검색결과

검색조건
좁혀보기
검색필터
결과 내 재검색

간행물

    분야

      발행연도

      -

        검색결과 13

        1.
        2018.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        The purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains is to deprive the crime of its illegal profits and prevent it from being retained. On the other hand, under criminal law, joint crime, teacher crime, and accessories are intended to be punished for criminal acts and their degree of participation, so the two do not necessarily have to be consistent in logic. In other words, if a person is merely an accessory and receives sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she should pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. but if a person is joint principal offender and receive not sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she do not need to pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. In the result, who will pay the penalty from depends on the attainment of the purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains.
        2.
        2014.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        Die Abstandnahme von der Tat vor Versuchsbeginn bei mehreren Beteiligten richtet sich nach Kausalität und Teilnahmeregeln. Die Rücktrittsregelung findet im Abstandnahme von mehreren Beteiligten keine Anwendung, weil Rücktritt und Abstandnahme sich unterscheidet werden sollen. Mittäterschaft hat neben dem gemeinsamen Tatplan eine gemeisame Tatausführung zur Voraussetzung. Ob hierbei als Tatbeitrg bereits eine Mitwirkung eines Beteiligten in der Vorbereitungphase und nach dem Versuchsbeginn der Tat genügen kann, ist umstritten. Für die Abstandnahme von der mittäterschaftlichen Begehung genügt grundsätzlich die Aufgabe des Tatentschlusses oder die Aufkündigung gegenüber den anderen Beteiligten. Anderes gilt nur dann, wenn der Abstandnehmende den Erfolg führenden Beiträge der anderen Mittäter noch vor Anstandnahme zugerechnet werden oder er bereit alle nach dem Tatplan zu leistenden Beiträge erbracht hat. Es stellt sich Frage, ob eine Abstandnahme durch Beseitigung der tatfördernden Wirkung erfolgen kann. Daher get es sich darum, ob der Abstandnehmende seiner Verantwortlichkeit entgehen kann, indem er noch im Vorbereitungsstadium und auch nach dem Versuchsbeginn verhindert, dass seine Tatbeitrag für die Vollendung der Tat kausal wird, oder er die Wirkungen seines Tatbeitrag im Vorbereitungsstadium und auch nach dem Versuchsbeginn so rückgängig machen kann. Wenn die tatfördernden Wirkung durch eine Abstandnahme im Sinne Kausalität beseitigt wird, dann die Beziehung von Beteiligten aufgelöst werden kann.
        3.
        2013.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        There are some crimes that requires more than two individuals who participate in committing such crimes in two opposite ways and criminal code provides that the performer is punished for committing them(one- sided criminality). It is one of the controversial issues whether it is possible to apply general provisions on accomplice liability to such crimes. Korean Supreme Court is taking a stance that only the performer can be punished for committing those crimes and it is not allowed to punish the accomplice through application of general rules on accomplice liability. For example Supreme Court decision 2011Do6287 decided November 13, 2011 applied that principle judging two-way criminality between doctors who issued false prescriptions and a taker who instigated the doctors to issues false prescriptions and ruled that the doctors(the issuers) are the only criminal and the other part(the taker) is free from that crime. But the Supreme Court rulings is facing some heavy criticisms that it is not resonable that the taker who instigated the doctors to divulge issued false prescriptions should be punished as an instigator and the Supreme Court’s stance will result in inequality between the principal offender and others actively involved.This article deals with problems concerning the liability of accomplice in one-sided criminality and proposes some solutions for them.
        4.
        2012.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        Notwendige Teilnahme meint den Fall, daß ein Strafbestand zu seiner Erfüllung notwendigerewise der Beteiligung mehrerer bedarf. Begegnungsdelikte sind solche, bei denen mehrere Beteiligte von verschiedenen Seiten her aufeinander und damit auch auf das Rechtgut einwirken. Aber der notwendig Beteilite ist jedenfalls dann straflos, wenn seine Mitwirkung das zur Erfüllung des Tatbestandes ergorderliche mindestmaß nicht überschreitet. Und Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist daß wer unbefugt ein fremdes Geheimnis, namentlich ein zum persönlichen Lebensbereichgehörendes Geheimnis oder Betriebsgeheimnis offenbart, wird bestraf. Koreanische Gerichts verstehen die Verletzung von Geheimnissen als Notwendige Teilnehme. Also Koreanische