영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구

@article{ART001574314},
author={ 박상진 },
title={영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 },
journal={비교형사법연구},
issn={1598-091X},
year={2011},
volume={13},
number={1},
pages={215-238},
doi={10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009},
url={http://dx.doi.org/10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009}

TY - JOUR
AU - 박상진
TI - 영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구
T2 - 비교형사법연구
PY - 2011
VL - 13
IS - 1
PB - 한국비교형사법학회
SP - 215-238
SN - 1598-091X
AB - This article focuses especially on the issues "theft". There are many types of theft. Larceny was the first theft crime. All other misappropriation of property offenses stem from this ancient crime. It was created by judges as part of the common law. The elements of larceny were very narrow and did not cover most thefts. Larceny began as one crime, but developed into many different crimes. The definition of larceny left a large gap that permitted people in some circumstances to steal from others. That gap was caused by requiring a trespassory taking of the property. Unsatisfied with this situation, the English Parliament created a new crime : embezzlement. At common law, it was not larcenous to use lies (false representations) to gain ownership of property. As it had done with embezzlement, Parliament decided to make such acts criminal. It did so by creating the crime of false pretenses. Eventually, two other crimes were created, embezzlement and false pretenses. This article considers three traditional theft offenses : larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses. In recent years, many legislatures have consolidated the three crimes discussed in this article into a single offense, often denominated as "theft". The Model Penal Code contains a comprehensive consolidation of theft offenses. Provided that a defendant is not prejudiced by doing so, the specification of one theft crime by the prosecution dose not prohibit a conviction for another. So if the defendant is specifically charged with larceny, he or she may be convicted of false pretenses or embezzlement by a jury. As the result of difficulties of proof, Model Penal Code have sought to ease the prosecutor's burden by consolidating the three theft crimes(and other property crimes) into single theft offense.
KW - 절도, 횡령, 사기, 세프트, 모범형법전
DO - 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009
ER -

박상진 (2011). 영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 . 비교형사법연구, 13( 1), 215- 238.

박상진 . 2011, “영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 ”, 비교형사법연구, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 215-238. Available from: doi:10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009

박상진 “영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 ” 비교형사법연구 13.1 pp. 215-238 (2011): 215.

박상진 . 영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 비교형사법연구 [Internet]. 2011; 13( 1), : 215-238. Available from: doi:10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009

박상진 . “영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구 ” 비교형사법연구 13, no.1 (2011): 215-238. doi: 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009

홈 권호 목록 논문 목록 논문 상세

영미법에 있어 ‘Theft’ 범죄에 대한 연구

비교형사법연구

약어 : KJCCL

2011, vol.13, no.1, pp.215 - 238

DOI : 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.009

발행기관 : 한국비교형사법학회

연구분야 : 법학

박상진¹

¹건국대학교

인용한 논문 수 : 1 서지 간략 보기

초록

This article focuses especially on the issues "theft". There are many types of theft. Larceny was the first theft crime. All other misappropriation of property offenses stem from this ancient crime. It was created by judges as part of the common law. The elements of larceny were very narrow and did not cover most thefts. Larceny began as one crime, but developed into many different crimes. The definition of larceny left a large gap that permitted people in some circumstances to steal from others. That gap was caused by requiring a trespassory taking of the property. Unsatisfied with this situation, the English Parliament created a new crime : embezzlement. At common law, it was not larcenous to use lies (false representations) to gain ownership of property. As it had done with embezzlement, Parliament decided to make such acts criminal. It did so by creating the crime of false pretenses. Eventually, two other crimes were created, embezzlement and false pretenses. This article considers three traditional theft offenses : larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses. In recent years, many legislatures have consolidated the three crimes discussed in this article into a single offense, often denominated as "theft". The Model Penal Code contains a comprehensive consolidation of theft offenses. Provided that a defendant is not prejudiced by doing so, the specification of one theft crime by the prosecution dose not prohibit a conviction for another. So if the defendant is specifically charged with larceny, he or she may be convicted of false pretenses or embezzlement by a jury. As the result of difficulties of proof, Model Penal Code have sought to ease the prosecutor's burden by consolidating the three theft crimes(and other property crimes) into single theft offense.

키워드

절도, 횡령, 사기, 세프트, 모범형법전

참고문헌(35)

[단행본] / 법령용어 한영사전 / 법제처 : 835
[단행본] 이상도 / 1994 / 영미법사전 : 561
[기타] 김용진 / 2009 / 영미법해설 : 252
[단행본] 이상윤 / 1996 / 영미법 : 375
[단행본] 서철원 / 2005 / 미국형법 : 202
[학술지] Kathleen F. Brickey / 1980 / The Jurisprudence of Larceny: An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis / Vand. L. Rev 33 : 1101
[학술지] George P. Fletcher / 1976 / The Metamorphosis of Larceny / Harv. L. Rev 89 : 469
[학술지] Lloyd L. Weinreb / 1980 / Manifest Criminality, Criminal Intent, and the "Metamorphosis of Larceny" / Yale L. J 90 : 294
[단행본] J. Dressler / 2006 / Understanding Criminal Law(4th ed) : 591 ~ 592
[단행본] Willam Holsworth / 1966 / A History of England Law(4th ed) : 360
[단행본] Oliver Wendell Homes / 1963 / The Common Law : 216 ~ 217
[기타] James.F.Stephen / 1863 / General View of the Criminal Law of England : 51
[기타] Willam. Blackstone / 1775 / Commentaries on The Laws of England : 228 ~ 233
[기타] / 1984 / Lee v. State, 474 A.2d 537,539(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
[기타] / 1978 / United States v. Waronek, 582 F. 2d 1158,1161(7th Cir. 1978)
[기타] / 1998 / People v. Sanders, 67 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1415(Ct. App. 1998)
[기타] American Law Institute / Comment to §223.1 : 144 ~ 147
[단행본] Frederick Pollock / 1898 / History of English Law(2d ed) : 498
[기타] / 1983 / Bell v. United States, 462 U.S. 356, 358
[기타] / 1945 / Anon v. The Sheriff of London(The Carrier's Case), Year Book 13 Edw. IV p1. 5(1473), repinted in 64 Selden Soc'y30
[단행본] Jerome Hal1 / 1952 / Theft, Law and Society(2d ed) : 3 ~ 33
[단행본] J.W.C. Turner / 1964 / Russell on Crime(12th ed) : 917
[기타] / King v. Pear(1799)2 East P.C.685, 168 E.R.208
[기타] / R. v. Aikles(1784) 2 East P.C.675
[기타] / R. v. Wilkins(1789) 2 East P.C.673
[기타] / 1799 / King v. Bazeley, 2 Leach 835, 168 Eng. Rep. 517
[기타] / 1799 / 39 Geo. III, c. 85
[기타] / 1812 / R. v. Walsh (1812) 128 E.R.328
[기타] Seaborne Davies / 1953 / Reform of the Criminal Law, Law Reform & Law Making : 69
[단행본] Alan Greaves / 1979 / The Criminal Law Book Ⅰ : 21
[기타] The American Law Institute / Model Penal Code and Commentaries, PartⅡ : 127
[기타] / 1892 / Commonwealth v. Ryan, 155 Mass. 523, 527, 30 N.E.364
[기타] / 1953 / Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft No.1 : 107
[기타] / 1937 / Norton v. U.S., 92F.2d 763(9th Cir)
[단행본] / 2008 / 독일형법 / 법무부