- 권한신청
- P-ISSN1229-0661
- E-ISSN1229-0661
- KCI
형사사건에서의 고의성 판단: 도덕적 특성의 역할
Intentionality Judgement in the Criminal Case: The Role of Moral Character
허태균 (고려대학교)
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
초록
형사사건에서 고의성 판단은 사건 가해자에게 적용되는 혐의의 유․무죄 판단은 물론 처벌의 크기를 판단하는 근간이 되는 사실인정의 핵심적인 영역이다. 그러나 고의성이라는 개념은 행위자의 주관적 측면, 즉 그 행위자의 심리적 측면을 반영하고 있기 때문에 제 삼자가 이를 판단하는 것이 매우 어렵다. 따라서 고의성이 어떻게 판단되어지는가에 대한 물음은 형사사법체계는 물론 학계 내에서도 매우 중요한 문제로 다뤄지고 있다. 기존의 대표적 고의성 판단 모델들 중, ‘심적-상태 모델’은 행위 당시 행위자의 ‘예견가능성(믿음)’ 및 ‘욕망’ 요인이 고의성을 판단하는 중요한 요인이라고 주장한다. 이는 한국과 영미의 형법에서 고의성 판단 요소로 ‘지(知)적 요소’ 및 ‘의(意)적 요소’를 중요하게 고려하고 있는 것과 상통하는 것이다. 그러나 ‘도덕적-평가 모델’에서는 행위의 결과적 측면을 반영한 요인들, 즉 그러한 결과를 발생시킨 ‘행위자에 대한 비난가능성’ 및 ‘결과의 나쁨 정도’ 요인이 고의성 판단을 하는데 중요한 요인으로 작용한다고 주장한다. 최근에는 행위자의 행위 당시 심적-상태 요인이나 행위의 결과적 측면에 대한 도덕적-평가 요인보다 행위자의 ‘핵심-자기’ 요인이 고의성을 판단하는 데 보다 중요한 역할을 한다고 주장하는 ‘핵심-자기 일치 모델’이 등장했다. 그러나 이러한 모델들은 형사사건의 중요한 특징들, 즉, 사건의 결과는 항상 부정적일 수밖에 없다는 것과 그렇기 때문에 법적 처벌의 당사자인 행위자가 행위 당시 자신의 심적 상태를 진실하게 표명하는 일은 거의 없다는 것을 고려하지 못했다는 한계가 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 기존의 고의성 판단 연구들과 형사사건의 특징들을 종합적으로 고려했을 때, 형사사건에서는 그 행위자가 본래 어떤 사람이었는가에 대한 추론이 고의성을 판단하는 데 가장 중요한 역할을 할 것이라는, 이른바 ‘도덕적-특성 모델’을 제안한다. 나아가 이와 관련하여 언론 및 형사사법기관에서 유념해야할 점과 추후 연구 방향에 대해 논하였다.
- keywords
- moral-character model, mental-state model, moral-evaluation model, deep-self concordance model, intentionality judgment, 도덕적-특성 모델, 심적-상태 모델, 도덕적-평가 모델, 핵심-자기 일치 모델, 고의성 판단
Abstract
Intentionality judgement in criminal cases is a core area of fact finding that is root of guilty and sentencing judgment on the defendant. However, the third party is not sure the intentionality because it reflects subjective aspect of agent. Thus, mechanism behind intentionality judgment is an important factor to be properly understood by the academia and the criminal justice system. However, previous studies regarding intentionality judgment models have shown inconsistent results. Mental-state models proposed foreseeability(belief) and desire of agent at the time of the offence as key factors in intentionality judgment. These factors consistent with central things on intentionality judgment in criminal law. However, key factors in moral-evaluation models are blameworthiness of agent and badness of outcome reflected on the consequent aspect of act. Recently, deep-self concordance model emerged suggesting important factors on intentionality judgment are not mental states and moral evaluations but individual’s deep-self. However, these models are limited in that they do not consider the important features of criminal cases, that the consequence of the case is inevitably negative, and therefore the actor who is a party to legal punishment rarely expresses his or her mental state at the time of the act. Therefore, this study suggests that, based on the existing intentionality judgment studies and the characteristics of the criminal case, the inference about who the agent was originally will play a key role in judging the intentionality in the criminal case. This is the moral-character model. Futhermore, In this regard, this study discussed what the media and criminal justice institutions should keep in mind and the directions for future research.
