본 논문은 가정폭력, 특히 가정폭력 피해자인 아내가 잠자고 있는 가해자 남편을 살해한 경우의 형법적 문제점에 관하여 위법성 차원에서 논의해 보았다. 배우자 살해에 대하여 위법성조각사유로서 정당방위와 긴급피난이 고려될 수 있을 것이다. 위법성조각을 인정하는데 있어서 최대의 난관 내지 장벽이 되는 요건은 정당방위에 있어서 논의의 출발점이 되는 ‘침해의 현재성’ 문제이다. 대법원은 김보은 사건에서 침해의 현재성을 인정하는 듯한 판시를 하였으나, 그 이론적인 논거는 제시되지 않고 있다. 학설 중에서는 침해의 위험을 침해로 보아 과거로부터 지속적인 법익침해가 있는 경우라면, 현재 법익침해가 중단된 동안에도 지속적 위험이 있다면 현재의 침해로 인정되어야 한다는 견해가 있다. 그러나 침해의 위험을 침해로 인정하는 논거는 제시되지 않고 있다. 가정폭력 피해자인 아내의 가해자 남편에 대한 살해에 대하여, 정당방위상황에서 요구되는 침해의 현재성을 인정해야 한다는 목소리는 높지만, 정작 어떠한 이론구성에 의하여 그것이 가능할 것인지에 관하여는 아무런 설명이 없는 것이다. 가정폭력의 피해자인 아내가 가해자인 남편을 잠자고 있는 사이에 살해한 경우에 침해의 현재성이 인정되지 않는다는 주장의 문제점은 가정폭력 피해자인 아내의 피해에만 시각이 고정되어있다는 점에서 발생한다고 보여진다. 시각을 전환하여 가해자의 침해행위에 초점을 맞추어보면, 가정폭력 가해자인 남편의 침해행위로 피해자인 아내의 의사자유와 인간으로서의 기본적 행복추구 그리고 극심한 인간존엄성의 훼손과 박탈이라는 법익침해상태 -가정폭력 피해자가 자살하든가 가해자를 살해하든가 하는 양자택일에 내몰린 심각한 정도의-가 계속되고 있고 따라서 가해자의 법익침해행위도 계속되는 것으로 이해될 수 있다. 이러한 의미에서 가해자가 잠자고 있다고 하더라도 가정폭력 피해자의 생명의 위기적 상황은 계속되고 있다고 말할 수 있지 않을까 생각된다. 계속범의 경우 법익침해상태가 계속되는 한 정당방위의 성립이 가능하다는 것에는 별다른 이견이 없다. 설사 합법적으로 안전하고 확실하게 가정폭력 가해자를 가정으로부터 배제하는 방법이 사회적으로 정비되어 있다고 하더라도, 가정폭력 피해자인 아내에 대한 가해자 남편의 침해의 현재성은 인정되는 것이다. 또한 달리 국가기관이나 사회시설의 도움을 받는 방법이 있었다고 하더라도 법은 불법에 양보할 필요가 없기 때문에 정당방위의 상당성 판단에서 이러한 보충성은 고려될 수 없다. 물론 더 나아가 현실적으로는 가정폭력 피해자가 일시적으로 피난하여도 그 안전이나 확실성이 보장된다고 할 수 없다. 가정폭력 피해자에게 현재하는 심각한 침해를 고려할 때, 이를 긴급상태가 아니라고 하는 것은 곤란하다. 따라서 가해자에 대한 반격은 정당화되지 않는다고 단언할 수는 없을 것이다.

Die dienstliche Untreue ist im Koreanischen Strafrecht ein Vermögensdelikt, das in § 355 Abs. 2 StGB geregelt ist. Bei der (dienstlichen) Untreue handelt es sich um ein Vermögensdelikt, einen Tatbestand, der das Vermögen als Ganzes schützen soll. Der Tatbestand setzt die Verletzung einer besonderen Vermögensbetreuungspflicht voraus. Die Strafbarkeit setzt ferner voraus, dass als Folge der Verletzung der Vermögensbetreuungspflicht ein Vermögensnachteil für den Geschädigten eingetreten ist. Nach der koreanischen Urteile des obersten Gerichtshofs liegt aber ein Vermögensschaden auch dann vor, wenn der Täter nicht nur die Verletzung sondren auch die Gefährdung des Schutzvermögens verursacht hat. Die Strafbarkeit wegen des § 355 Abs. 2 StGB setzt auch Vorzatz vor. Der Täter muss also alle objektive Tatbestandsmerkmale, aber nur die Gefährlichkeit des Vermögensschadens nach der koreanischen Entscheidung des obersten Gerichtshofs, wahrgenommen haben. In Korea wurde ferner das Strafverschärfungsgesetz bezüglich der bestimmten Wirtschaftsdelikten geschaffen, den schweren Vermögensverbrechen hartzubestrafen. Nach dem § 3 Abs. 1 in diesem Gesetz wird der gesetzliche Verschärfungsstrafrahmen des Vermögensverbrechens, wie die Untreue in dieser Arbeit, vom Gewinn unterschieden. In Korea tritt die Problematik im Zusammenhang mit der Urteile des obersten Gerichtshofs vom 2012.12.27. "2012do10822" und 2000.5.26. "99do2781" vor, dass die vom Unternehmer begangene dienstliche Untreue überproportional schärfer verurteilt werden kann. Um diese Probleme der Rechtspflege des Gerichtshofs aufzulösen, ein Gesetzentwurf zur Änderung des Gesetzes im Jahre 2015, der den Tatbestand der (dienstlichen) Untreue mit Klarheit zum Verletzungs- und Zweckdelikt verändern wuerde, wurde von der einigen Abgeordnete eingebracht. In der vorliegenden Arbeit behandelt sich es noch ausführlicher gerade über diese Problematik der beiden Urteile des obersten Gerichtshofs.

