‘문언의 가능한 의미’의 해석

The Possible Meaning of Literature in Criminal Law: The focus on Falsification of Private Electromagnetic Records

특히 많은 경우 특정 해석을 동의하거나 반대하는 모든 견해들이 모두 가장 큰 법리적 근거를 ‘문언의 가능한 의미’라고 함으로써, 문언의 가능한 의미 또는 문언의 해석가능한 범위가 얼마나 자의적 해석의 근거가 되는지는 여실히 보여주고 있다. 많은 판결들에서 해석의 법리로서 제시되어 왔던 ‘문언의 가능한 의미’가 왜 서로 다른 결론의 논거로서 작용하는지, 그것이 법해석자 스스로 모순에 빠지게 하는 것은 아닌지 재고하여야 할 것이다. 여기에서는 문서범죄와 관련하여 법문언의 가능한 의미의 해석에 있어서의 기준으로 보호가치의 동등성, 법적 가치평가의 동가치성, 법적 체계적합성, 그리고 마지막으로 해석의 한계로서 피고인에게 불리한 법형성의 금지라는 네 가지를 제시하고자 하였다. 그리고 이 네 가지 해석기준 또는 방법을 통해서, 사전자기록위작죄에 허위사전자기록작성행위가 포함된다고 해석함은 문언의 가능한 의미를 넘어서는 법형성에 해당한다고 보았다. 가장 중요한 점은 역시 법해석의 한계이다. 사회적 요청에 대한 정책적 부응이 법해석의 역할인가에 관하여도 매우 조심스러워야 할 것이다.

The Supreme Court frequently uses the criterion of the possible meaning of literature in interpreting criminal law. In general, the possible meaning of a law is the threshold of acceptable law discovery and at the same time the starting point of its formation. Not only is the method of creating a law through analogy and reduction, but it can also vary depending on whether it is a civil law or criminal law, especially whether it is possible to create a law in the interpretation of criminal law that prohibits the interpretation of an analogy as a derivative of criminal justice. This is because it can go beyond the limit of criminal law interpretation in that the creation of the law is made through analogy, whether it is internal or transcendent. Of course, the creation of laws by interpretation beyond the realm of law formation should be prohibited, as the creation of laws by interpretation is beyond the scope of interpretation. However, it is not easy to find a way to specifically confirm whether it is the formation of laws that fill the law or the creation of laws beyond the realm of interpretation. The Criminal Act established Article 227-2 and Article 232-2 of the 1995 Amendment to punish for forgery of electronic records. In relation to document crime, this paper was wanted to present four criteria for the interpretation of the possible meaning of the law: equivalence of protective value(law benefit to protect), homogeneity of legal valuation, conformity of legal system, and finally prohibition of legal formation unfavorable against defendants as limitations of interpretation. And through these four interpretation standards, it is concluded that article 232-2 (Falsification or Alteration of Private Electromagnetic Records) cannot include the false charge of private electromagnetic records. At that result, the crime of preparing falsely any electromagnetic records should be punished not private area but public area. The most important point is also the limitation of interpretation of the law. It would be necessary to reconsider why the possible meaning of a law that has been presented as the legal principle of interpretation in many rulings serves as the basis for different conclusions, and whether it is contradictory to the legal interpreter himself.