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.

中国刑法中的医疗事故罪

赵辉 원광대학교 법학연구소 2015 의생명과학과 법 Vol.13 No.-

의사의 범죄에 대해서 형법에 특별히 규정하고 있는 나라는 그리 많지 않다. 그러나 인신범죄로 규정한 업무상 과실로 크게 다치거나 죽는다는 법률 조항은 의사도 예외가 될 수 없다. 예를 들어, 1871년 독일 형법전 제222조에 규정: 과실로 사람이 죽게 되는 경우, 3년 이하의 금고에 처한다. 직업, 영업상의 부주의로 사람이 죽게 된 경우는 형법을 가중 적용하여 5년 이하의 금고에 처해야 한다. 일본 현행 형법전 제211조 규정: 필요한 주의를 태만해서 사람이 죽게 되면 5년 이하의 노역, 또는 100만원 이하의 벌금에 처한다. 중과실로 사람이 죽게 되는 것도 이와 같이 처리한다. 한국 현행 형법전 제268조 규정: 업무상 과실이나 중과실로 사람이 죽게 되면 5년 이하의 금고나 2000만원 이하의 벌금에 처한다. 위 국가와 달리, 중국 형법은 의사의 의료과실로 인한 의료사고죄에 대해 직접적이면서도 명확하게 규정했다. 중국 형법 제335조 규정: 의무요원이 주의를 다하지 않아서 환자를 사망하게 하거나 심각하게 환자의 인신 건강에 손해를 주면 3년 이하의 유기 징역이나 노역에 처한다. 이 법률 조항에 따라 중국 형법 이론과 실무계에서는 일반적으로 의료사고죄는 의무요원이 주의를 다하지 않아서 진찰하고 있는 환자가 사망하거나 환자의 인신 건강에 심각한 손해를 주는 행위에 한계를 정한다. 의료과정의 복잡성, 침입성은 의료행위의 위험성과 관련된다. 과학기술의 발전에 따라 많은 신 의료 설비, 의료기술, 의료수단은 의료진단 중에 사용된다. 사람들의 건강수요를 만족시키면서 의료행위의 위험 요소가 많아지고 있고, 그로 인한 의료손해도 자주 나타난다. 환자의 생명과 건강을 보호하기 위해 법률에 의무요원의 행위규범을 규제하는 규정과 요구가 필요하다. 중국 형법이 의료사고죄를 설치한 이유가 바로 여기에 있다. 그러나 의료과실 범죄의 형법규범은 장점과 단점의 양면성을 가지고 있다. 그것은 의무요원의 책임심이 강화되고 환자의 이익을 보호하는 반면에 무거운 처벌규정으로 인해 때문에 의무요원의 열의를 손상 시킬 수도 있다. 그래서 중국 형법은 일본, 한국과 달리 단독적으로 의료사고죄를 규정하고 가벼운 형벌을 설치한 방식은 당연히 의미가 있다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 법률 조항에는 부족한 점도 있는데, 그 예로 범죄 구성 요건의 규정, 법정형(法定刑)의 설치 등 문제는 아직도 재검토를 필요로 한다. Different from the criminal law of Japan and Korea, Chinese criminal law directly and clearly specifies the crime of medical accident caused by physician’s negligent act. According to the article of 335thin Chinese criminal law, the crime of medical accident is defined as the behavior which caused the death or serious injury to the victim due to the severe irresponsibility of the physician. Firstly, analysis of constitution of medical malpractice crime Specific provisions of Chinese criminal law demands the establishment of every specific crime meets subjective elements and objective elements which contains four basic elements: criminal object, objective aspect of crime, subject of a crime and subjective aspect of a crime. So does the crime of medical accident. The first, the object of the crime Chinese criminal law commonly believe that criminal object means the social relationships which protected by criminal law is assaulted and threatened by commission of offence. Although Chinese scholars still hold arguments for criminal object of medical accident, the current view that believes the object of this crime is the nation’s management order towards the medical practice and the rights of client’s life and health. The mange and managed legal relationship of medical management between nation and physician, the serve and served legal relationship of medical service between physician and clients. This two aspects constitutes the nation’s manage order towards medical practice. The second, objective aspect of the crime Objective aspect of crime means the criminal law stipulates and explains the feature of objectively external facts that the social relationship protected by criminal law causes damage by behavior. Objective aspect of the crime of medical accident, for the sever irresponsibility of doer which caused clients die or serious damage the health of clients. One, the identification of serious irresponsibility Serious irresponsibility means the physician violates medical regulations or routine of nursing care in every medical link, they default or incorrect perform the responsibility of the nursing care. The medical regulation and routine of nursing care are not only can be written but also convention which is conventional and obeyed by physician in practice. For how to understand the “serious” of “serious irresponsibility”, it’s usually judge the quality of the behavior from the result and subjective state of mind in practice. Two, the criterion for judgment of serious damage the health of clients The constitutional essential element of the crime is the harmful results that the physician causes the death or serious damage to the health of clients. As for what is serious damage to the health of the clients, the criminal law doesn’t give clear explanation and the educational circles have different viewpoints. The scholars start a series of discussions and form the different views of medical criteria, criminal criteria and standard of administrative law. There is no unified view so far. Three, the identification of causal relationship Establishment of the crime of medical accident, there must have casual relationships between violation of medical regulation and death or health serious damage. For the definition of the casual relationship of medical malpractice crime, Chinese scholars have lots of arguments. Some determine the causal relationship should be positive causal relationship in medical malpractice crime. That is the internal, inevitable and in conformity with the law’s casual relationship between medical behavior and clients. For the specialty of medical malpractice crime, some scholars believe we should make a concrete analysis of each specific question and support the application of causal relationship of epidemiology. Also many other scholars advocate we can analyze the responsibility of the physician with the help of the degree of medical fault participation. They propose to draw on the experience of five grade method in medical damage compensation cases to judge the participation of medical fault in medical damage case. Therefore, we can definite the causal relationship between medical fault and damage result. The third, subject of the crime The subject of crime means the implement behavior of damaging the society and the nature man and unit which should responsible for the action. According to the article of 335th, the subject of medical malpractice crime is the special subject, which is physician. The medical