장애인준강간죄에서 ‘항거불능’ 요건의 해석에 대한 비판적 고찰 (Trend and Issues of Sexual Violence Cases against the Disabled)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 민주주의법학연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 민주법학 / 45호 / 179 ~ 212페이지
· 저자명 : 김정혜

초록

이 논문은 법원이 장애인준강간죄를 적용할 때 사용하는 기준과 논리를 살피기 위하여 최근 13여 년 간의 장애인 성폭력 판결문을 분석하였다. 그 결과 법원은 장애인준강간죄의 구성요건인 ‘항거불능’의 해석에서 아직 일관된 기준을 가지고 있지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 형법상 준강간죄와 같은 수준으로 심신상실에 준하는 정도의 장애를 요하는 대법원 판결과 장애 이외의 정황요소를 복합적으로 판단하여야 한다고 하는 대법원 판결이 공존하며, 하급심 판결은 이 두 판결의 입장 사이에서 정리되지 못하고 있다. 그러나 피고인의 고의나 행위보다도 피해자의 장애 정도에 치우친 판단을 하는 법원의 태도에는 문제가 있다. 장애인준강간죄의 ‘항거불능’은 그 입법취지상 형법상 준강간죄의 ‘항거불능’보다 완화된 해석을 요하며, 심신미약자를 배제하는 개념이 아니라고 볼 필요가 있다.

영어초록

Sexual violence cases against the disabled have the characteristics that the victims were not so much able to resist as the non-disabled, to prove the existence of assault, to testify logically and so on. The court has to consider both the ‘universality’ as the sexual violence and the ‘specialty’ as the sexual violence against the disabled in trial. This study reviews the cases for 13 years after the provisional addition of the mental disability factor as a cause of ‘incapability of resistance’ to the rape clause of the disabled, and checks the logic and standards. In the results, the court turned out to understand improperly the characteristics of disability as well as to determine there to be any incoherent standards on ‘incapability of resistance’ requisite. In 2007, the Supreme Court applied more extended standards. However, the former decisions were not reversed according to the precedent alteration procedure, which requires the examination of all judges of the Supreme Court. Because of that, the attitudes adhering to the existing strict interpretation still continue to exist even after 2007. The court has applied mainly the standards like victim’s sexual intercourse experience, knowledge of sexual matters, intellectual capacity and level of education to the interpretation of ‘incapability of resistance’ requisite. According to such standards, the level of victim’s disability rather than defendant’s intention or behavior has played the critical role in the courts’ reasoning. Moreover, the court has not distinguished the victim’s ability of sexual self-determination from that of expression of her intention. In the result, there is a logical leap that if the victim should resist at all, she would have capacity to sexual self-determination.

참고자료

· 없음