부작위범에서의 동가치성 및 과실부작위범 - 행위지배표지의 불충분성에 대한 의무범이론의 상보성을 중심으로 - = Equivalence in Omission and Negligence by Omission - Dogmatics focusing on the Complementarity of the theory of Pflichtdelikt against the Insufficiency of Tatherrschaft Merkmale -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Criminal law is a powerful system with sharp tools that can deeply hurt people and even destroy people, so through criminal law, it formalizes social control exercised by criminal law, ensuring that the damage caused by criminal law is minimized.
In the social role, concreteization is bound to depend on the situation. In light of the view that the omission itself, that is, the omission of the guarantor, should not be
punished, it is more difficult to understand that the omission of the non-guarantee is
punished through Article 33. It is desirable to arbitrarily reduce the omission of the guarantor, but it would not be desirable to punish the omission of the non-guarantee through Article 33 and not be able to arbitrarily reduce the omission. It is the same that
this is not solved even if it is viewed as a concept of a identity offender. It is also not clearly defined how far one should be regarded as a status.
In the form of “no action-no action”, it is not considered a problem of no action because the no action is to participate in the form of no action, and this part can be
solved to some extent by the concept of an accomplice and an identification offender
under Article 33 of the Criminal Act. Even so, Article 33 itself cannot be applied
to non-identical people. This is because Article 33 will apply only to those who are identified. I think Article 33 will apply only if all participants have status. This is because asking for responsibility even though you are a non-identity person without status would be as if you were asking a person who did not have an obligation in the
crime of breach of trust to be guilty of breach of trust.
Even in the issue of establishing a joint principal offender of omission, each principal offender must have a guarantor status and an obligation to act to establish a joint principal offender of omission. If any one of them has no obligation to act, a joint principal offender of omission cannot be established even under Article 33 for a person
who has no obligation to act.
In the Boramae Hospital case, the patient’s wife was judged as a murderer by
omission. The doctor’s doing can be regarded as an act or an omission. Suppose a
father stays still when his child is drowning. If the child is drowning and the father
is just looking at him, it is of course a crime by omission. Mentally encouraging and
assisting through acts of action, or handing over murder tools or giving tips, then these can also be regarded as crime by omission. If there is a person who applauds, helps,
and instructs them to kill him from behind, it should be considered that the person who
does this is a criminal by act, but there is room for discussion whether this committing
criminal is a principal offender or an accomplice. It should be distinguished whether the criminal is a principal offender or the accomplice.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

최근 이태원 참사를 계기로 국가기관의 부작위 형사책임에 관하여 많은 관심들이 생겨나고 있다. 이태원 압사 참사 사태와 관련하여, 시민단체는 이태원 참사는 국가 부작위에 의한 살인죄이므로 고위공직자 16명을 직무유기와 업무상 과실치사상 등혐의로 경찰에 고발한다고 밝혔다.
이는 공무원에 의한 과실부작위범 사안으로 포섭할 수는 없을 것인가 논구해 보아야 한다. 부작위범 쟁점과 관련한 또 다른 최신 사건으로는 22세 청년이 뇌졸중으로 쓰러진 부친을 병원비 부담으로 집에서 홀로 돌보다 생활고와 간병을 감당하지 못해 부친을 의도적으로 방치하여 사망케 한 이른바 ‘간병살인 사건’이 법원에서 유죄를 선고받았다.
이와 같은 부작위범에 대한 쟁점 사건들이 연일 우리 신문 지면상을 장식한다. 이은해 사건에서도 인천지법 1심 판결에서 부작위 살인죄가 적용되어 무기징역이 선고되었고 서울고법 2심 판결에서는 항소기각을 하였다. 현재 피고인은 상고한 상태이다.
또 다른 부작위 사례로서, 가령 포털사이트의 한 동호회 카페에서 명예훼손적 게시글이 버젓이 수십 일 동안 게재되고 있음에도 불구하고, 포털사이트 관리자 및 동호회 카페지기 둘 다 삭제를 하는 등의 행위를 하지 않았다면 둘 다 부작위범으로 의율 할 수 있을 것인가 하는 문제가 있다. 포털사이트 사례의 경우 누가 정범이고 누가 방조범이 되겠는가? 포털사이트 관리자 및 카페지기 모두의 부작위가 있었다면 이는 부작위 상호 간의 쟁점이 된다.