institution can’t be the subject of this crime. The so-called physician is the person, who is trained by medical colleges or departments at various levels, passes the examination and approved by public health administration, qualified as a doctor and engages in medical service work in practice. As for the medical support crew and medical administration staff belong to the physicians of this crime or not, most scholars don’t agree to put them into the scope of the subject of the crime. With regard to trainee of the physician can be the subject of the medical malpractice crime or not, the law has no clear explanation. Chinese scholars have different views, the strongest view is the trainee different from the formal physician and trainee can’t do the medical behavior or assistant work of diagnosis independently. They must guide by the qualified physician and engage with their medical behavior suitable for their major. Usually, the physician should fully responsible for the trainee. The fourth, subjective aspect of the crime The subjective aspect of a crime means the state of mind the subject of the crime hold for their own behavior and harmful social result. It concludes offence (intentionally or negligence), criminal purpose, criminal motive and so on. According to the rule of criminal law, the subjective fault of doer in medical malpractice crime is negligence, which contains careless and inadvertent negligence and negligence with undue assumption. Duty of care is the premise of the establishment of negligence. Attention ability is the condition of foundation of negligence. Combinations of them make the duty of care become possible. The basis of the duty of care in medical negligence concludes three aspects: First, the duty of care of health law and regulations; second, the duty of care of routine of nursing care; third, the duty of care of medical literature. The judgment criteria of doer have duty of care or not in medical malpractice crime, there exists three different opinions: first is subjectivism, second is objectivism, and third is unified subjective and objective theory. Currently most of the scholars support the third theory. Secondly, the differences among crime of medical accident, crime of negligent homicide and crime of negligent serious injury First, the content of the subjective negligence is different. The negligence in medical malpractice crime is professional negligence; it violates the duty of care in the process of medical diagnosis. While the fault of crime of negligent homicide and crime of negligent serious injury should only be ordinary negligence. Most are general negligence in daily life. Second, the pattern of manifestation is different in objective aspects. Objective aspects of medical malpractice crime shows serious irresponsibility, violates rules and regulations or the routine of nursing care in the diagnosis work. The objective aspect of crime of negligent homicide and crime of negligent serious injury shows lacking of focus to other’s health and life in daily life. Making others die or damage seriously due to action or forbearance. Third, subject of the crime is different. The subject of medical malpractice crime should be physician while the subject of fault of crime of negligent homicide and crime of negligent serious injury can be the nature person who own criminal liability and reach the age of 16. Fourth, the legal interest assaulted is different. The medical malpractice crime not only assault other people’s life or health, but also the management order of nations towards medical practice. However, crime of negligent homicide and crime of negligent serious injury only injure the rights of other’s life and health. In addition, compares with Japanese and Korean criminal law, put the medical malpractice crime into professional negligence, Chinese criminal law sets the legislative mode of medical malpractice crime independently is relatively rational. First of all, the legislative mode of Chinese criminal law is direct and clear. Next, the medical behavior belongs to the highly specialized technical field, which is unusual. It’s not proper to apply medical negligence the same statutory sentence as others negligence. Thirdly, the problems in legislation of crime of medical accident The first, essence of crime regulation is not clear What is serious irresponsibility and what is serious damage the health of clients are both lack of clear definition. This makes the constitution of the crime lost its constancy and range of function which cause the disputes in theoretical research, even the chaos of medical malpractice crime in juridical practice. The second, the category of punishment of statutory sentence is singleness Chinese current criminal law stipulates the statutory sentence of medical malpractice crime fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or detention. They both belong to the short-term freedom penalty. The statutory sentence’s category of punishment is singleness which will lead the selective choice of penalty of specific case is less and difficult to deal with the complex medical malpractice crime. The third, the extent of statutory sentence is too narrow; the setting of tallest penalty is too low The maximum statutory penalty of crime of negligent homicide has reached seven years fixed-term imprisonment in Chinese criminal law. The extent of the statutory sentence is three to seven years fixed-term imprisonment. When the circumstances of the crime are rather lighter, the sentence won’t more than three year’s fixed-term imprisonment. However, the same as offense of vocational negligence like the traffic accident crime, crime of negligently causing a serious accident, their extent of statutory sentence and maximum statutory penalty are both higher than medical malpractice crime.