- keywords
- moral-character model, mental-state model, moral-evaluation model, deep-self concordance model, intentionality judgment, 도덕적-특성 모델, 심적-상태 모델, 도덕적-평가 모델, 핵심-자기 일치 모델, 고의성 판단
참고문헌
김일수, 서보학 (2008). 새로 쓴 형법총론(제11판). 서울: 박영사.
김한균 (2010). 형법상 모살⋅고살 구분과 영미형법의 살인죄. 형사법연구, 22(4), 183-209.
문채규 (2004). 고의, 과실 및 구성요건착오에 관한 형법규정의 정비. 형사법연구, 22, 127-140.
사법연수원 (2011). 형사증거법 및 사실인정론. 경기도: 사법연수원 출판부.
양병화 (2009). 다변량 자료분석의 이해와 활용. 서울: 학지사.
최우찬 (2005). 고의와 과실: 특히 판례를 중심으로. 서강법학연구, 7, 79-104.
Adams, F. (2015). The Knobe Effect and the law. Methode, 6, 121-135.
Adams, F. & Steadman, A. (2004). Intentional action in ordinary language: Core concept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis, 64, 173- 181.
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574.
Alicke, M. D. (2008). Blaming badly. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8, 179-186.
Alicke, M. D., Mandel, D. R., Hilton, D. J., Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2015). Causal conceptions in social explanation and moral evaluation: A historical tour. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 790-812.
Alicke, M. D., & Rose, D. (2012). Culpable control and causal deviance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 723-735.
Aristotle. (1892). The Nicomachean ethics (transl. by J. Welldon). London: Macmillan. (Originally published around 330 B.C.).
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 691-705.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47-63.
Cova, F., Lantian, A., & Boudesseul, J. (2016). Can the Knobe Effect be explained away? Methodological controversies in the study of the relationship between intentionality an morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1295-1308.
Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380.
Fletcher, G. (1978). Rethinking criminal law. Boston: Little, Brown.
Forguson, L. (1989). Common sense. London: Routledge.
Gardner, T. & Manian, V. (1980). Criminal law: Principles, cases, and readings (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in first degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 156-166.
Gordon, R. (1990). Attributions for blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effects of subject and defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 971-983.
Guglielmo, S. & Malle, B. (2010). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1635-1647.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hoffman, E. (1981). Social class correlates or perceived offender typicality. Psychological Reports, 49, 347-350.
Hughes, J. & Trafimow, D. (2012). Inferences about character and motive influence intentionality attributions about side effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 661-673.
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Cushman, F. (2012). Benefiting from misfortune: When harmless actions are judged to be morally blameworthy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 52-62.
Jones, E. & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
Jones, C. & Kaplan, M. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1-13.
Knobe, J. (2003a). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190-194.
Knobe, J. (2003b). Intentional action in folk psychology: An experimental investigation. Philosophical Psychology, 16, 309-324.
Knobe, J. (2004). Intention, intentional action, and moral considerations. Analysis 64, 181-187.
Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203-231.
Knobe, J. (2010). Person as scientist, person as moralist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 315-329.
Lagnado, D. & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108, 754-770.
Malle, B. (2006). Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 87-112.
Malle, B. (2008). Fritz Heider's legacy: Celebrated insights, many of them misunderstood. Social Psychology, 39, 163-173.
Malle, B. & Konbe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionalality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101-121.
Malle, B. & Knobe, J. (2001). The distinction between desire and intention: A folk-conceptual analysis. In B. Malle, L. Moses, & D. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition (pp. 45-67). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malle, B. & Nelson, S. (2003). Judging mens rea: The tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 563-580.
