학술논문
교통사고처리 특례법상 처벌특례의 인적 적용범위
이용수 20
- 영문명
- Personal application scope of Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
- 발행기관
- 한국형사판례연구회
- 저자명
- 이주원(Rhee, Joo-Won)
- 간행물 정보
- 『형사판례연구』형사판례연구 제26권, 511~555쪽, 전체 45쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2018.06.30
8,200원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter ‘Traffic Special Act’) provides that “A driver of a vehicle who commits a crime provided for in Article 268 of the Criminal Act by reason of a traffic accident shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won”. This regulates Non-real Status Crime, and ‘traffic’ stipulated herein is interpreted as objective circumstances of conduct. Additionally, driver stipulated in the Traffic Special Act seems to be defined as ‘a person driving or who has driven.’ This stems from legislator’s preference for compressed expression in terms of legislative technical efficiency. It is understood to be the result of preference for ’driver’, which is a compressed expression, rather than the descriptive phrase such as “anyone who is under the circumstances of operating a vehicle or driving” (Article 3(1) of the Traffic Special Act, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act is identical) or “anyone who is driving or have driven” (Article 3(1) & 4(1) of the Traffic Special Act). The background of the subject judgment corresponds to [Case 2] where a non-driver (different occupation), who is a person lacking status, collaborates with an ‘occupational’ driver, who is a person with status. In this case non-driver, who lacks the status as an ‘occupational’ driver, has a status for a different occupation, and consequently shall be punished according to the statutory penalty for Co-principals of Traffic Special Act along with the person with status as ‘occupational’ driver (Article 33 of the Criminal Act). The reason is that the person lacking status has its own unique occupational negligence derived from the different occupation apart from the occupational driver, being guilty as Co-Principals of Bodily Injury by Negligence of the Criminal Act - Article 3 of the Traffic Special Act supercede Article 268 of the Criminal Act based on the existence of special relation. As regards to the contravention of Article 3(1) of the Traffic Special Act, where ‘traffic’ situation, which is the condition of punishment, and 12 exception clauses, which are the conditions of prosecution, exist only in respect of occupational driver, the person lacking such status also is inevitably guilty for Co-Principals of Traffic Special Act. As an inevitable outcome, Article 3(2) of the Traffic Special Act, which is a special case of non-prosecution against the clearly expressed intention of the victim, also applies to the person lacking such status. However, since the Principle regarding the Indivisibility of Criminal Complaint does not apply to an offence which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim, declaration of an injured party of his/her intention not to prosecute two or more Co-Principals does not take effect in respect to the other accomplices. Therefore, Article 4(1) of the Traffic Special Act, stipulating special cases of comprehensive insurance coverage, is interpreted to limit the scope of personal application to only ‘driver’ according to its literal reading. “Exceptions must be interpreted narrowly”(ingularia non sunt extendenda), which is a principle of limitation, must apply to the above. The subject judgment is evaluated to confirm the non-application of the special cases of insurance to non-driver, i.e. comprehensive insurance coverage not taking effect to non-driver. This point is at least considered to be in line with the established precedent that the principle of Subjective Indivisibility of Criminal Complaint shall not apply mutatis mutandis to offence which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim. Nonetheless, it is extremely regrettable that the subject judgment only declares such purport without any detailed grounds.
목차
[대상판결] 대법원 2017. 5. 31. 선고 2016도21034 판결[업무상과 실치상]
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 교특법위반죄의 법적 성격
Ⅲ. 운전과 관련된 과실범의 공동정범
Ⅳ. 처벌특례의 인적 적용범위
Ⅴ. 대상판결의 검토
Ⅵ. 결론
키워드
교통사고처리특례법
부진정신분범
과실범의 공동정범
반의사불벌죄
종합보험가입의 특례
Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
Non-real Status Crime
Co-principals of Crimes of Negligence
Offence which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim
Special cases of comprehensive insurance coverage
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 퇴사시의 영업비밀 반출과 업무상배임죄의 성부
- 법원에 출석하여 불일치진술한 피고인 아닌 자의 검찰진술조서의 증거능력
- 통정허위표시와 공정증서원본부실기재죄
- 소아과 의사의 진료행위와 아동·청소년성보호법상 추행행위 판단
- 2017년도 형법판례 회고
- 사기죄에서 ‘교부받는 행위’의 의미
- 외국환거래법상 징벌적 추징에 대한 비판적 고찰
- 세관공무원의 마약 압수와 위법수집증거 판단
- 상호명의신탁관계에서의 형사책임에 대한 판례연구
- 전자적 저장매체를 이용한 공소제기 가능성
- 강간죄 적용범위에 대한 문제점 고찰
- 급여 등 형태로 취득한 공범의 범죄수익 추징
- 대법원 형사판결과 법률구속성원칙
- 사회변화에 대응하는 형사판례의 법리변경
- 교통사고처리 특례법상 처벌특례의 인적 적용범위
- 영장에 의해 취득한 통신사실확인자료 증거사용 제한 규정의 문제점
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!