中国刑法中的医疗事故罪

赵 辉 원광대학교 법학연구소 2015 의생명과학과 법 Vol.13 No.-

Different from the criminal law of Japan and Korea, Chinese criminal law directly and clearly specifies the crime of medical accident caused by physician’s negligent act. According to the article of 335thin Chinese criminal law, the crime of medical accident is defined as the behavior which caused the death or serious injury to the victim due to the severe irresponsibility of the physician. Firstly, analysis of constitution of medical malpractice crime Specific provisions of Chinese criminal law demands the establishment of every specific crime meets subjective elements and objective elements which contains four basic elements: criminal object, objective aspect of crime, subject of a crime and subjective aspect of a crime. So does the crime of medical accident. The first, the object of the crime Chinese criminal law commonly believe that criminal object means the social relationships which protected by criminal law is assaulted and threatened by commission of offence. Although Chinese scholars still hold arguments for criminal object of medical accident, the current view that believes the object of this crime is the nation’s management order towards the medical practice and the rights of client’s life and health. The mange and managed legal relationship of medical management between nation and physician, the serve and served legal relationship of medical service between physician and clients. This two aspects constitutes the nation’s manage order towards medical practice. The second, objective aspect of the crime Objective aspect of crime means the criminal law stipulates and explains the feature of objectively external facts that the social relationship protected by criminal law causes damage by behavior. Objective aspect of the crime of medical accident, for the sever irresponsibility of doer which caused clients die or serious damage the health of clients. One, the identification of serious irresponsibility Serious irresponsibility means the physician violates medical regulations or routine of nursing care in every medical link, they default or incorrect perform the responsibility of the nursing care. The medical regulation and routine of nursing care are not only can be written but also convention which is conventional and obeyed by physician in practice. For how to understand the “serious” of “serious irresponsibility”, it’s usually judge the quality of the behavior from the result and subjective state of mind in practice. Two, the criterion for judgment of serious damage the health of clients The constitutional essential element of the crime is the harmful results that the physician causes the death or serious damage to the health of clients. As for what is serious damage to the health of the clients, the criminal law doesn’t give clear explanation and the educational circles have different viewpoints. The scholars start a series of discussions and form the different views of medical criteria, criminal criteria and standard of administrative law. There is no unified view so far. Three, the identification of causal relationship Establishment of the crime of medical accident, there must have casual relationships between violation of medical regulation and death or health serious damage. For the definition of the casual relationship of medical malpractice crime, Chinese scholars have lots of arguments. Some determine the causal relationship should be positive causal relationship in medical malpractice crime. That is the internal, inevitable and in conformity with the law’s casual relationship between medical behavior and clients. For the specialty of medical malpractice crime, some scholars believe we should make a concrete analysis of each specific question and support the application of causal relationship of epidemiology. Also many other scholars advocate we can analyze the responsibility of the physician with the help of the degree of medical fault participation. They propose to draw on t... 의사의 범죄에 대해서 형법에 특별히 규정하고 있는 나라는 그리 많지 않다. 그러나 인신범죄로 규정한 업무상 과실로 크게 다치거나 죽는다는 법률 조항은 의사도 예외가 될 수 없다. 예를 들어, 1871년 독일 형법전 제222조에 규정: 과실로 사람이 죽게 되는 경우, 3년 이하의 금고에 처한다. 직업, 영업상의 부주의로 사람이 죽게 된 경우는 형법을 가중 적용하여 5년 이하의 금고에 처해야 한다. 일본 현행 형법전 제211조 규정: 필요한 주의를 태만해서 사람이 죽게 되면 5년 이하의 노역, 또는 100만원 이하의 벌금에 처한다. 중과실로 사람이 죽게 되는 것도 이와 같이 처리한다. 한국 현행 형법전 제268조 규정: 업무상 과실이나 중과실로 사람이 죽게 되면 5년 이하의 금고나 2000만원 이하의 벌금에 처한다. 위 국가와 달리, 중국 형법은 의사의 의료과실로 인한 의료사고죄에 대해 직접적이면서도 명확하게 규정했다. 중국 형법 제335조 규정: 의무요원이 주의를 다하지 않아서 환자를 사망하게 하거나 심각하게 환자의 인신 건강에 손해를 주면 3년 이하의 유기 징역이나 노역에 처한다. 이 법률 조항에 따라 중국 형법 이론과 실무계에서는 일반적으로 의료사고죄는 의무요원이 주의를 다하지 않아서 진찰하고 있는 환자가 사망하거나 환자의 인신 건강에 심각한 손해를 주는 행위에 한계를 정한다. 의료과정의 복잡성, 침입성은 의료행위의 위험성과 관련된다. 과학기술의 발전에 따라 많은 신 의료 설비, 의료기술, 의료수단은 의료진단 중에 사용된다. 사람들의 건강수요를 만족시키면서 의료행위의 위험 요소가 많아지고 있고, 그로 인한 의료손해도 자주 나타난다. 환자의 생명과 건강을 보호하기 위해 법률에 의무요원의 행위규범을 규제하는 규정과 요구가 필요하다. 중국 형법이 의료사고죄를 설치한 이유가 바로 여기에 있다. 그러나 의료과실 범죄의 형법규범은 장점과 단점의 양면성을 가지고 있다. 그것은 의무요원의 책임심이 강화되고 환자의 이익을 보호하는 반면에 무거운 처벌규정으로 인해 때문에 의무요원의 열의를 손상 시킬 수도 있다. 그래서 중국 형법은 일본, 한국과 달리 단독적으로 의료사고죄를 규정하고 가벼운 형벌을 설치한 방식은 당연히 의미가 있다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 법률 조항에는 부족한 점도 있는데, 그 예로 범죄 구성 요건의 규정, 법정형(法定刑)의 설치 등 문제는 아직도 재검토를 필요로 한다.