In the case of illegal drug trafficking, regarding whether to acknowledge the undertaking action of illegal drug trafficking when the person only have received the payment, however, have not yet possessed or obtained the drug, it is not appropriate to acknowledge starting to doing crime. Merely, the person received the payment according to the contract of sale, at least it is possible to acknowledge the undertaking action of drug trafficking crime. In other words, it is problematic that whether this level of action is preparation stage of crime or is relevant to attempting crime. If the person already signed the contract of sale, it can be seen as the direct action of configuration requirement not as the action of preparation stage. Regarding an indecent assault, if someone tried to hug the victim with the intention of harassment within the distance of 1m with the victim, even though there was no physical contact, this has proximity in time/place with actus reus of actual crime. Without the intermediate intervention action, it may be considered as action that is possible to directly fulfill actus reus. According to the crime plan of a person, he/she is about to hug and assault the victim. Action of raising hand to hug the victim is the last stage of actus reus which other intermediate intervention action is not needed. Therefore, attempted indecent assault is considerable.

The Supreme Court of Korea convicted Jung Bong-Ju, a former National Assembly member(United New Democratic Party) on the charge of violating Article 250, Section 2 of the Public Office Election Law on December 22, 2012. The Conviction and Imprisonment of Jung Bong-Ju who is one of the 4 hosts of the popular podcast “I'm a Weasel(Naneun Ggomsuda)” drew public attention, and this leads to the heated social discussion about freedom of expression. Moreover, the problem is raised that the crime of disseminating false information under the existing provision(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) result in the excessive restrictions on freedom of political expression. In order to solve this problem legislatively, “the partial amendment bill of the Public Office Election Law” was proposed on January 9, 2012. In such a high profile situation that public attention has focused on the crime of disseminating false information, it is required to review the criminal justice issues on this judgement of the Supreme Court. This article considers this judgement focusing the constituent elements of the crime of disseminating false information(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) and the burden of proving falsity.

‘Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof' has been punishing picture-taking by using camera or mechanical devices which induces sexual desires of others, or shame of those opened to shooting in order to block the phenomenon of fetishism. But it is difficult to find consistency in the application and interpretation of that law in a series of recent cases. It is because of the impossibility of victim identifying and distinguishing, the degree of open space and symbolism of body which influence on the sexual desire of others or physical or sexual shame. But the above factors are not proper elements to deny inducing sexual desire of others or sexual shame. The most basic element is the victim's intention. And it is natural that we can know the danger of routine judgement of sexual desire and sexual shame by going through a two-step judging process. In addition, the concept of sexual desire, or the shame in the crime of illegal picture-taking is criminal sexual desires of himself or others or sexual shame beyond mere curiosity, or simple shame and disgust. When a normal average person feels a weak fundamental human shame against sexual morality in society as a personal existence, if it is not destroyed, the notion of sex exists for sound moral values is injuried, sexual desire or the shame in the crime of illegal picture-taking is acknowledged. The concept of sexual desire or the shame in the crime of public indecency and obscene thing is to destroy humanity, human dignity or blatantly distort the representation of gender, people's dignity and value of sexual vice seriously. Those are only interested in sexual appeal, and reveal a naked act of normal sexual shame and hurt the good mind of public and the notion of sexual morality. In this sense, the concept of sexual desire or the shame in the crime of illegal picture-taking is a broad sense of sexual desire or the shame unlike that of in the crime of public indecency and obscene thing. The current judging criteria which judge the cause of sexual desire or shame by the body parts is overly alienated with the goals of ‘Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof' and norms reality and the situation of our society. So the criteria has to be replaced as more comprehensive and precise scale which consider society's sexual morals notions, gender culture, the victim's intention, sex, age, relationship with criminals, filming the context of post-war conduct, both before and after shooting the victim's attitude, filmed parts of the body, kind of clothes and state of wearing.

Zur Frage der Tatbestandsformen der Bedrohungstatbestand(§ 283 kStGB) spricht die herschende Meinung des Urteils(2007do606, Urt. v. 2007.9.28) die Erkenntnis aus, daß das Rechtsgut der Bedrohung die Freiheit der Willensentschlißung ist und § 283 ein Gefährdungsdelikt ist. Eine tatsächliche Verletzungung der Willensentschlißungsfreiheit braucht also nicht einzutreten. Jedoch kommt es dabei nicht darauf an, ob sich das Opfer durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übels im Einzelfall tatsächlich befürchten läßt. Der Täter muß die von seinem Willen abhängige Begehung eines Übels in Aussicht stellen. Vollendet ist die Tat, wenn die Drohung mit Willen des Täters zur Kenntnis des Drohungsadressaten gekommen ist und dieser den Sinn der Mitteilung verstanden hat. Nach § 286 ist der Versuch strafbar und zB dann gegeben, wenn die Mitteilung den Drohungsadressaten noch nicht erreicht, oder wenn die Mitteilung nicht zur Kenntnis des Drohungsadressaten gekommen ist, oder wenn dieser den Sinn der Mitteilung nicht verstanden hat. Zur Frage, ob § 283 ein konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt oder ein abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt ist, ließ die herschende Meinung des Urteils unberüht bleiben. Dagegen die minder Meinung des Urteils, gefolgt der wohl überwiegenden Ansichten in der Literatur, sieht § 283 zurecht als ein Verletzungsdelikt. Die Auffassung der Bedrohung als Verletzung der Willensentschlißungsfreiheit scheint mir als plausibel, weil § 283 individuell-konkrete Willensentschlißungsfreiheit schützt und nach § 286 der Versuch der Bedrohung strafbar ist.