경영판단에 대한 배임죄 규정의 적용제한 (The Restricted Application of Provisions on Breach of Trust Regarding Business Judgment)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기업법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 기업법연구 / 31권 / 1호 / 367 ~ 413페이지
· 저자명 : 최준선

초록

이 논문에서는 기업인의 배임행위에 대하여 상법상 특별배임죄 규정이 거의 사문화되고 형법상 배임죄와 업무상배임죄 및 특경법이 적용되는 현실, 배임죄의 구성요건이 매우 개방적이어서 무죄율이 상당히 높다는 문제에 대한 해결방안을 제시하였다. 기업인에 대하여는 일반 형법상의 배임죄 규정을 적용할 것이 아니라, ‘특별법우선의 원칙’상 상법 제622조가 정한 특별배임죄를 적용하여야 한다. 기업인의 배임혐의에 대하여는 상법 제622조가 적용된다는 전제하에, 경영판단의 원칙을 상법에 도입하여 이를 명문화하고, 경영판단의 원칙에 비추어 민사적으로 면책되는 경우에는 형사적 책임도 면하게 하여야 한다.
대법원 판례는 업무상 배임죄의 보호정도를 위험범으로 보고, 주관적 구성요건조차 손해발생의 위험에 대한 인식만으로 충분한 것으로 판시한다. 그러나 이는 법문에 어긋나는 해석이므로 법률의 문언에 맞게 침해범으로 판단하여야 한다. 손해액의 산정도 전체재산설이 아닌 실질가치설에 따라 산정하여야 한다. 프랑스의 Rozenblum 판결로 상징되는 것과 같이 기업그룹 간의 거래로 인하여 배임죄 혐의가 생기는 경우, 그룹의 실체를 인정하여 그룹 전체의 관점에서 배임죄여부를 판단하여야 할 것이다. 검사의 증명책임이 강화되어야 한다. 미필적 고의와 과실의 경계가 명확하지 않아서 판단의 여지가 있을 때는 경영판단의 원칙에 의한 추정을 통해서 과실로 추정하도록 할 필요가 있다고 본다. 배임죄의 고의 판단에 있어서 경영판단인지를 심사하고, 경영판단으로 간주되면 경영판단의 원칙의 절차법적 특징을 고려하여 내부통제부분을 동시에 검토하여야 한다. 내부통제시스템을 잘 정비하고 관리하였음을 증명하는 기업에게는 임직원의 범죄행위에서 발생하는 회사의 형사책임을 감면해주고 이를 민사책임의 영역까지 확대하여 이사들이 임직원의 행위로 인해 손해가 발생하더라도 임직원에 대한 감시 소홀에 대한 임무해태책임을 면제하는 등 인센티브를 제공하는 방식을 검토하여야 한다.

영어초록

The restricted application of provisions on breach of trust regarding business people is implemented as follows. First, the provisions on breach of trust under the act on additional penalty for specific economic crimes must be eradicated. Second, for business people, the provisions stipulated for the offense of particular breach of trust under Article 622 of the Commercial Code should be applied, in lieu of the provisions on breach of trust under the general Criminal Code. At present, Article 355 of the Criminal Code or Article 356 of the Criminal code are being applied to business people for their offenses. However, this is in strict violation of lex specialis derogat legi geerali. Third, assuming that Article 622 of the Commercial Code is applied to the offense of breach of trust by a business person, sufficient review must be carried out for any allegations of breach of trust by a business person during the course of business management activities to judge whether the breach of trust was indeed the result of business judgement. Legal precedents in the U.S have established the principle of business management judgement. Korea, too, should adopt this principle to its Commercial Code and stipulate it. Should there be a case of immunity based on the principle of business management, the accused should also be immune from criminal charges. Fourth, as was seen in the ruling of Rozenblum in France, if the offense of breach of trust is the result of transaction between corporate groups, whether the offense constitutes a breach of trust must be judged by acknowledging the actual nature of the groups in question first. Fifth, the burden of proof by the prosecutor must be reinforced. When the distinction between dolus eventualis and negligence is not clear and therefore there is ample room for judgment, it should be made that a ruling on negligence can only be made through extrapolation based on the principle of business management judgement. In doing so, the retroactive review of the judge which serves the function of the principle of business management judgement can be averted. The prosecutor can prove that the case does not meet all the requirements of the principle of business management judgement and therefore can overthrow the extrapolation based on the principle of business management judgement. That is, the principle of business management judgement can be used as a principle of converting where the burden proof lies. There is a need to use the principle of business management judgement in association with the burden of proof when ruling whether there was deliberate intention in the breach of trust. Sixth, when judging whether there was deliberate intent in the breach of trust and taking into account the principle of business management judgement, there is a need to also take into account matters related to internal control in order to incorporate the procedural aspects of the principle of business management judgement. For corporations that set up a sophisticated and proper internal control system and manage it well, the criminal responsibility placed on the corporation as a result of the criminal activity of its employee should be lightened. This easing of the corporation’s responsibility should be expanded to include the easing of the corporation’s civil responsibility, so that even if a loss is incurred on the part of the corporation as a result of the behavior of employees, corporate directors are immune from the charges on negligence on employee oversight. Such incentives should be reviewed for adoption in the Korean legal system in the U.S.A, such measures are currently under review for adoption under the federal sentencing guidelines.

참고자료

· 없음