생몰정보
소속
직위
직업
활동분야
주기
서지
국회도서관 서비스 이용에 대한 안내를 해드립니다.
검색결과 (전체 1건)
원문 있는 자료 (1) 열기
원문 아이콘이 없는 경우 국회도서관 방문 시 책자로 이용 가능
목차보기더보기
목차
공소사실의 동일성 판단기준으로서의 규범적 요소 / 金亨埈 1
I. 머리말 1
II. 대법원 1994. 3. 22. 선고 93도2080 전원합의체 판결의 의미 4
1. 사건개요 4
2. 판결의 요지 4
3. 장물취득 사실과 강도상해 사실의 규범적 동일성 여부 5
4. 판결의 의미와 그 평가 6
III. 규범적 동일성 관련 판례의 구체적 검토 8
1. 규범적 동일성을 부정한 판례 8
2. 동일성을 인정한 판례 18
3. 결어 20
IV. 경범죄처벌법위반사실과 폭처법위반사실간의 규범적 동일성 여부 22
1. 양 사실간의 규범적 동일성을 부정한 경우 22
2. 양 사실간 규범적 동일성을 인정한 경우 23
3. 결어 24
V. 맺는말 25
참고문헌 28
Abstract 30
초록보기 더보기
Since Korean supreme court decision en banc (Case No. 93do2080 decided on March 22th, 1994) declared that a normative factor along with an identity of basic facts charged should be taken into consideration, most of court cases have held on to this standpoint of the supreme court.
If a normative factor is taken into consideration to determine identity of facts charged, the scope of an identity will be more reduced, than that based on pure basic facts charged. Therefore, as intended by the court decision, a person who was punished for a minor offense (the crime of taking stolen goods) can be punished once again for a serious crime. Like this, If a normative factor was considered, it means that the problematic situation of an arbitrary exercise of a state power on criminal punishment can be overcome, which is otherwise impossible because of prohibition against double jeopardy.
But this approach may bring another problem that the constitutional right to prohibition of double jeopardy will be violated because this approach may deny the identity of the facts closely related to and in a tight relation with facts charged and make it possible to punish the accused twice. This can not be justified if it turns back on legal stability and expected pay-off but leads to achievement of criminal justice or accomplishment of state power on criminal sanction. Also, it places burden on the defendant from a justice system that reveals its own limits by proving guilt at a time and damages the principles of criminal law. Moreover, the expansion of punishment by introducing the view of a normative factor may encourage arbitrary prosecution.
Even though the need of introducing a view of normative factor is acknowledged, a normative factor determined through the consideration of a characteristics of an act, a legal interest violated, nature of crime, etc. does not have clear standards to decide a normative alikeness of facts charged. It has a risk to cause inconsistent court decisions. As we have already seen before, an identity of charges is denied even when there is no normative dissimilarities of conclusions of particular cases. In contrast, an identity of charges is approved even in the case that serious differences of nature of crimes were found. It shows confusions and contradictions, in that an identity of facts charged is approved even between the cases where there appear analogous facts but the same applicable provision. This phenomenon obviously violates legal stability of people in criminal process.
Therefore, taking account of many problems raised above, it is not reasonable to take into consideration a normative factor to determine an identity of facts charged because it may get worse-off rather than better-off.
권호기사보기
원문구축 및 2018년 이후 자료는 524호에서 직접 열람하십시요.
도서위치안내: 정기간행물실(524호) / 서가번호: 국내10
2018년 이전 정기간행물은 온라인 신청(원문 구축 자료는 원문 이용)
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
* 표시는 필수사항 입니다.
* 주의: 국회도서관 이용자 모두에게 공유서재로 서비스 됩니다.
저장 되었습니다.
로그인을 하시려면 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력해주세요. 모바일 간편 열람증으로 입실한 경우 회원가입을 해야합니다.
공용 PC이므로 한번 더 로그인 해 주시기 바랍니다.
아이디 또는 비밀번호를 확인해주세요
