기업형사책임과 책임원칙

• 영문명: Corporate Criminal Liability and Guilt Principle - a landmark ruling on joint provision and review on guilt principle -
• 발행기관: 한국형사법학회
• 저자명: 조병선(Cho, Byung-Sun)
• 간행물 정보: 『형사법연구』형사법연구 제22권 제1호, 3~22쪽, 전체 20쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2010.02.03

영문 초록

On 27 November 2007, the Korean Constitutional Court declared in a landmark ruling that the joint penal provision cannot be found constitutional because it violates the guilt principle guaranteed by Korean Constitution. Thus lots of laws that include the joint provision has been revised. However, Corporate Criminal Liability according to the new joint penal provision is still unclear to construe the concept of corporate guilt. The underlying basic problems consist in the conflicts triggered by different qualities of the reception of foreign legal system, especially continental civil law system and Anglo-American common law system. If one wishes to make the revised joint provision fit to guilty principle, it would, in any event, be necessary to adopt and transform basic concepts of criminal law so that they 'fit' the special characteristics of a legal person. Whether or not such transformation is possible and, if so, desirable is the issue on which the debate in Korea, Germany and the United States has centered. This paper takes a closer look at the requirements for corporate criminal liability according to the joint provision. Three questions, ‘Corporations Do Not Act?', ‘Corporations Cannot be Morally Guilty?', and ‘Criminal Sanctions Do Not Apply to Corporations?', have been fully illustrated and analysed from a prospective of guilty principle. The author concludes with a few sceptical relativistic remarks on the revision of joint penal provision triggered by a landmark ruling of Korean Constitutional Court.

목차

Ⅰ. 위헌결정의 요지 및 문제의 제기

Ⅱ. 위헌결정에 대한 비교법적 재조명

Ⅲ. 결론: 우리나라 양벌규정의 책임원칙으로의 수용

키워드

기업형사책임 책임원칙 대륙법계 형법 영미법계 형법 양벌규정 비교법 Criminal Corporate Liability Guilt Principle Continental Criminal Law Anglo-American Criminal Law Joint Penal Provision Comparative Law