수난구호법상 구조의무의 범위와 몇 가지 문제점 (The Scope and Several Problems of Rescue Duty on the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국형사정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 형사정책 / 27권 / 1호 / 189 ~ 206페이지
· 저자명 : 김태수

초록

문제점에 대하여 요약하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 조난사고에 대한 과실조차 없는 선장 등에게 구조의무 위반에 대하여 형사책임을 부과한 것은 ‘책임이 없으면 형벌도 없다’는 책임원칙에 반할 수 있다. 따라서 과실조차 없는 경우에는 형사책임이 아닌 행정질서벌로 규정해야 할 것이다.
둘째, 특가법에서 도주선박죄의 규정은 과실로 야기한 경우에만 적용대상으로 하고 있으므로 고의로 조난사고를 야기한 자가 과실로 조난사고를 야기한 자보다 더 불법이 높음에도 불구하고 더 낮은 형벌을 부과받아 국민의 법감정에 반할 소지가 있으므로 이를 개정할 필요가 있다.
셋째, 선박내에서는 누구보다도 선장에게는 많은 권한이 있고 이와는 반대로 승무원에게는 상관에게 복종할 의무를 부과하고 있는 상태이므로 구조의무를 이행하지 않은 경우에 선장과 승무원에게 동일한 법정형으로 부과하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 더욱이, 선원법에서는 선박위험시의 조치의무(선원법 제11조)를 위반한 경우나 선박 충돌시의 조치의무(선원법 제12조)를 위반한 경우에 동일한 법정형으로 규정한 것이 아니라 선장과 해원 또는 선장에 한하여 형사처벌하도록 규정한 측면을 고려해 보면 이를 개정할 필요가 있다.

영어초록

Unlike land accidents, accidents on the surface of the sea or inland water cannot but lead to great tragedy like the Sewol ferry disaster unless the accidents are rescued quickly. As a result, in case that the accidents on the surface of the sea or inland water happen, the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act has been enforced in order to rescue quickly. In particular, The proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides that it imposes rescue duties on the captain and crew of ships, even though they have intention, negligence, or do not have any negligence so that in the case of implementing such rescue duties, they shall be punished. The proviso of Article 18 of the Act has several problems.
First of all, it is reasonable enough to impose a rescue duty on the crew, etc who does not have any negligence with a shipwreck in rescue society under the principle of distribution of danger or in the dimension of societal solidarity. However, imposing a criminal punishment in the case of violating the rescue duty can be contrary to the principle of liability, no punishment without liability. Consequently, it is reasonable to regulate an administrative order punishment rather than criminal liability if there is no negligence.
Secondly, the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides that failure in the duty without distinguishing intention from negligence as an accident cause of shipwrecks has a same statutory punishment. However, a special law of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes provides that it punishes aggravatingly only if an accident is caused negligently. This regard needs to be revised because the principle of appropriateness or people's feelings of law seems to be contrary to the fact that a person who causes an accident intentionally has a lower punishment than a person who causes it negligently even though the former has more violation than the latter.
Thirdly, a captain and crew have a same legal punishment unless they fulfill a rescue duty in the case of shipwreck. However, the captain has much more power than anyone else and on the contrary to this, the crew is imposed on the duty to obey to his or her superior so that in case that he or she does not fulfill the rescue duty, it is not reasonable that the captain and crew have a same legal punishment, which needs to be revised.

참고자료

· 없음