부하의 전쟁범죄에 대한 지휘관의 형사책임 : ICC규정 국내이행법률안에 대한 소견

박중섭(Joong-Sup Park) 大韓赤十字社 人道法硏究所 2007 人道法論叢 Vol.- No.27

국제조약을 통한 부하의 전쟁범죄에 대한 지휘관의 형사책임 인정은 군 지휘관으로 하여금 부하에 대한 지휘 통제권을 강화하고, 전쟁법 교육과 훈련 의무의 이행을 보다 촉진시키는 기능을 할 것이다. 이 논문에서는 지휘관의 부하범죄에 대한 형사책임 이론의 발전 연혁을 살펴보고, 지휘관 책임을 법제화한 로마규정의 내용을 검토한 다음, 위 로마규정의 국내이행 법률안에서의 군 지휘관 책임 관련 조항을 분석 검토하여 보았다. 현재 국회에 제출된 국내이행 법률안은 지금까지 발전되어 온 군 지휘관 책임 중 가장 넓게 형사책임을 인정하는 견해, 즉 군 지휘관의 과실의 경우(negligence, should have known)에까지 형사책임을 부과하는 입장을 취하고 있어서 심사과정에서 재검토가 요구된다고 사료된다. 특히 군 지휘관의 형사책임의 요건에 있어서 고의의 경우에는 문제가 없는 것으로 보이나, 과실로 부하의 집단살해죄등의 범죄행위를 알지 못하고 그 범죄발생을 제지하지 못한 경우에 문제가 된다. 군 지휘관의 형사책임이 성립되기 위한 정신적 요건에 대하여 Yamashita 판결에서는 미국법원에서 “알았어야 했을 때”(should have known)라는 용어를 사용함으로써 군 지휘관의 과실을 기준으로 하여 형사책임 인정을 쉽게 하였으나, 제네바협약 제1추가의정서에서는 “그렇게 결론지을 수 있을 만한 정보를 갖고 있었을 경우”(had information which should have enabled them to conclude)라고 조금 더 좁게 규정하여 형사책임의 인정을 좀더 어렵게 하였다. 또한 ICTY와 ICTR 규정에서는 “알 이유가 있었을 때”(had reason to know)라는 용어를 사용하고 있으며, ICTY Blaskic 항소심판결에서는 위 규정에 대하여 “지휘관이 부하가 저지른 범죄행위가 고지될 수 있는 정보를 그 지휘관 자신이 얻을 수 있었을 때에만”(only if information was available to him) 인정되는 것으로 보다 좁게 해석하면서, Blaskic 1심판결이 과실이론에 근거하여 지휘관 책임을 인정한 것은 잘못된 것이므로 수정되어야 한다라고 판시하였다. 이와 같은 군 지휘관 책임의 인정 연혁에 비추어 볼 때, 로마규정이 정하고 있는 부하의 전쟁범죄 행위에 대하여 “알았어야 했을 때”(should have known)의 해석을 군 지휘관이 부하의 범죄행위에 대하여 “과실로 알지 못한 때”의 모든 경우로 넓게 해석해서는 안된다고 본다. 따라서 형사책임을 부과할 정도의 중대한 과실로 부하의 범죄행위를 막지 못한 경우에 대하여만 군 지휘관의 책임을 인정하는 ‘보다 제한적 지휘책임론’이 형사책임 개인주의, 자기책임의 원칙에 맞다고 생각한다. 국내이행 법률안에서의 군 지휘관 책임 조항 중 직무태만죄에 대하여는 기존의 군형법상의 지휘관의 직무유기죄와 근무태만죄와의 구성요건상의 관계 및 법률 체계를 보다 명확히 할 필요가 있다고 본다. 또한 법률안 제5조 지휘관의 부하 범죄방지 조치 불이행 책임조항에 관하여는 군형법상의 부하범죄 불진정죄와의 관계에 있어서 중복되거나 형평이 맞지 않는 부분에 대하여는 재조정이 필요하다고 사료된다. 그리고 지휘관의 부하범죄에 대한 불고지죄에 대하여도 동 조항의 필요성 여부, 고지 대상범죄의 축소, 법정형의 조정 등에 관하여 재검토해 봐야 할 것이다. This article briefly reviews the history and development relating to the doctrine on the commander responsibility for the crimes of the commander's subordinates, the contents of the Rome Statute which has codified such responsibility, and then the provision relating to such responsibility within the draft bill for domestically implementing the Rome Statute. The acknowledgement of a commander's criminal responsibility for the war crimes committed by the commander's subordinates through international treaties is to strengthen military commanders' commanding authority over their subordinates and promote their implementation of laws of armed conflict training programs. The bill, which was submitted to the Korean National Assembly, for domestically implementing the Rome Statute incorporates a view that recognizes the broadest responsibility for commanders relating to their subordinates' war crimes, namely the commanders are held criminally responsible even if they negligently had no knowledge of such crimes. Such provisions would need a close review during the relevant legislative process. There seems to be no issue for the imposition of responsibility on intentional cases, but as for cases where commanders negligently had no knowledge of the war crimes of their subordinates such imposition of responsibility may be problematic. In relation to the mens rea element for such military commander's criminal responsibility, the U.S. military committee in its Yamashita case has broadly interpreted such responsibility using the term of "should have known", thereby imposing the negligence standard upon such cases. In comparison, the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions provides for more restrictive interpretation using the term of "had information which should have enabled them to conclude", thereby making it more difficult to accuse military commanders for their subordinates' war crimes. As for ICTY and ICTR, their regulations use the term of "had reason to know". However, ICTY's Appeal Judgment on the Blaskic case has restricted commanders' responsibility only to cases where "information was available to" them. The Appeal Judgment overturned the Trial Judgment, which held against the accused commander based on the negligence standard. As above, considering the development of the doctrine on the commander's responsibility for the war crimes of his or her subordinates, the interpretation of term "should have known" within the Rome Statute relating to the subordinates' war crimes should not be so broad as to incorporate the cases where the commander negligently had no knowledge of such war crimes. Therefore, more restrictive liability on commanders for their subordinates' war crimes, i.e., imposing responsibility on commanders for their gross negligence relating thereto, seems to be more in line with the principle of individual criminal responsibility.