Gerichts urteilen daß der notwendig Beteilighte des delikt ist straflos. Aber Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist nicht nur Notwendige Teilnehme. Im Strafrecht kommt der folgende Fall als der Mittelpunkt des Unrechts oft vor, ob man freiwillig gegen den Norm handelt. Hierbei wird jeder, der sich an der Handlung des Täters beteiligt, nicht für die Täterschaft gelten. Das nennt man die eigenhändigen Delikte. Und teilen die eigenhändigen Delikte sich in zwei Grundformen, d.h. täterbezogene Delikte und tatbezogene Delikte. Dann man versteht unter den tatbezogenen Delikte, dass die Tatbestandsvollendung vom Dritte nicht als die Verletzung des Rechtsgutes angesehen wird, sondern nur die höchstpersönliche Tat oder die persönliche Haltung des Täters zum Zentrum der Tatbestandsvollendung wird. Also Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist Eigenhädigendelikt.
        5.
        2009.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        The criminal procedure commonly provide for the joinder of defendants, whereby two or more persons may together be prosecuted in a single trial. Assume a case in which defendants A and B have been lawfully joined for trial, but at that trial the prosecution intends to offer against A a confession by him stating, in effect, that he and B committed the crime. That right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him would be violated if A, by his confession, was a witness against B but could not be cross-examined. So to speak, where the powerfully incriminating judicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused sideby- side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the judge in a joint trial. In fact, it seems to me that “interlocking” bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant' confession will be relatively harmless if the incriminating story it tells is different from that which the defendant himself is alleged to have told, but enormously damaging if it confirms, in all essential respects, the defendant' alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession does no more than support the defendant' very own case as corroborating evidence. But it might be otherwise if the defendant denies about his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession is required as corroborating evidence that supports the defendant' very own case.
        6.
        2009.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        Despite of common opinion that aiding or abetting of false accusation against oneself can not establish a crime, Supreme court adjudged a person who aided false accusation against himself to be guilty recently. With the help of this judgement of conviction and a Practical need of punishing such a crime, prosecution and punishment on a person who commits a this kind of crime would increase rapidly. So in this brief report let us survey how variously this crime can be committed and to what extent it can be constituted. Also we will consider a crime of ‘interference with government official in the execution of his duty' as a substitute.
        10.
        1996.08 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        Seok, Jong-hwan. 1996. The Empty Categories in Phonological Theory. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 8: 25-46. This paper deals with issues relevant to the empty categories in phonological theory. The framework on which this paper is based is Government Phonology proposed by Kaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud(1985, 1990). GP is based on the notion of principles and parameters as developed by Chomsky(1981). One of the primary aims of GP is to look for Universal Grammar in phonology. To achieve this aim, GP employs a set of principles and parameters already well established in syntax. A nucleus which dominates a vowel in specific contexts can be underlyingly empty. An onset can have neither a skeletal point nor segmental material, and can have a skeletal point but no associated phonological content as well. Whether an empty nucleus is phonetically realized or not is not a question of representation, but a question of interpretation. Empty nuclei can be found in a domain-final as well as domain-internal positions. The interpretation of empty nuclei is determined by the Empty Category Principle, which is regarded as a part of Universal Grammar. The licensing condition for a domain-final is a language-specific parameter. An empty nucleus which is licensed is not interpreted phonetically. The interpretation of a domain-internal empty nucleus is determined depending on proper government. The recognition of empty categories in phonological theory can lead us toward an attempt to look for Universal Grammar in phonology as well as syntax.
        12.
        1992.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        13.
        1992.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)