메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
류석준 (영산대)
저널정보
한국비교형사법학회 비교형사법연구 비교형사법연구 제23권 제2호
발행연도
2021.1
수록면
101 - 148 (48page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper is a critique of 대법원 2020. 8. 27. 선고 2019도11294 전원합의체 판결. This ruling punishes the company's CEO's act of entering points without actually depositing won for the forgery of private electric records. The reason for this is that this act of entering points constitutes an act of entering false information, and the act of falsifying private electric records includes intangible forgery. However, while these points are referred to as personal electronic records rather than public electronic records, the judgement is based on existing precedents that public electronic records forgery includes intangible forgery. Given that the criminal law clearly distinguishes document crimes from public and private documents, it may be questioned that the court does not distinguish between public and private records as the basis for rulings on private records. Furthermore, analyzing the contents of these existing precedents appears to be committing the error of so-called hasty generalization, adding to the question. This is because the case leads to the general theory that intangible forgery must be included in the forgery due to the "individual" specificity of electronic records. Nevertheless, even if it is acknowledged that forgery includes intangible forgery, there are considerable difficulties in determining whether the points recognized by the judgment are false. The target judgment is concluded through the recognition that "it is the input of false information that entered points because there is no deposit such as actual won." This is the view taken by the target ruling despite the defendant's claim that "point is only a bond right unrelated to the actual deposit of the won." Therefore, the defendant asked why the point input should only mean "deposit of won, etc." and the target judgment on it means that it is because there is no deposit of won. However, it will be no different from answering the question, "Why did the crow let the pear fall?" "Because the pear fell." It is a completely irrelevant answer. Why would it do that? This has nothing to do with the abstruseness of identifying falsehood. In order to find out whether something is false, the meaning of what is falsely referred to must first be independently identified and what is compared to it must be determined. In particular, in identifying the meaning of what is referred to as false, the meaning should not be identified in relation to what is subsequently compared as a criterion for determining whether it is false. This is because comparing or referring in advance to what should be compared after the definition of the meaning of what is falsely identified in the process of identifying the meaning of what is falsely identified prior to false assessment can be evaluated as a false assessment in itself. The implications of being falsely identified have not yet been identified, which leads to false judgments in situations where no comparative criteria or comparisons are yet to be compared. The basis for comparison in this judgment is probably "truth". This is because the ruling states that "the contents and the truth entered do not correspond." The ruling reflects the entered content on the truth and determines that it is false. Consequently, this precedent omits the process of identifying the meaning of "entered content" and demonstrating its meaning. So there is no way of knowing why it should be bound up with the very "truth" that the case presupposes itself. Why did it end up like this? It has nothing to do with the concept of falsehood. False is something that literally does not exist. How can you identify what doesn't exist and understand its meaning? The meaning of the meaning that does not exist is bound to be borrowed in light of the truth arbitrarily adopted by the judge. That is why we must be very careful in adopting falsehood as a legal concept. Accordingly, even if it is prescribed by the Act, false concepts need to be interpreted strictly limited so that they are not disadvantageous to the actor in their interpretation and application. In addition, considering the actor's subjective view of the point, such as that the point is generally given to the customer by the company in the socio-economic context, it is more doubtful whether it can necessarily be evaluated as a false electronic record in private electric record forgery. It was also discussed in the article that 'the purpose to make a mistake in the handling business affairs', an over-subjective component of a forgery offence, would require special care not to be disadvantageous to the actor in its nature, the structure of the offence and its protective interests.
#사전자기록위작 #비트코인(BTC) #가상화폐(crypto currency) #무형위조 #허위

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (1)

참고문헌 신청
류석준 / 2004 / 해킹에 대한 규제법규에 관한 연구 - 문제점을 중심으로 - / 비교형사법연구 6(2):187~210 dbpia

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0