환경범죄에 있어 인과관계 확정의 문제점 - 독일 피혁스프레이 사건에 나타난 문제점을 중심으로 - (Problems with acknowledging causal ralation in the field of environmental crime)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국환경법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 환경법연구 / 36권 / 1호 / 241 ~ 270페이지
· 저자명 : 김동률

초록

오늘날 환경범죄에 있어서는 확정적인 조건관계를 전제한 전통적인 인과관계론은 그 한계를 드러내고 있다. 독일 연방대법원의 피혁스프레이 판결은 이러한 인과관계 입증상의 난이점과 함께 공동체적 결정이 가지는 원인관계에 대한 새로운 논점을 포함하고 있다. 동 법원은 여러 정황을 종합하여 법관의 자유심증과 기존의 법이론으로 적극적인 형사책임의 입증에 나섬으로써 오늘날 기업에 의해 광범위하게 자행되고 있는 환경범죄 분야에 경종을 울렸다는 점에서 높이 평가할 만 하다. 다만 동 법원은 일반적 인과관계의 인정에 있어 문제된 제품과 건강침해 사이의 인과관계를 직접 규명하기보다는 다른 고려 가능한 원인요소들을 배제하는 방식을, 구체적 인과관계의 인정에 있어서는 제품미회수 결정에 참여한 경영자들 전원에 대해 공동정범의 인정만으로 개별 경영자의 행위와 결과 사이의 인과관계 입증을 대신함으로써 법리적용에 있어 많은 문제점을 남긴다. 기존 인과관계론이 한계를 나타냄에 따라 최근 독일에서는 그 간 객관적 귀속의 척도로 받아들여졌던 위험증대이론을 인과관계론으로 받아들이려는 노력이 활발하다. 동 이론은 기존 인과관계론을 대체할 수는 없지만 에너지적 인과작용이 존재하지 않는 부작위범의 영역에서는 인과관계 자체가 불명확할 경우 인과관계의 보충론으로 적용될 수 있다고 본다. 향후 인과관계가 불명확한 환경범죄에 대응하는 효과적인 형법적 도구로서 고려해 볼 만 하다.

영어초록

A traditional cause and effect relationship theory based on conclusive conditional relations reveals its limitations for adjudging liability for today’s environmental crime and/or product liability. The German Supreme Court’s ruling on protective spray for leather reflects a new issue of a causal relationship formed by communal decision along with a difficulty in proving such a causal relationship. By piecing together various situations, the court actively sought to prove criminal liability with a liberal evaluation of evidence conducted by a judge and legal theories. The ruling served as a warning to the field of environmental crime, which is extensively committed by companies today. In this respect, it can be highly valued. However, for an acknowledgement of general cause and effect relationship, the court does not directly clarify the causal relationship between the problematic product and its effects on health, but excludes potential contributing factors. Also, for acknowledgement of specific cause and effect relationship, it establishes all executives who participated in the decision of not recalling the products as joint principal offenders. In this respect, it leaves many problems for the application of legal principles.
In recent times, the difficulty of acknowledging a causal relationship in the field of environmental crime in Germany is becoming severe with each passing day. In order to overcome such difficulty, the academia in Germany strongly claims that rigid proof of casual relationship should be replaced or supplemented with probability. Today, many environmental crimes are committed by omission in that executives who serve as guarantors simply abandon. Unlike a crime of commission, the crime of omission does not have practical action of power. Thus, as an action–reaction relationship, the probability of “if expected action were committed, a risk to the benefit and protection of the law would have been reduced” rather than a causal relationship between action and outcome becomes important. Given this fact, it is possible to apply a risk increase theory. However, unlike a general causal relationship theory, the risk increase theory, as a theory acknowledging causal relationship at such a modified level, can be considered as a supplementing theory in the case where a rule of thumb does not exist for the crime of omission and possibility of omission causing a result, or where providing evidence is impossible even with scientific methods. Furthermore, the concept of risk in the risk increase theory is not simply an embedded risk, but “a risk that can cause a Tatbestand-like act of infringing the benefit and protection of the law.” Thus, a decision of whether a risk will increase should not depend on impression of the action, but should be made by reviewing all situations after the result. As a rule of thumb, scientific and statistical knowledge should be used for making the decision.
The logic of applying the risk increase theory to the field of environmental crime still requires a great deal of supplementary data theoretically. However, in today’s context where risk has been generalized, it is desirable to use the theory as an efficient criminal tool by conducting detailed research of possible specific areas and requirements to which this theory can be applied, rather than being bound by the causal relationship theory of traditional criminal law and denying it.

참고자료

· 없음