제11회 한,중 형법 국제 학술심포지엄 : 당대 중국 회사범죄 논쟁문제의 연구

쟈오빙즈 ( Bing Zhi Zhao ),허우쓰와이 ( Shuai Hou ) 한국비교형사법학회 2013 비교형사법연구 Vol.15 No.2

회사범죄는 중국 단위(單位)범죄의 중대한 유형으로 실무에서 가장 흔하게 볼 수 있는 단위범죄의 형식이다. 회사범죄에 대한 정의는 회사주체, 회사의지와 범죄행위 3가지 기본요소를 포함하여야 한다. 또한 고의와 과실 두 가지 죄과(罪過)형식도 포함하여야 한다. 회사가 범죄를 성립하는데 있어서는 자연인 범죄와는 다른 성립조건이 있어야 한다. 회사범죄의 귀책근거를 확립하여 회사의 독립적인 범죄주체의 지위를 중시하며 회사제도 등에서 회사범죄의 특징적인 요인 및 형벌목적을 구현하는 데서 출발하여 회사범죄 귀책근거의 정당성과 합리성을 고찰해야 한다. 일부 고의범죄의 법정범죄 종류 외에 회사도 과실 범죄와 일부 자연범죄의 종류를 실시할 수 있는데 회사과실범죄는 업무과실과 감독관리과실 두 가지 형식을 지닌다. 회사범죄의 책임자에 대한 판단은 신분 특징과 행위특징 두 가진 측면을 근거로 하여야 하며 또한 다른 죄과형식과 회사제도를 고려하여야 한다. 단지 한 사람의 자연인을 주주로 하는 1인 회사가 실시한 범죄행위는 회사범죄가 아닌 자연인 범죄를 성립하여야 한다. 민법의 법인인격 부인제도를 이용하여 1인의 회사범죄 주체자격을 부인하는 것은 부적절하며 응당 형법 중의 회사범죄 성립조건으로 그 자격을 부인하여야 한다. 한 명의 자연인 주주인 1인회사는 “회사 의지 지배 하에서 실시한 범죄행위”라는 이 조건에 부합하지 않기 때문이다. The corporation crime is an important and common type of the unit crime in China. The concept of corporation crime should include the corporation subject,the corporation will and the corporation action. And the concept should include intentional crime and negligent crime. How can a corporation`s action can be judged as a crime that depends on the 30 article in criminal law of China and the details about different charges. The theory basis of the corporation`s criminal responsibility should regard corporation as a relatively independent subject. In additions, different company systems and the expected aim of penalty for company crime are also the essential elements should be considered. The corporation can commit both intentional crimes and negligent crimes. And the latter include the vocational negligence and the supervision management negligence. What kind of natural person should take criminal responsibility of their corporation`s crime actions? That depends on the natural person`s status trait and action trait. The intentional crime and negligence crime, corporations of different forms also have different natural persons to take criminal responsibility. According to Chinese Company Law, one-man corporation is a kind of new corporation form according to Chinese Company law. If the one-man corporation which has only a natural stockholder commit a crime, the stockholder should take the criminal responsibility instead of The one-man corporation`s crime act is the natural stockholder`s crime act actually.

과실의 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위와 과실범의 구별

류전철(Ryu, Chen-Chel) 전남대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.35 No.2

