사실상 인과관계 및 법적 인과관계와 객관적 귀속 = Factual Cause, Legal Cause and Objective Imputation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under the Anglo-American law, there are two types of causation: 'factual causation' and 'legal causation'. The test for factual causation is a but-for test or sine qua non test. However, there is no dominant test for legal causation. The reason for that is legal causation is a flexible analysis involving a variety of policy considerations.
The structure of the theory of causation in Korean and German law is almost the same as in Anglo-American law. Under Korean and German law, causation has two aspects: 'natural causation', and 'objective imputation'. Natural causation is a matter of fact and determined by the sine qua non test as in the Anglo-Americna law. The issue of objective imputation cannot be answered by a single test because it is a matter of policy or evaluation. The test for legal causation and objective imputation is determined after evaluating various policy considerations.
The author of this article compares a Korean Supreme Court case and a US Supreme Court Case concerning legal causation. The US case is a very famous one commonly known as the Palsgraf case. In Palsgraf, the Plaintiff was standing on a railroad platform purchasing a ticket, when a train stopped and two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men nearly fell, and two railroad employees attempted to help him. In the process, a package containing fireworks fell and the contents exploded. As a result of the explosion some scales at the other end of the platform fell and struck the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued and a jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. However, the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, reversed and dismissed Palsgraf's complaint, deciding that the relationship of the guard's action to Palsgraf's injury was too remote to make the defendant liable. The dissenting opinion in Palsgraf's viewed the case as a matter of proximate cause. The dissent takes the view that, as a matter of law, it could not be determined that the Defendant’s actions were not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
The structure of a Korean Supreme Court case is very similar to that of the US case. In the Korean Case, the Defendant's car was struck by a train at a railroad crossing due to Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff, who was waiting for a train's passing at the railroad crossing, fell and was injured. The Plaintiff was not hit by the Defendant's car, but he was injured because of the impact of the crash. The Korean Supreme Court recognized the causation between the Defendant's negligence and Plaintiff's injury. However, the author of this article argues that this case is a matter of legal causation and Defendant’s action was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury.
This argument is almost same as the one put forward by the dissent in the US case. The tests for legal causation or objective imputation vary from view points to view points. Thus, it is important to develop certain tests for legal causation or objective imputation that can be applied generally. For that to occur, we must analyze scholarly opinions and court results from both German law and Anglo-American law.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정현미, "형사판례연구Ⅰ, 지송이재상교수화갑기념논문집" 2003

2 김호기, "형법학에서의 인과관계의 의미와 객관적 귀속론" 한국형사법학회 (26) : 529-550, 2006

3 배종대, "형법총론" 홍문사 2014

4 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2012

5 신동운, "형법총론" 法文社 [경기도] 2015

6 도중진, "형법에 있어서 상당인과관계와 객관적귀속" 2 (2): 2012

7 심재우, "형법상의 인과관계"

8 권영법, "형법 제17조와 인과관계" 대한변호사협회 (430) : 84-106, 2012

9 이건호, "형법 제17조의 위험발생의 의미와 상당인과관계설" 한국형사법학회 (17) : 19-42, 2002

10 황정익, "현대형사법의 쟁점과과제, 동암이형국교수화갑기념논문집" 1998

11 이상돈, "현대형사법의 쟁점과 과제(동암이형국교수화갑기념논문집)" 법문사 1998

12 심헌섭, "인과관계의 확정과 합법칙적 조건설"

13 이재상, "인과관계와 객관적 귀속(역서)" 박영사 1995

14 김일수, "상당인과관계와 객관적 귀속"

15 양창수, "상당인과관계설의 이론적 의미와 한계 ― 상당성의 본질 ―" 법학연구소 44 (44): 199-238, 2003

16 이경재, "상당인과관계설의 상당성 판단기준을 위한 상당성의 구체화 작업 시도 - 피해자의 도피행위를 중심으로 -" 한국형사판례연구회 21 : 1-26, 2013

17 원형식, "방조범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 209-228, 2009

18 김혜경, "동일법익 주체에 대한 위험행위의 형법적 평가" 한국형사법학회 19 (19): 43-62, 2007

19 김성룡, "객관적 귀속이론의 발전사 －의사(Wille)의 귀속을 중심으로－" 한국법사학회 (42) : 119-150, 2010

20 이용식, "객관적 귀속이론의 규범론적 의미와 구체적 내용" 43 (43):

21 이형국, "객관적 귀속이론에 관한 소고" 2 : 1982

22 조훈, "객관적 귀속에 있어서 간과된 연결고리" 한국형사법학회 (26) : 551-568, 2006

23 임석원, "객관적 귀속에 관한 의문점과 해석의 방향" 한국형사법학회 22 (22): 161-186, 2010

24 김성천, "객관적 귀속론과 판례" 7 (7):

25 김종구, "객관적 귀속론과 영미법상 법적 인과관계" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 461-486, 2009

26 申洋均, "刑法上 因果關係와 客觀的 歸屬에 대한 硏究" 延世大學校 大學院 1989

27 Joshua Dressler, "Understanding Criminal Law" LexisNexis 2009

28 Joseph H. Beale, "The Proximate Consequences of an Act" 33 : 1920

29 Nicholas St. John Green, "Proximate and Remote Cause" 4 : 1870

30 Andrew Ashworth, "Principles of Criminal Law" Oxford University Press 2006

31 Jeremiah Smith, "Legal Cause in Actions of Tort" 25 : 1912

32 Richard Honig, "Festgabe für Reinhard von Frank zum 70. Geburtstag, Bd. 1" 1930

33 Victor Tadros, "Criminal Responsibility" Oxford University Press 2007

34 Rollin M. Perkins, "Criminal Law and Procedure" 1999

35 Wayne R. LaFave, "Criminal Law" Thomson West 2003

36 Goerge E. Dix, "Criminal Law" West Group 2002

37 Richard R. Singer, "Criminal Law" Aspen Publishers 2007

38 Paul K. Ryu, "Causation in Criminal Law" 106 : 1958

39 Michael S. Moore, "Causation and Responsibility" Oxford University 2009

40 Markus D. Dubber, "American Criminal Law" Foundation Press 2009