On Nov. 12. 2015, the Suprem Court of Korea has given out an judgement on the Sewol Ferry incident that convicted the captain of a Homicide by Omission who escaped the ship abandoning more than 300 passengers and crews trapped in the sinking ship. On the contrary it denied the first navigation officer and the second of the charge a complicity in homicide by omission. The Court said that a conviction shall not be made because it was hard to admit that they were in collusion with the captain and omitted their obligations out of willful negligence or dolus eventualis. However they, as the executive members of the ship, had duty to protect the passengers and the other crews on the Sewol Ferry from the danger of death in the ship in distress. They knew that they were in a tense situation and the captain didn’t organize his response appropriately, and they could have rescued most of the people who couldn’t escape from the sinking ship if they tried to fulfill their obligation. It can be said that they took charge in the crisis with the captain, and there was implied communication between them to omit their obligation when they abandoned the passengers and crews escaping the ship with no action to rescue them. This article deals with the practical and theoretical possibility that the executive navigation officers of the Sewol Ferry can be convicted of a complicity in homicide by omission.

[연 구]
 Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
 Ⅱ. 본 사건의 쟁점과 이에 관한 다수의견과 반대의견의 주장
  1. 다수의견과 반대의견의 주장과 논거
   (1) 살인의 고의 및 부작위범의 성립요건을 갖추었는지 여부
   (2) 공동정범의 인정여부
  2. 다수의견과 반대의견의 대립점
 Ⅲ. 부작위범의 공동정범의 성립요건
  1. 판례의 입장
   (1) 작위범에 부작위의 형태로 가담하는 경우
   (2) 부작위범에 작위의 형태로 가담하는 경우
   (3) 부작위범에 부작위의 형태로 가담하는 경우
  2. 부작위범의 공동정범을 부정하는 견해
  3. 부작위범의 공동정범의 성립요건
 Ⅳ. 대상판결에 대한 평가
 [참고문헌]
 [Abstact]

• 김태명(전북대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 법학박사, Ph. D. in Law, Associate Professor at Law School of Chonbuk University) | Kim, Tae-myeong