원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위(actio libera in causa)란 행위자가 결과발생의 위험을알거나 알 수 있었으면서 스스로 자기 자신을 심신장애(심신상실 또는 심신미약) 상태에 빠지게 한 후 이 상태에서 범죄를 실현시킨 경우를 말한다. 이처럼 불법의 실행(actio) 은 자유롭지 않지만 그 원인설정은 자유로운, 즉 원인이 자유로운 행위는 애초부터 책임능력이 결여된 자의 그것과는 다르기 때문에 이를 처벌해야 한다는 취지를 반영하고있다. 형법 제10조 제3항에 대한 주류적인 해석론에 따른 결론은 이 규정이 고의에 의한원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위와 과실에 의한 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위의 인정여부및 그 구별기준을 제시해 주는 것임을 전제로 하고 있다. 그 결과 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위를 네 가지로 유형화하고 있다 ① 고의의 원인행위와 고의의 구성요건실현행위의 조합, ② 고의의 원인행위와 과실의 구성요건실현행위의 조합, ③ 과실의 원인행위와 고의의 구성요건실현행위의 조합, ④ 과실의 원인행위와 과실의 구성요건실현행위의 조합 등이 그것이다. 여기서 첫 번째 경우를 제외한 나머지 세 가지 유형은 과실에 의한 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위로 이해한다. 그리고 과실에 의한 원인에 있어서자유로운 행위가 인정되는 경우에는 고의범이 아니라 과실범으로 처벌되어야 한다고한다. 그러나 형법 제10조 제3항은 불법판단을 받은 행위의 주관적 귀속의 전제인 책임능력에 대한 책임요소의 문제이며, 고의 또는 과실이라는 불법판단의 요소와는 무관한 규정인 것이다. 형법 제10조 제3항의 적용대상이 되는 행위가 어떤 특정 구성요건에 해당하고 위법성이 인정되는 행위, 즉 불법행위라면, 고의 또는 과실을 구성요건요소로 보는 범죄체계를 따르는 한, 여기서 말하는 불법행위가 ‘고의’행위인가 ‘과실’행위인가에대해서는 이미 결정이 내려진 상태이다. 따라서 형법 제10조 제3항에 규정된 어떤 개념요소(예컨대, 자의, 예견 등)도 이미 결정된 행위의 고의성 또는 과실성을 바꿀 수 있는작용을 하지 못한다. 본 논문에서는 형법 제10조 제3항의 ‘자의’ 및 ‘위험발생의 예견’이라는 개념은 완전책임을 근거지우기 위한 요건, 즉 비난가능성을 근거지우기 위한 요건으로 이해하여야한다는 점과 과실의 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위가 과실범을 말하는 것은 아니며, 또한 과실의 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위가 고의범을 과실범으로 변환시키는 듯한 착시적 현상을 구별하여야 한다는 점을 강조하고 있다. “Actio libera in causa” refers to a crime committed under a state of physical or mental disorder (loss of physical or mental capacity or deficient physical or mental capacity) caused by the criminal himself/herself who perceived, or could perceive the risk of a criminal outcome. The justification for punishing such act is that an actio libera in causa is different from an act committed by a person who lacked the capacity to assume the responsibility for one’s act from the very start, because a person who committed an actio libera in causa was not free (libera) in one’s act (actio), but was free in causing such a state under which the act was committed. The mainstream interpretation on Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act is based on the premise that the Article distinguishes between a deliberate actio libera in causa and a negligent actio libera in causa, and provides criteria to distinguish between the two. Based on such premise, the mainstream theory categorizes actio libera in causa into four combinations: ① A deliberate act which caused lack of capacity and a deliberate act which constitutes a crime. ② A deliberate act which caused lack of capacity and a negligent act which constitutes a crime. ③ A negligent act which caused lack of capacity and a deliberate act which constitutes a crime. ④ A negligent act which caused lack of capacity and a negligent act which constitutes a crime. According to the mainstream theory, the three combinations other than the first constitute actio libera in causa. The mainstream theory also contends that a negligent actio libera in causa should be punished as criminal negligence rather than a deliberate crime. Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, however, addresses the issue of ‘responsibility,’ that is, one’s capacity to assume the responsibility for one’s act, which forms the basis for personal attribution of an act deemed unlawful: it holds no relevance to the issue of intention or negligence, which determines the unlawfulness of an act. If an act subject to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act is an unlawful act, an act that has the elements required to constitute a certain crime and has been found to be illegal, it means that the issue of whether such unlawful act is a ‘deliberate’ act or a ‘negligent’ act has already been concluded, as long as the current criminal system understands intention or negligence as an element that constitutes a crime. Therefore, none of the conceptual elements contained in Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act (e.g. anticipation, intentional, etc.) can change the deliberate nature or negligent nature of an act once it is determined. This Study emphasizes that the concepts, ‘intentional’ and ‘anticipation of risk’ under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, should be understood as elements to set the basis for imposing full responsibility, that is, culpability, and that such aspect must be distinguished from the illusion that an actio libera in causa turns a deliberate crime into criminal negligence.

부진정 결과적 가중범의 본질 및 죄수론에 관한 비판적 검토

김영철 ( Kim Young-cheol ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2016 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.35

진정 결과적 가중범은 기본범죄에 내재하는 전형적 위험성이 현실화한 것이라는 특성으로 인해 기본범죄와 중한 결과 과실범의 상상적 경합보다 더 중한 형으로 입법화하는 근거가 되었다. 진정 결과적 가중범의 입법은 외형상 고의의 기본적 범죄와 중한 결과 과실범의 결합형태로 나타나는데, 기본적 범죄와 중한 결과 고의범의 결합형태에 대한 처벌입법이 없는 때에 그 보다 불법과 책임이 약한 중한 결과 과실범의 형보다 약하게 처벌하는 불균형 현상이 발생하게 된다. 이러한 불합리를 해소하고자 부득이 등장하게 된 것이 부진정 결과적 가중범의 개념이다. 이 경우에는 진정 결과적 가중범 입법의 틀 속에 중한 결과 고의범도 포함된 것으로 해석하게 된다. 부진정 결과적 가중범은 현실에서 판례가 인정하고 있는 범죄유형이므로 단순한 가설적 개념이 아닌 실체를 갖춘 범죄형태의 하나로 자리매김하고 있음을 인정해야 한다. 부진정 결과적 가중범 중 중한 결과 고의범은 고의의 기본범죄와 결합하여 하나의 구성요건이 된 것이므로 전체적으로 고의범의 성격을 띠며 동시에 결합범이다. 고의·과실은 구성요건적 요소임과 동시에 책임요소라는 2중적 성격을 보유하므로 중한 결과 고의범은 중한 결과 과실범에 비해 불법이 한층 가중되며 책임요소인 비난가능성 또한 더 높다는 본질을 갖게 된다. 그러므로 부진정 결과적 가중범에 관한 여러 쟁점, 특히 죄수를 논함에 있어서는 이러한 부진정 결과적 가중범의 본질을 늘 염두에 두어야 할 것이다. 살의를 가지고 현주건조물에 방화하여 사람을 살해한 경우에 현주건조물방화치사죄와 살인죄의 상상적 경합을 주장하는 다수설은 현주건조물방화치사죄의 불법에 살인의 고의가 불포함된다는 것을 그 이유로 하는 바, 이는 중한 결과 고의범은 바로 고의범의 성격을 갖는다는 사실을 도외시 한 것으로 타당성을 인정하기 어렵다. 한편, 판례는 부진정 결과적 가중범의 죄수를 논함에 있어서 단순일죄인가 상상적 경합인가를 판별하는 기준으로 오직 형의 경중만을 제시하는데, 이런 견해는 적절치 못하다고 생각한다. 실질적으로 1죄인가 또는 수죄인가는 형의 경중과 함께 다른 범죄에서 판례가 제시하는 일반적 기준인 구성요건적 평가와 보호법익의 측면도 함께 고찰하여 판단하여야 할 것이다. True consequently aggravated crime has become a reason for legislation of making it severer punishment than compound crimes of basic crime and the severe consequence negligence because of its characteristics that typical risk incorporated in basic crime is realized. The legislation of true consequently aggravated crime appears as a form of combined crime of basic crime of intent and severe consequence negligence. Then, it generates the imbalance of punishing the true consequently aggravated crime more lightly than the sever consequence negligence with weaker illegality while there is no legislation to punish the combined form of basic crime and severe consequential deliberate offence. The concept of untrue consequently aggravated crime inevitably appeared in order to resolve this irrationality. In this case, it should be interpreted that severe consequential deliberate offence is included in the frame of legislation of true consequential aggravated crime. Since untrue consequently aggravated crime is a type of crime recognized by precedents in the reality, it should be acknowledged that it is not a simple hypothetical concept but it has become one of types of crime with substance. Since severe consequential deliberate offence among untrue consequently aggravated crimes has become one of the components by being combined with basic crime of intent, it has a characteristics of deliberate offence as a whole and a combined crime at the same time. Intent and negligence possess double characteristics that they are the factor of a component and a responsibility factor at the same time. As a result, severe consequential deliberate offence owns the essence that its illegality is much more cumulated and its possibility of being criticized is higher when compared to those of severe consequential negligence. Therefore, this essence of untrue consequently aggravated crime shall be always considered while discussing a number of issues about untrue consequently aggravated crime, especially the number of offences. The majority theory argues that it is compound crimes of Negligent Homicide of Setting Fire to Present Living Building and homicide when someone committed a homicide with intent of homicide kill by setting fire to present living building, and its rational behind this claim is that intent of homicide is not included in the illegality of Negligent Homicide of Setting Fire to Present Living Building. Since it ignores the fact that severe consequential intent immediately has the characteristics of deliberate offence, it is hard to recognize the validity of the major theory. On the other hand, the judicial precedents aim to compare only the gravity of punishment whether it is a simple one offence or compound crimes when discussing the number of offences of untrue consequential aggravated crime, but I think these opinion are not appropriate. The substantive judgement about whether a crime is one offence or several offences shall be made through considering the evaluation of components and the interests protected by law, which are general standards suggested by judicial precedents in other crimes, as well as the gravity of punishment.

