determination of gross negligence need to be established. If “profession” is interpreted as limited, gross negligence will be more actively reviewed in practice, and in the process, specific criteria for judgment on gross negligence are expected to be established. In addition, if a serious investigation or hearing is conducted to ensure proper sentencing in criminal procedures, it can have a desirable effect in terms of civil remedy for victims.

위험사회와 과실의 공동정범

김재희(Kim, Zae-Hee) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3

Today, the technological development and the increase of intimate relations among social structures augment danger. The civilization made lots of sources of danger in consideration of it and having uncertain features, sources of danger are unpredictable. The criminal law guarantees security of citizen, especially it focuses on environment; narcotic, traffic, manufactures and medical care. Nowadays, almost theories of criminal law base on the deliberate offense. However, I would like to discuss on whether we presume the accomplice of negligence in perceiving lots of accidents occur as the negligence, ‘co-principals of Crime by negligence’ frequently occurs as many as ‘deliberate conspiracy’. According to the Korean penal code 30th , the co-principals of crime is committing in conspiracy over two, so it is possible to construct as the positive term and negative vice versa. Could you submit the theory about usual the deliberate offense and deliberate co-principals of crime for settling the question about requisite and purview of co-principals of Crime by negligence? Therefore, I approached to solve as it requires the new benefit and protection of the law from a different standpoint. We can figure the profit and loss out the view of co-principals of Crime by negligence. I checked up the change of precedent , relation between ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’, and ‘simultaneous crimes’ and approved requisite. It is wonder wether co-principals of Crime by negligence own responsibility is presumed as whole or not. But, it is not resonable because the co-principals of Crime by negligence joint the constituent requisite of tort not individual reproach of obligation. This solution is not pertinent because the criminal negligence is different from deliberate offense in lawful complete structure. Also, finding of ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’ is not issue of the theory of obligation that which one concretely raises tort among escheat of subjects. Focusing on the result, it is certain that an effect is raised by all volunteers. Accordingly, the act among escheat of subjects can not separate when they are intimately associated with together. From this point of view, it regards as appropriate that the co-principals of Crime by negligence lies. Moreover, I checked up the change of precedent , relation between ‘the co-principals of Crime by negligence’, and ‘simultaneous crimes’ and approved requisite.

형사상 중과실 해석·적용의 판단기준 - 구성요건실현의 개연적 상황 -

김정환 ( Kim Jong Hwan ) 연세법학회 2021 연세법학 Vol.38 No.-

The concept of gross negligence is used to regulate issues that have arisen from the technical and industrial development as well as traditional penal offenses. Nonetheless, there are only few discussions on gross negligence, and the cases in which gross negligence was recognized are hard to be found. Hence, this article aims to review the interpretative criteria of criminal gross negligence while expecting the application of the punitive provisions on gross negligence. There was a single provision on gross negligence in the Criminal Act that had been applied from 1948 to 1953, but now there are numerous provisions in current Criminal Act. Those provisions are usually concerned with protecting the environment and resources, protecting the public safety from hazardous substances, providing safety net for particular transactions. Apart from the type that is an aggravated form of negligence, professional negligence exists to immediately impose severe condemnation, regardless of the violation of duty of care. Professional negligence and gross negligence are selectively stipulated in some provisions whereas gross negligence is solely stipulated in other provisions. Thus, it can be assumed that the lawmaker assigned different roles to each one. If the duty of care pertains to the relevant task, the provisions on professional negligence would be applied; if the duty of care does not pertain to the relevant task, the illegality of the violation should be severe in order for the provisions on gross negligence to be applied. While speaking of the concept of gross negligence, it is crucial to point out the contents of negligence that has fundamentally increased than the regular negligence. The nature of negligence is failing to fulfill the duty of care to prevent such results, not specifically violating the benefit and protection of law. Since the duty of care is objectively evaluated, the duty of care in terms of gross negligence is due to not avoiding the realization of elements of crime that was easily foreseen. When the illegality of such gross negligence is recognized, gross negligence would be validated whether or not the offender was aware of the negligence. If it could be objectively evaluated that the offender could have easily predicted the realization of elements of crime, regardless of whether the offender was aware of it, gross negligence can be validated. Even in cases in which gross negligence was addressed, when the result of elements of crime or the occurrence of such peril could be objectively recognized irrespective of the offender’s awareness, the offender’s act was judged as gross negligence. This would be the reasonable interpretation and application of gross negligence.

