사기죄의 구성요건으로서의 처분행위 (Fraud and Disposition)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경북대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논고 / 38호 / 107 ~ 130페이지
· 저자명 : 이경철

초록

사기죄의 성립요건 가운데 한 가지인 재산적 처분행위의 법적 성격에 대해서는 법률행위설과 사실행위설이 대립되고 있다. 재산의 개념은 재산의 본래 의미를 생각해보면 경제적 재산 개념을 취하여야 할 것이지만, 그렇게 되면 법질서 내에서의 모순이라는 문제가 발생하므로 그보다는 법적⋅경제적 재산개념을 취하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 따라서 처분행위의 법적 성격도 사실행위로 파악하는 것이 옳다고 본다.
사실행위라는 전제 아래 처분행위가 인정되기 위한 첫 번째 요건으로 처분의사가 문제된다. 이에 대하여 처분의사 필요설과 불요설이 대립되고 있는데, 처분의사의 개념을 처분행위 자체에 대한 인식(불완전 인식)으로 이해하는 한 처분행위 필요설이 타당하다고 생각한다.
나아가 처분행위로 인정되기 위해서는 처분행위를 한 사람이 일정한 지위를 가지고 있어야 하는데 우선 처분행위자는 자연인이어야 하며, 처분행위를 할 수 있는 사실상의 지위를 가지고 있어야 할 것이다. 이와 관련하여 대법원의 판례는 다소 일관성이 없어 보이기도 한다. 그러나 별다른 판단기준을 새롭게 설정할 수는 없을 것 같으며 처분행위를 할 수 있는 사실상의 지위를 가지고 있는가라는 기본적인 판단기준에 따라 사건을 해결하면 될 것이라고 본다. 처분행위를 할 수 있는 사실상의 지위는 행위자가 자신의 판단에 따라 처분행위를 할 것인가에 대한 결정을 할 수 있는 위치에 있을 때 인정되는 것이라고 보면 될 것 이다.

영어초록

Throughout the paper, elements of the fraud that are acknowledged based on the consistency between the prevalent view and the precedent cases have been studied. These elements include the legal nature of the disposition, elements of the disposition and of the disposer, etc.
In regards to legal nature of the disposition, there is a confrontation between two views, the legal act and the real act. The legal act view bases its theory on the legal property concept while real act view bases on the economic property or legal⋅economic property concepts. When considering the inherent meaning of the property, the property concept should take the form of economic property. However, doing so creates the contradiction within the law-and-order that it would be more appropriate to apply the egal·economic property concept. Accordingly, it would also be appropriate to consider the nature of the disposition as a real act.
For a disposition to be acknowledged as an element of fraud, that disposition first has to arise from the misapprehension of the deceived person. If causal relationship is not found between the disposition and the misapprehension, the fraud cannot be acknowledged. On the other hand, the intent-to-dispose also has to be considered and there is a contradiction over its necessity and un-necessity. This problem is deeply related to the definition of intent-to-dispose and its meaning should first be correctly and accurately defined. One might ask whether the intent-to -dispose should incorporate both the awareness of the disposition and of the corresponding consequences. My answer is no. If the deceived person knew precisely what the consequences of disposition were going to be, the person was in no way misapprehended and therefore the fraud cannot be concluded. Therefore, the intent-to-dispose should only indicate the awareness of the disposition. Having said this, it would be appropriate to see the ntent-to-dispose as necessity.
Furthermore, for a disposition to be acknowledged, the disposer has to be in certain status. First, the disposer has to be a natural person. For instance, if the deception is made onto the non-natural person such as computer and the erroneous disposition occurs, the case cannot be treated as a fraud. Also, the disposer should be capable of disposition where the word capable implies the person’s basic decision making ability. The biggest controversy, however, regarding the status of disposer is whether the disposer should have the legal authority to carry out the disposition or that he can just be someone whose position allows for a disposition. This problem arises when the deceived person is not the victim himself. For the time being, under the assumption that it is correct to see the legal nature of the disposition as a real act, it would be appropriate to say that the deceived person can be someone whose position allows for a disposition. Regard to this matter, the precedent cases of the supreme court show inconsistency. However, no other particular standards of judgement seem to be appropriate and it would still be sufficient to solve the cases based on the basic standard concerning whether the person is in the position allowing him for a disposition. Besides, the person can be said to be in this position if the he could make a disposition solely based on his decision.

참고자료

· 없음