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.

과실치상죄의 학설과 판례 검토

윤동호(Yun, Dong-Ho) 한국형사법학회 2018 형사법연구 Vol.30 No.1

일상생활을 하면서 의도하지 않게 다른 사람을 다치게 하는 경우가 있는데, 이로 인해 다친 사람은 물론 신체적 고통과 치료의 번거로움을 겪지만, 다치게 한 사람도 종종 고통을 받는다. 다친 사람이 의도적으로 다치게 한 사람에 버금가는 수준의 사과와 함께 과다한 금전의 제공을 요구하면서 형사고소를 하겠다고 강요에 가까울 정도로 심리적으로 압박을 하는 경우도 있기 때문이다. 일상생활 중에 의도하지 않게 상해를 발생시킨 사람이 겪는 이런 고통은 당연하고 옳은 것이므로 감수하고 피해자의 요구에 따라야하는 것인지, 아니면 불합리한 것이므로 피해자의 요구를 단호하게 거부해야하는지 따져보기 위해서 이 글은 과실 치상죄의 이론과 실무를 보려고 한다. 과실치상죄는 반의사불벌죄이므로, 먼저 반의 사불벌죄의 법제와 실무를 보고, 다음은 과실치상죄에서 과실의 인정 여부에 관한 학설을 검토하며, 끝으로 과실치상죄의 성립 여부에 관한 실무를 분석한다. 일상생활 중 의도하지 않게 발생한 상해의 피해자는 형사처벌의 위협을 무기로 가해자를 일방적으로 압박할 것이 아니라 가해자를 설득하려는 자세가 필요하고, 가해자도 피해자의 입장에서 피해자의 요구를 진지하게 생각해볼 필요가 있다. 사실 민·형사절차에 연루되면 가해자는 물론이고 피해자도 물심양면의 고통을 겪으며, 더욱이 흔히 매우 더디게 진행되는 절차가 종료된다고 해서 만족하는 결과를 얻는 것도 아니기 때문이다. In daily life, people sometimes unintentionally hurt another person, which causes suffering from physical pain and cure as well as injured person, but also hurting one person often. This is because the injured person is psychologically pressing to demand a criminal complaint, demanding excessive indemnity with a level of apology equal to that of a person who intentionally hurt another person. In order to see if this suffering of a person who unintentionally caused an injury is reasonable and right, and whether it should be subject to the demands of the injured person, or whether it should be decisively denied by the injured person s request because it is unreasonable, I want to see theory and practice of bodily injury crime by negligence(Criminal Act §266). This crime is unpunishable crime against will of victim which shall not be prosecuted over the express objection of the victim. This is translated to 반의사불벌죄(ban-uisabulbeoljoe) in Korean. So the law and practice of unpunishable crime against will of victim are firstly reviewed. Next, theories about the meaning of negligence are examined in the case of bodily injury crime by negligence. Finally, this study analyzes the practice of whether or not to establish bodily injury crime by negligence In case a person(P) unintentionally hurt another person, injured person should not be forced to unilaterally press the person(P) with the threat of criminal punishment, but injured person need to take an attitude to persuade the person(P) and the person(P) should seriously consider injured person. In fact, if they are involved in civil and criminal proceedings, injured person and the person(P) all will suffer mentally and economically and moreover, even if the very slow process is over, injured person will not get satisfactory results.

