학술논문
사실상 인과관계 및 법적 인과관계와 객관적 귀속
이용수 13
- 영문명
- Factual Cause, Legal Cause and Objective Imputation
- 발행기관
- 한국형사판례연구회
- 저자명
- 김종구(Kim, Jong Goo)
- 간행물 정보
- 『형사판례연구』형사판례연구 제24권, 95~121쪽, 전체 27쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2016.06.30
6,040원
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
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.
목차
[대상판례] 대법원 1989. 9. 12. 선고 89도866 판결
[연구]
Ⅰ. 머리말 - 대상판례의 쟁점
Ⅱ. 인과관계의 사실적 측면과 법적 측면
Ⅲ. 비교 판례 - Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co.-
Ⅳ. 대상 판례에 적용
Ⅴ. 맺음말
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 배임죄에서 ‘타인의 사무’의 해석과 민사법리의 관계
- 공전자기록 위작·변작죄에서 위작·변작의 개념
- 2015년도 형법판례 회고
- 위임범위를 초과하여 예금을 인출한 경우의 죄책
- 명의신탁 부동산의 처분과 재산범죄의 성립 여부
- 입찰방해와 컴퓨터등사용사기죄, 사기죄의 직접성
- 대물변제예약체결 채무자 소유 부동산의 제3자에 대한 처분행위는 배임죄에 해당하는가
- 디지털 증거 압수절차의 적정성 문제
- 외국에서 집행받은 형의 선고와 형법 제7조의 개정방향
- 부작위에 의한 살인죄의 공동정범의 성립요건
- 배임 경영자에게 적용되는 업무상 배임죄의 구성요건요소로서의 재산상 손해와 이익(이득액)
- 인터넷링크행위와 저작권침해
- 사후적 경합범에 대한 고찰
- 위법성조각사유의 전제사실의 착오에 대한 대법원판례의 이해구조
- 실행의 착수와 구성요건 실현을 위한 ‘직접적인’ 전 단계행위
- 사실상 인과관계 및 법적 인과관계와 객관적 귀속
- 2010년 ‘옵션’쇼크와 연계시세조종의 판단기준
- ‘아동·청소년이용음란물’의 개념 및 판단기준
- 의무범과 행위자의 특정
- 고의와 법률의 부지의 구별
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
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!