법인의 범죄능력에 대하여 다수설은 아직 이를 인정하지 않는 입장이다. 그러나 법인의 행위로 인하여 사회구성원들이 생명⋅신체⋅자유⋅재산 등 중요한 법익을 침해당하는 경우가 점차 늘어남에 따라 법인에 대한 형사처벌의 실질적 필요성이 증가하고 있으며, 실제로 양벌규정 형태로 법인에 대한 형사처벌 규정이 다각도로 마련되고 있다. 그러한 가운데 헌법재판소는 법인에 대한 형사처벌과 관련해서도 책임주의 원칙이 관철되어야 함을 명확히 하였다. 법인도 그 독자적인 책임이 인정되는 경우에 한하여 처벌할 수 있다는 것이다. 이에 따라 법인의 형사책임을 인정할 수 있는 이론적 근거의 규명이 더 이상 미루어질 수 없는 상황이 되었다.법인의 형사책임을 인정함에 있어서 가장 문제가 되는 것은 ① 법인의 행동이 일반적 행위요소를 갖추었는가 하는 점과 ② 법인이 의사의 자유를 가진 존재인가 하는 점이다. 행위의 개념을 사회적 행위론에 따라 정의하면 ‘사회적으로 의미가 있는 행태’이다. 여기서 무의식중에 한 행동은 행위에서 제외된다. 따라서 법인 고유의 의식이 있는지 문제가 된다. 이 또한 의식의 개념을 어떻게 규정하는가에 따라 결론이 달라질 문제인데, ‘자극에 대한 조직체의 반응능력’으로 이해한다면 법인에도 의식이 있음을 인정할 수 있다. 나아가 자유의사 문제는 뉴턴 물리학을 근간으로 하는 자연과학적 방법론을 통해서는 존재 여부에 대한 결론이 불가능하다. 그보다는 의식의 존재를 긍정하는 양자물리학적 이해를 통해서 의사의 자유 여부에 대한 판단이 가능하다고 본다. 양자물리학에 기반을 두는 펜듈럼 가설에 의할 경우에 모든 존재는 에너지⋅정보체로서 물질인 동시에 의식이다. 인간을 포함한 모든 조직체는 생존과정의 의사결정에서 그 의식이 어느 다른 것의 제한도 받지 않는다. 따라서 법인에게도 자유의사가 있는 것으로 인정된다.

The majority does not approve the ability of the corporate body to commit crime. Precedents also stood on the same perspective. However, as society evolved, the role of corporate body became significant and the violation of legal rights such as life, body, and property by the corporate bodiesalso became frequent. Likewise, the need for criminal persecution to prevent and supress those violations increased. Accordingly, the legislators counteracted by creating a criminal persecution regulation in the form of joint penal provisions.Since the constitutional court seeks to apply the principle of liability to the corporate body’s conducts and the court, which is the part of judiciary, was the one who requested for an adjudication on constitutionality for joint penal provisions that opposed the principle of the liability, the approval of the corporate body’s ability to commit crimeis very probable. Accordingly, criminal liability problem should now be at the level where it is acceptably resolved at a theoretical level.The theoretical clarification is most urgent in whether the corporate body has the general action elements and whether it is the existence that has the free will in terms of criminal liability relationships. First, the concept of action is defined by the action theory and between causal, autotelic, social, and personality action theories, only social theory can clearly distinguish action from non-action.It describes the action as ‘a conduct that is socially meaningful’. According to this, an action that is unconsciously done is not an action. Therefore, if the corporate body does not have a consciousness, its conducts should not be seen as action. If we define consciousness as ‘a body’s ability to react to the stimulus’, a corporate body can sufficiently be acknowledged as a conscious body. This is because the corporate body has sufficient ability to react to the stimulus. Therefore, the corporate body’s conducts have general elements of an action according to the social action theory.Next problem is the presence of free will. Regarding this, the constitutional court said that “the corporate body’s own liability” should be acknowledged in order for its freewill to be acknowledged.The definition of liability is defined differently by differenttheories such as psychological liability theory, normative liability theory, and preventive liability theory. Between these theories, I believe the pure normative liability theory has no problem with its theoretical validity. According to this, liability means ‘condemnation possibility’. And the freedom of will premises the condemnation possibility.There has been a long dispute of whether the natural person has the freedom of will. Moral liability theory and social liability theory have the opposite views on this matter. There is, however, limit to finding the answer by natural science methodology. This is because natural science itself is composed of methodological system that does not accept the existence of consciousness. Furthermore, because the basic premise for the natural scientific methodology is being questioned for its validity, the whole question should be looked from the quantum physical view which encompasses the existence of consciousness as its research subject. According to Pendulum hypothesis which bases on the quantum physics, all existence is composed of energy and information and is considered to be both matter and consciousness at the same time. Corporate body is a type of pendulum which possesses the system that self-balances and conserves. For all kinds of body, including humans, their consciousness is not restricted when making decisions during their survival. This is because the only thing that can restrict consciousness is consciousness where this self-restriction by consciousness is by free will also. Having said this, the corporate body has the free will. Therefore, the condemnation possibility for the corporate body’s actions are acknowledged. In summary, because the corporate body has the general action elements as well as the free will which is the premise for liability, we can say that the corporate body can be imposed of the criminal liability.

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 법인의 행위
1. 법인 처벌규정의 규율 대상
2. 법인 행태의 일반적 행위요소
3. 소결
Ⅲ. 법인 행위의 비난가능성
1. 법인의 행위에 대한 책임주의 원칙 적용
2. 책임 개념의 법인 적합성
3. 소결
Ⅳ. 맺는 말

• 정혜욱(위덕대학교 강사, 법학박사) | Choung, Hyeuk