스포츠 상해 유형에 따른 형사책임 면제범위 (The Limits of Release of criminal liability for injuries in sports activities)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 중앙법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중앙법학 / 17권 / 3호 / 199 ~ 228페이지
· 저자명 : 류지영

초록

운동경기 중 상해가 발생하는 것을 예방하기 위하여 경기자가 경기의 규칙을 준수하고 사고의 예방을 위하여 노력해야 함은 재론할 필요가 없다. 그러나 부상이나 사고의 위험은 항상 존재하고 있다. 지나치게 처벌을 강화하여 사고를 미연에 방지하겠다는 것은 스포츠 활동을 위축시키게 된다. 스포츠는 그 자체가 지니는 특성상 항상 위험을 내포하고 있다. 순간순간 위험에 직면하기도 하며 스포츠 행위에 대한 형법의 적용을 적절히 조정하여 스포츠 행위의 규제와 스포츠 활동에 대한 자유를 확보해야 할 것이다.
그런 의미에서 스포츠 활동의 유형을 여러 가지로 나누어 판단하는 것은 법의 적용의 범위와 한계를 명확히 하여 스포츠 활동의 자유를 확보하고자 하는 것에 있다. 즉 구성요건에 해당하지 않는다고 판단된 스포츠 활동에 대해서는 법의 적용을 자제하고 스포츠 단체의 경기규칙이나 자유로운 영역을 보장함으로써 스포츠 발전과 생활의 수준을 향상시킬 수 있을 것이다. 그 외 과실범의 책임을 져야 할 영역이라면 시설물의 안전기준이나 그 밖의 운동시설 기준을 명확히 하여 시설물 관리자나 운영자, 여기에 참가하는 참가자의 과실의 범위를 확정지음으로써 여기에 해당하지 않는다면 형사책임을 면케 해 줌으로써 스포츠 산업의 발전을 꾀할 수 있을 것이다. 스포츠 행위로 인한 상해의 결과에 가능한 한 형사적 개입을 자제함으로써 스포츠 영역에 대한 독자성을 확립하는 것도 좋으리라 보여 진다

영어초록

The area of the law of sports that has received the most frequent judical analysis, and that has produced a correspondingly large body of decisional authority, is the liability that may result from injuries sustained in sports activities. The central technical questions raised by the liability cases are actually not very broad, and the questions presented by any given case are quite likely to fall within a very narrow range of applicable legal principles. While this might be viewed to indicate that a discussion of injury liability could be easily, and succinctly, presented, that is, unfortunately, not the case.
The most direct type of liability resulting from sports activity is that which arises as a consequence of the injuries suffered by participants. Such injuries may be the result of the zeal of competitive activity at close quarters, but will more often be the product of other forces that are not an ordinary competent of the sport. When a participant seeks to recover for his or her injuries, the most frequent allegation, and claim for relief, will be that the person from whom recovery is sought was negligent.
The negligence is conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. But in sports activities, it is demanded other principles. The sports activities essentially has the risk for the zeal of sports activities itself.
In the sports activities, there are 4 types. The first is, for example boxing, wrestling, judo, etc. a combat sports, where one by express consent relieves another of an obligation to exercise care for his or her protection and agree to take the chance of injury from a known or possible risk. The second is where one enters a relationship with another that involves a known risk, The clearest example of this is in sports is the case of the game of ball, like football, baseball, etc. All participants was limited the liability within the rules. The third occurs when one explicitly aware of risk caused by the potential negligence of another, and yet proceeds to encounter it voluntarily. Such assumption is made, for example, by athletes when they participate in athletic contest. Finally, One may proceed to encounter a risk that is so unreasonably great as to render the party guilty of contributory negligence, so that recovery is barred both by assumption of the risk and contributory negligence principles. In such type, the players enjoy sports without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper th adapt the theory of consent of the victim.
The general rule of sport activities will inapplicable where the injured participant can establish that the injuries were either the result of other than good faith competition or the product of risks that are not ordinary or inherent in the sport in question. Such factors may be present in several principles. Rules of sport activities, safety regulations, social reasonableness, consent of s victim, tolerated danger, objective duty of care are the principle of exemption of the injuries in sport activities. The negligence in sports activities, the objective duty of recklessness can be derived from the statues, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or judical precedent. However in a sport activities, the rules of sport activities may be the most important source of objective duty of recklessness. As the rules of sport activities enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sport activity, participant’s act against the rules can be treated the breach of objective duty of recklessness. But unless the injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of sport activities beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found th breach objective duty of recklessness.
The rules of sport activities differ from type to type. In so called the type of combat sports, the rules of sport activities, while allowing the participant or the team to make physical attack on the opponent th some extent, focus on diminishing or exemption the possibility of injury. In so called the type of individual sport activities, the rules of sport activities prohibit dangerous act and call the attention of participant to avoid injury. To sum up, the breach of sport activities may be treated harshly and less flexibly in type of individual sport activities than the type of combat sports.

참고자료

· 없음