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

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이찬엽 (서남대학교)
저널정보
중앙대학교 법학연구원 法學論文集 法學論文集 제41권 제2호
발행연도
2017.8
수록면
55 - 82 (28page)
DOI
10.22853/caujls.2017.41.2.55

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Embezzlement is very important in very serious offense. The action of trespass is not equal to embezzlement at the trespassory liability to accomplish. Then the embezzlement is criminalized under Article 355 ⑴ of the Korean Criminal Code. Embezzlement is very different from each Breach of Duty. Breach of Duty is residual conception against Embezzlement. Embezzlement is not violent crime. Embezzlement have immediate connection with private property. Because this connection will applicable rules private law. The principle of rules private law has a wide range of applications. This intensify at the ideological conflict mix something up the space between criminal law and private law. Therefore, These problems accept a new in difference of viewpoint. Public law follow an ideal in put public interest before that of the individuals. Ownership of private law is not an identical proposition. In particular at yield possession exercise a far-reaching influence to establish embezzlement of criminal law. To give a concrete example, there is establish a trust fund. This is asking a person to keep custody and storage. But storage in Article 355 ⑴ of the Korean Criminal Code dissimilar to give the responsibility of private law. We need a slightly different approach. In perspective Supreme Court of Korea make the mistake of hasty generalization in criminal law. To put it concretely, Ownership and storage analyze something into its elements in grounds of identical. We should follow an ideal difference of domain. Article 355 ⑴ of the Korean Criminal Code is to give a vague description ‘Nullum crimen sine lege’ Principles. Return-reject a request in embezzlement must interpretation for the Article 355 ⑴ of the Korean Criminal Code. There are to figure out a way at four. The first, Being intention to have unlawful acquisition and the second, Not being intention to have unlawful acquisition the third, being malicious damage at representative the fourth, there is nothing. Return-reject a request in embezzlement is not attach indiscreetly perspective being established at the commit a criminal act. To draw a conclusion, interpretation in Article 355 ⑴ of the Korean Criminal Code is founded synthetically and a scientific explanation.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (42)

참고문헌 신청

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