자동차사고와 과실상계

김성연 ( Kim Seongyeon ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.4

Most of the disputes about car accidents relate to the fault rate. However, unreasonable points regarding the calculation of the ratio of negligence are constantly being raised. The current car insurance system often causes victims to make more damages in traffic accidents. Despite the emotional injury, it is often necessary to compensate more than the offender by applying a mechanical fault rate. Except for the fact that the perpetrator has a 100% fault, the practice and the precedent of the liability system for damages caused by the current car accident are taking the attitude of acknowledging the responsibility of compensating the perpetrator as well as offsetting the fault to the injured party. As a result, there is an unfair situation between the perpetrator and the victim, which is a problem. This attitude can eventually result in aiding the illegal abuse of the perpetrator, which is not compatible with the ideal of the Road Traffic Act to reduce traffic accidents. The root cause of these problems arises from the fact that civil liability does not distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim, especially in the application of insurance. In the event of a traffic accident, a police investigation confirms the perpetrator and the victim, and even if the injunction is granted in accordance with the usual rate of fault, it is not consistent with the common use of the expression “perpetrator” or “victim”. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the victim from the perpetrator in the car accident first. As a rule, it seems to be judged by whose fault the damage was caused. It is necessary to confirm the person who has a major and critical influence on the occurrence of the damage as the perpetrator. If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim 's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely. The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of error as an offsetting of the negligence. The root cause of these problems arises from the fact that civil liability does not distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim, especially in the application of insurance. In the event of a traffic accident, a police investigation confirms the offender and the victim. We also use the expression “abuser” and “victim” when recognizing damages based on the ratio of negligence. Practice does not match this reality. Therefore, in the case of a car accident, it is first necessary to distinguish the victim from the perpetrator. As a rule, it seems to be judged by whose fault the damage was caused. It is necessary to confirm the person who has a major and critical influence on the occurrence of the damage as the perpetrator. It may be an fault as a liability requirement that causes an accident in violation of a state's obligation, even though the accident may be foreseeable. If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely. The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of fault as an offsetting of the negligence. If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely. The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of error as an offsetting of the negligence.

