메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
김정환 (연세대학교)
저널정보
한국형사판례연구회 형사판례연구 형사판례연구 제28권
발행연도
2020.1
수록면
1 - 59 (59page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The point of contention was whether the defendant’s act of selfdefense could be rightfully seen as a self-defense and whether the consecutive self-defense makes the unjust current infringement situation continuously available. The stated case did not see the defendant’s action as one action but had divided the action of self-defense as ‘Initial Assault’ and ‘Additional Assault’, and ruled that the infringement was terminated after the initial assault. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered the defendant’s additional assault as an active act of aggression and refused to recognize it as an excessive self-defense, which could have reduced the level of penalty. The issue of excessive self-defense should be considered with the understanding that the situation of self-defense was within the scope of conducting the right of self-defense, therefore should be judged based on the existence of ‘equal self-defense situation’. Only in the presence of a ‘totally identical defense situation’ can the defendant’s actions constitute self-defense as a whole. In this case, the additional assault cannot be considered as being infringed of the current unjustly, such as having no imminent danger of serious body injury or death, thus, the defendant’s additional assault does not constitute excessive self-defense providing alleviation to its penalty. Also, the Supreme Court judged that in cases where excessive self-defense (Article 21, clause 2 of the Criminal Act) is due to fear, shock, excitement or embarrassment at night or other unstable conditions, the act cannot be punished (Article 21, clause 3 of the Criminal Act). Judging from the wording or system of Article 21 of the Criminal Act, it is not clear whether the acts prescribed by Article 21 (3) belong to excessive self-defense or self-defense. However, if you check the data at the time of enactment, it can be confirmed that it’s for the excessive self-defense as clause 3 is a mitigation provision for the case in clause 2. And while the clause 1 which prescribes the right of self-defense stipulates self-defense around the ‘action’, Article 21 clause 3 of the Criminal Law presents the psychological state of ‘actors’ as a requirement, therefore Article 21 (3) cannot be seen as a type of self-defense. In addition, the stated case referred to the existing Supreme Court ruling, explaining that the criterion for distinguishing between self-defense and excessive self-defense is ‘objectively reasonable fore’ and limitation to the excessive self-defense is dependent on the ‘socially acceptable action of defense’. The interpretation of ‘objectively reasonable force’ is natural when referring to the in the literacy statements of Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Law. Self-defense means an ‘objectively reasonable’ case of defense action, and it is reasonable to distinguish excessive self-defense as an excess of the degree of defense action. Given the reasons for recognizing self-defense and the regulatory system under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to interpret strictly whether it constitutes an action of objective and reasonable defense.Finally, the Supreme Court referred to the existing Supreme Court ruling and stated in the reason for the ruling that an act of excessive self-defense is limited to ‘socially acceptable action of defense’. According to Article 21 (1) and 21 (2), ‘excessive self-defense, which reduce or exempt the sentence’ is an act of self-defense which occurred under the circumstances that there is an unfair infringement of the current and the act of self-defense, although it is excessive, has ‘no probable cause but the situation’ allows alleviation of penalty. The law states the limitation to the excessive self-defense is the ‘situation’ not the ‘socially acceptableaction of defense’. The supreme Court seems to have used ‘socially acceptable action of defense’ as a criterion for judging ‘situation’. The Supreme Court did not specifically suggest in which cases the sentence can be reduced or exempted as excessive self-defense. The cases in which excessive self-defense is recognized are as follows. ① In the event of an infringement of a life or a serious danger to the body, an intruder is killed by an act of defense using dangerous goods. ② In the event of an infringement in which there is no grave danger to life or to the body, an intruder is killed by an act of defense that does not use dangerous goods. ③ This is the case where dangerous objects are used in situations where there is no serious danger to life or body, but no invasion of life or body has occurred.
#정당방위 #과잉방위 #도둑뇌사사건 #상당성 #사회통념상 방위행위 #정황

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0