의료사고에 있어 과실범의 양형판단과 특수성 - 한국과 일본의 판례를 통하여 -

홍태석 원광대학교 법학연구소 2024 의생명과학과 법 Vol.31 No.-

많은 사람들이 병의 완치를 위해 병원에서 치료를 받는다. 하지만 의사들의 과실이나 병원의 과오 등으로 인하여 피해를 입은 의료사고는 자주 발생하고 있다. 이러한 의료사고로 인한 피해는 그 입증책임이 피해자(환자)의 몫으로 남겨져 있어 피해자는 여러 방향에서 피해를 고스란히 입고 있다 해도 과언이 아니다. 또한 우리 형법은 이른바 ‘정당행위(제20조)’라 하여 의료인들이 최선의 주의의무를 다하여 진료에 임하였다면 자칫 그 결과가 좋지 아니하였다 하더라도 위법성조각사유에 해당하는 것으로 보고 있다. 다만, 위법성조각사유에 해당 되지 않는 경우에는 과실범의 법리에 의하여 처벌하고 있다. 과실범은 고의범에 비하여 불법성이 약하고 우리 형법 또한 과실범은 별도의 규정이 있는 경우에만 처벌하도록 하고 있다(제14조). 만일 의료과실로 인하여 구성요건적 결과가 발생한다면 과실범의 법리가 적용될 수 있으며, 언급한 바와 같이 과실범은 별도의 구성요건이 있는 경우만을 처벌의 대상으로 하고 있어, 그 처벌의 기준이 명확하지 않다. 이에 따른 양형 판단의 기준을 설정할 필요가 있을 것으로 보인다. 일본은 의료사고에 관한 형사책임에 관하여 후쿠시마현립 오오노병원(福島県立大野病院) 사건을 계기로 의료관련 기관과 학회 등에서 의료사고의 양형에 대하여 많은 논의가 이루어지기 시작하였다. 이러한 상황에서 일본은 의료사고와 관련된 판례가 많이 축적되었다. 과실범의 유책성과 관련하여서는 과실행위의 태양, 주의의무 및 과실의 내용 등에 대한 검토가 필요하며, 양형과 관련하여서는 양형 판단에 필요한 요소가 무엇인지에 대한 검토가 필요하다 하겠다. 하지만 의료사고의 경우에는 과실범에 해당하고 양형의 판단기준이 명확히 설정되어 있지 않아 이에 대한 검토가 필요할 것으로 보인다. 이에 본 논문에서는 양국의 의료사고 사례 중 비교 가능하도록 유사한 사고 사례를 중심으로 검토하여 보았다. 그 결과 의료사고의 상황과 함께 정상 참작해야 할 공통적인 요소가 발견되었으며, 이러한 점으로 인하여 여타의 과실범, 특히 일반적인 업무상 과실치사상죄에서의 양형판단과는 다른 경향이 있음을 확인하였다. 의료사고는 벌금형 외에는 대부분 집행유예가 선고되고 있었으며 금고형 이상의 실형이 극히 드문 상황이었다. 또한 형벌의 부과와 관련하여 한국과 일본은 응보적 형의 부과보다는 형벌의 기능으로서 예방적・교육적 측면이 강하게 나타나고 있는 듯 보인다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 내용을 중심으로 한국과 일본의 의료사고 사례를 바탕으로 양형판단의 기준들을 검토하여 보았고, 본 내용을 바탕으로 향후 의료사고와 관련된 사안에서의 양형 논의에 많은 도움이 되었으면 한다. Many people receive treatment at the hospital to cure the disease. However, medical accidents that have been damaged by doctors' negligence or hospital errors often occur. It is not an exaggeration to say that the victim is suffering damage in various directions as the burden of proof is left to the victim (patient) for the damage caused by such a medical accident. In addition, our criminal law is so-called 'justifiable act (Article 20), so even if the result is not good, it is considered to be a reason for illegal sculpture. However, if it does not fall under the grounds for illegal sculpture, punishment is made according to the law of the negligent offender. Negligence offenders are weaker in illegality than intentional offenders, and the Korean Criminal Law also requires that negligence offenders be punished only when there are separate provisions (Article 14). If a constituent requirement result occurs due to medical negligence, the legal principles of negligence offenders may be applied, and as mentioned, negligence offenders are subject to punishment only when there are separate constituent requirements, so the criteria for punishment are not clear. Accordingly, it seems necessary to set the criteria for determining sentencing. In Japan, many discussions began to take place on the sentencing of medical accidents at medical institutions and academic societies in the wake of the Fukushima Prefectural Ono Hospital case regarding criminal responsibility for medical accidents. In this situation, many precedents related to medical accidents have been accumulated in Japan. Regarding the liability of negligent offenders, it is necessary to review the aspect of negligence, the duty of care, and the contents of negligence, and in relation to sentencing, it is necessary to review what factors are necessary for determining sentencing. However, in the case of medical accidents, they are considered negligent offenders, and the criteria for determining sentencing have not been clearly established, so it seems necessary to review them. Therefore, this paper examined similar accident cases among medical accident cases in both countries so that they can be compared. As a result, common factors to be taken into account were found along with the situation of medical accidents, and this confirmed that there was a tendency to be different from sentencing judgments in other negligence crimes, especially general occupational negligence and injury crimes. Most medical accidents were sentenced to probation except for fines, and imprisonment or higher was extremely rare. In addition, with regard to the imposition of punishment, Korea and Japan seem to have strong preventive and educational aspects as a function of punishment rather than the imposition of retributive sentences. In this paper, we reviewed the criteria for sentencing judgment based on medical accident cases in Korea and Japan, and based on this, we hope that it will be of great help in discussing sentencing in future medical accident related cases.