[논문] 절취한 타인의 후불식 전화카드를 이용한 경우 대가지급의 의미와 편의시설부정이용죄의 성부

• 영문명: The meaning of paying in using telephone card of deferred payment system through theft and the unfair use of convenient facilities
• 발행기관: 한국형사법학회
• 저자명: 류석준(Ryu Seok-June)
• 간행물 정보: 『형사법연구』형사법연구 제24권, 121~144쪽, 전체 24쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2005.12.01

영문 초록

This judicial precedent decided that using telephone card of deferred payment system through theft is not unfair use of convenient facilities, because the payment exists. This is excessive conclusion, regarding the meaning of the legal context. But other man's payment that can be equally estimated at criminal's payment should not be excluded. This precedent, however is different form it. So criminal's payment can not be approved. In this case, because the use of card by criminal was neglected for a long time, private law liability of card owner can be acknowledged. But losing card is not able to be estimated in testimony of giving the right of representation, even if representation without right is admitted, ratification of card owner doesn't exist. Furthermore during the period when card owner didn't recognize loss of card, liability of owner should not be accepted, so the problem of pseudo representation needs not to be discussed. And in this period, card owner didn't even recognize the duty of payment, therefore denying the payment is appropriate. In this point, this precedent's decision is injustice. This precedent decided that judgement of payment should be estimated when a bill is asked for. This rises serious problem in the legal stability, so it shouldn't accepted.

목차

Ⅰ. 문제의 제기

Ⅱ. 후불식 전화카드의 이용방식과 권한 없는 이용행위의 개인적 법익 침해의 불법

Ⅲ. 대가지급의 의미와 본 사안에서의 대가지급 여부에 대한 검토

Ⅳ. 결 론

[Abstract]