과태료 제도의 현안과 「질서위반행위규제법」의 개정방안

정남철 법조협회 2022 法曹 Vol.71 No.1

The Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order was enacted in 2007 to regulate imposition and collection of fines for negligence scattered across individual laws. However, this law is a reference to Act on Violation of Order (OwiG) of Germany and has a structure centered on criminal procedures. In addition, the trial of fines for negligence is operated as a non-litigation case procedure. The fine system, which is an administrative punishment for violations of order, is gradually developing as a means of monetary sanctions for violations of administrative law and regulations. This fine system has long been treated as an administrative punishment among the means of securing the effectiveness of administration sanctions in administrative law. The number of regulations imposing fines for negligence in individual laws is increasing, and the amount of fines for negligence is also gradually increasing. In addition, even after the enactment of The Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, a number of problems have been exposed in the procedures for imposing and collecting fines for negligence. It is time for a paradigm shift in the fine system. Individual laws usually stipulate object and subject of imposition of fines for negligence, and the specific procedures for imposition, collection, trial and execution are in accordance with the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order. As a way to amend the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, it is necessary to improve the procedure for imposing fines for negligence. First, in order to effectively guarantee the investigation right of the administrative agency, regulations should be prepared to request cooperation or support from the police, such as on-site investigations or identification etc. In addition, in relation to the imposition of fines for negligence, the right to read documents of the parties must be guaranteed. Second, the administrative agency’s review authority should be guaranteed in the process of raising an objection to the imposition of a fine for negligence. Now, when the administrative agency notifies the court after the parties have raised an objection, the system proceeds to a trial on a fine for negligence. This should be improved, and the administrative agency should be able to decide to cancel the imposition of a fine for negligence in response to objections. Third, it should be possible to file an administrative adjudication or administrative litigation as a means of appeal against the decision of a fine for negligence. Lastly, there is a need to shift the enforcement of the fine for negligence to the administrative agency and to dualize the procedure for collecting fines for negligence. In other words, if the subject of the imposition of a fine for negligence is a state institution, it should be collected according to the example of compulsory national tax collection, and if a local government is the subject of imposition, it should be collected in accordance with the Act on Collection of Local Administrative Sanctions and Charges, etc. In addition, the publication of lists should be introduced for practical sanctions against habitual delinquents. Since a lot of previous studies on the improvement of the fine system have been accumulated, we expect the revision of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order and practical reform through detailed theoretical review and verification. 개별법에 산재한 과태료의 부과 및 징수 등을 규율하기 위해 2007년에 질서위반행위규제법이 제정되었다. 그러나 이 법률은 독일의 질서위반법을 참고한 것으로서 형사절차 중심의 구조로 되어 있다. 또한 과태료 재판을 비송사건절차로 운영하고 있다. 질서위반행위에 대한 행정질서벌인 과태료 제도는 점차 행정법규의 위반에 대한 금전적 제재수단으로 발전하고 있다. 이러한 과태료 제도는 오래전부터 행정법학에서 행정의 실효성 확보수단 중 행정벌로 다루고 있다. 개별법령에 과태료를 부과하는 규정이 늘고 있으며, 과태료의 부과금액도 점차 높아지고 있다. 또한 질서위반행위규제법이 제정된 후에도 과태료의 부과절차 및 징수절차에서 적지 않은 문제점도 노출되고 있다. 과태료 제도의 패러다임 전환이 필요한 시점이다. 개별법에는 과태료의 부과대상 및 부과주체를 규정하고 있는 것이 보통이며, 그 구체적인 부과절차나 징수절차, 재판 및 집행은 질서위반행위규제법에 따르고 있다. 질서위반행위규제법의 개정방안으로 과태료 부과절차의 개선이 필요하다. 첫째, 행정청의 조사권을 실질적으로 보장하기 위해 현장조사나 신분확인 등에 경찰의 협조나 지원을 요청할 수 있는 규정을 마련하여야 한다. 또한 과태료 부과처분과 관련하여 당사자의 문서열람권을 보장하여야 한다. 둘째, 과태료 부과처분에 대한 이의제기 절차에서 행정청의 심사 권한을 보장하여야 한다. 지금은 당사자의 이의제기 후 행정청이 법원에 통보하면 과태료 재판으로 넘어가는 구조로 되어 있다. 이 규정은 개선되어야 하며, 이의제기에 대해 행정청이 과태료 부과처분의 취소를 결정할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 과태료 결정에 대한 불복수단으로 행정심판 또는 행정소송을 제기할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 마지막으로 과태료 재판의 집행을 행정청 중심으로 전환하고 과태료의 징수절차를 이원화할 필요가 있다. 즉 과태료의 부과주체가 국가기관인 경우에는 국세강제징수의 예에 의하고, 지방자치단체가 부과주체인 경우에는 ‘지방행정제재・부과금의 징수 등에 관한 법률’에 따라 징수하도록 해야 한다. 그 밖에 고액상습체납자에 대한 실질적인 제재를 위해 명단공표에 관한 규정을 도입해야 한다. 과태료 제도의 개선에 관한 선행연구가 많이 축적되어 있으므로 세밀한 이론적 검토와 검증을 통해 앞으로 질서위반행위규제법의 개정과 실천적 개혁을 기대해 본다.