Mele, A (2001). Acting intentionally: Probing folk notions. In B. Malle, L. Moses, & D. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition (pp. 27-43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Monroe, A., & Malle, B. (2019). People systematically update moral judgments of blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 215-236.
Nadelhoffer, T. (2004a). The Butler problem revisited. Analysis, 64, 277-284.
Nadelhoffer, T. (2004b). Blame, badness, and intentional action: A reply to Knobe and Mendlow. The Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24, 259-269.
Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical explorations, 9, 203-219.
Ngo, L., Kelly, M., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Huettel, S. A., Coutlee, C. G., Carter, R. M., et al. (2015). Two distinct moral mechanisms for ascribing and denying intentionality. Scientific Reports - Nature, 5, 1-11.
Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192-221). NY: Cambridge Universiry Press.
Rogers, R., Alicke, M. D., Taylor, S. G., Rose, D., Davis, T. L., & Bloom, D. (2019). Causal deviance and the ascription of intent and blame. Philosophical Psychology, 32(3), 404-427.
Siegel, J. Z., Crockett, M. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2017). Inference about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise. Cognition, 167, 201-211.
Sripada, C. (2010). The deep self model and asymmetries in folk judgments about intentional action. Philosophical Studies, 151, 159-176.
Sripada, C. (2012). Mental state attributions and the side-effect effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 232-238.
Sripada, C. & Konrath, S. (2011). Telling more than we can know about intentional action. Mind & Language, 26, 353-380.
Westra, E. (2018). Character and theory of mind: An integrative approach. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1217-1241.
Zucchelli, M. M., Starita, F., Bertini, C., & Giusberti, F. (2019). Intentionality attribution and emotion: The Knobe Effect in alexithymia. Cognition, 191, 1-9.
국민일보 (2014.08.01.). 치약 짜먹이고 물고문 가혹행위...“28사단 윤일병 폭행한 선임병 살인죄 적용을” - 軍인권센터 공소장 변경 요구.
뉴시스 (2014.07.31.). 구타로 사망한 윤일병, ‘물고문․성고문’까지 당했다.
동아일보 (2014.07.31.). 28사단 윤일병, 성기에 안티푸라민-가래침 핥아먹기...충격 가혹행위.
동아일보 (2016.08.25.). ‘윤일병 사건’ 주범 이 병장 징역 40년 확정…나머지 공범은? ‘상해치사 혐의’ 징역 7년.
연합뉴스 (2016.08.25.). 대법 ‘윤 일병 폭행사망’ 주범 이 병장에 징역 40년 확정(종합).
조선일보 (2016.08.26.). ‘윤일병 폭행 사망’ 주범에 징역 40년 - 대법, 李병장에 살인죄 인정.
JTBC (2014.08.04.). [여당] ‘윤일병 사건’ 분노한 국회...살인죄 가능할까.
JTBC (2014.08.05.). [청와대] 박 대통령, ‘윤일병 사건’ 군 질타…김관진 거취는?
JTBC (2014.08.08). 국방부, 윤일병 가해자에 “살인죄 적용” 의견…사실상 지시.
KBS (2014.08.04.). 여야 한목소리로 윤일병 사건 질타…“살인죄 검토.”
KBS뉴스9 (2014.07.30.). 상상초월 군 가혹행위... “물고문, 치약고문.”
KBS뉴스9 (2014.08.03.). 새누리 “윤일병 폭행은 살인사건” 군 질타.
KBS뉴스9 (2014.08.04.). 국방장관 대국민 사과 “재조사, 살인죄 적용 엄벌.”
제3군사령부 보통군사법원 2014. 10. 30. 선고 2014고13,2014고14(병합) 판결
고등군사법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2014노315 판결
대법원 2000. 8. 18. 선고 2000도2231 판결
대법원 2015.10.29. 선고 2015도5355 판결
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
- 0KCI 피인용수
- 0WOS 피인용수