협박죄의 기수시기에 대한 평론 - 대법원 2007.9.28. 선고 2007도606 전원합의체 판결 - (Comment for the Completion Point of Criminal Threatening)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 외법논집 / 30호 / 451 ~ 469페이지
· 저자명 : 이주일

초록

The Supreme Court completion at the time about the crimes threaten to change the existing precedent. Our criminal law, which punishes foreign laws and regulations differently, if left incomplete. Therefore nothing should be interpreted differently, it has overwhelming support and interpreted differently. This is a baseless claim that the Supreme Court follows. First, Our criminal law Article 286 of the criminal threatened to punish the incomplete and that the crime must be interpreted as Crime infringement is not necessary. Because, you should be objective and the country's criminal law norms ever person's subjective psychological state of the crime so I have not finished or completed is not right. I think however, the decision is the wrong interpretation of the systematic understanding of the criminal law. Criminal law is threatening crime in the case of minor crimes, usually a different kind of crime. However, if the crime is independent of the person's psychological state of subjective judgement, the judge through a primary prevention in order to judge objectively. Next, the person has completed a criminal case, the reality is that fear felt otherwise punished as a crime Unfinished "in du bio pro reo" the principle of combining. Minor crimes, it is crime risk understand is not necessarily right. Hegel said, "rational and realistic it is worthy of rational reality." Moreover, on the basis of objective facts and subjective norms do that, I want to emphasize.
Second, the risk of criminal threatening and criminal penalties, it is understood that can be objectively. The current regulations to expand the range of punishment do you think would be the wrong decision. Already through systematic interpretation of the objective to qualify if you feel the horror of the crime is established to discuss the threats. In the case of violation of domicile, and a number of different views of the body in a residential part of others to acknowledge the completion of crime into only one, expand the range of punishment, as if the decision to expand the scope of the punishment. Criminal law is stricter than any norms. Because the charge could be fatal punishment. And when legislators think the unknown "legislators is a wise people." Therefore, the principle of a reasonable interpretation. The current attitude of the law and interpreted differently for a reason that should be necessary.

영어초록

The Supreme Court completion at the time about the crimes threaten to change the existing precedent. Our criminal law, which punishes foreign laws and regulations differently, if left incomplete. Therefore nothing should be interpreted differently, it has overwhelming support and interpreted differently. This is a baseless claim that the Supreme Court follows. First, Our criminal law Article 286 of the criminal threatened to punish the incomplete and that the crime must be interpreted as Crime infringement is not necessary. Because, you should be objective and the country's criminal law norms ever person's subjective psychological state of the crime so I have not finished or completed is not right. I think however, the decision is the wrong interpretation of the systematic understanding of the criminal law. Criminal law is threatening crime in the case of minor crimes, usually a different kind of crime. However, if the crime is independent of the person's psychological state of subjective judgement, the judge through a primary prevention in order to judge objectively. Next, the person has completed a criminal case, the reality is that fear felt otherwise punished as a crime Unfinished "in du bio pro reo" the principle of combining. Minor crimes, it is crime risk understand is not necessarily right. Hegel said, "rational and realistic it is worthy of rational reality." Moreover, on the basis of objective facts and subjective norms do that, I want to emphasize.
Second, the risk of criminal threatening and criminal penalties, it is understood that can be objectively. The current regulations to expand the range of punishment do you think would be the wrong decision. Already through systematic interpretation of the objective to qualify if you feel the horror of the crime is established to discuss the threats. In the case of violation of domicile, and a number of different views of the body in a residential part of others to acknowledge the completion of crime into only one, expand the range of punishment, as if the decision to expand the scope of the punishment. Criminal law is stricter than any norms. Because the charge could be fatal punishment. And when legislators think the unknown "legislators is a wise people." Therefore, the principle of a reasonable interpretation. The current attitude of the law and interpreted differently for a reason that should be necessary.

참고자료

· 없음