Some Problems about Victim’s Consent under KOREA Criminal LAW

The consent of the victim is that the subject of the legal interest allows the other person to infringe on his or her legal interest, and in some cases it is an effective system to engrave the illegality of the act by consent. In KOREA, as a legislative case, the consent of such victims is prescribed in the Article 24 of the Criminal Law, and it is a mainstream interpretation of our criminal law academics to view such acts as justification of illegal acts as self - defense, emergency evacuation. Of course, we also acknowledge that there is a possibility that the consti-tutional requirement may be denied by the consent of the victim even in this legitimate position. In other words, if the consent of the victim is accepted, the constitutional qualification of the act is denied, and the constitutional qualification is recognized but the illegality is sculptured. The study initiates a discussion on what kinds of legal interests victims of a violation can accept. The consent of the victim is recognized only if the right of the disposition is greater than the social necessity of disposing of the disadvantage. However, there are cases where the willingness of the individual to be consent may be a prob-lem if there are individuals who are also victims of the national and social. There is no doubt that the legal inter-ests of a victim’s consent is personal interests, but it will focus on the case of conflict between personal and legal interests. In this case, we will confirm that the consent of the person concerned does not affect the establishment of the crime if there is overlap between personal and legal interests and national and social interests. Next, the dispossessed right will review whether any legal interest is disposable, unless there are special re-strictions. This is to examine whether it is possible to limit the freedom of disposition by law. In this regard, we will consider that it is very difficult to uniformly define the limits for the restriction of consent, and that judging this by an uncertain phrase of social equity is not reasonable in terms of legal stability. It also examines how to see the effect of consent when the consent of the dispossessed person is made for illegal purposes. This is to examine whether it is possible to limit the freedom of disposition by law. In this regard, we will consider that it is very difficult to uniformly define the limits for the restriction of consent, and that judging this by an uncertain phrase of social equity is not reasonable in terms of legal stability. If the consent of the dispossessed person is made for illegal purposes, how to see the effect of the consent shall also be examined.It also examines how to see the effect of consent when the consent of the dispossessed person is made for illegal purposes.