상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
162773.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

배임수재죄에 있어서 ‘사무의 내용’에 관한 고찰

‘재산상 사무’로 제한해야 하는가?

In the Korean Criminal Act Article 355 ②, it is provided that a person who, administering another’s business, obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to do so from another in violation of ones duty,thereby causing loss to such person, shall be punished by penal servitude for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million Won. On the one hand, in Article 357 ①, it is specified that a person who, administering another’s business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Two crimes have one thing in common with reference to principal agent of each crime. But the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② is one thing, the “another’s business” in Article 357① is quite another. The reason is as follows. (1) while the former is property crimes, the latter is a kind of bribery crimes, (2) The crime of Article 355② is required a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions such as the protecting benefit, act, result. Thus, the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② must be a business appertaining to the property. But, as regards an interpretation of the “another’s business” in Article 357 ①, there is no necessity for restricting that content to a business appertaining to the property, because it doesn’t exist a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions in Article 357 ①.

Ⅰ. 문제제기

Ⅱ. 배임죄에 있어서 ‘사무의 내용’에 관한 고찰

Ⅲ. 배임수재죄의 법적 성격과 조문에 대한 고찰

Ⅳ. [대상판결]의 타당성에 대한 비판적 검토 -배임수재죄에서 ‘사무의 내용’을 ‘재산상 사무’로 제한할 필요가 있는가?

Ⅴ. 결론

로딩중