Past records for the application of arbitrary accomplice regulations to Accomplice-essential crimes

The view of not fully denying the application of accomplice regulations to non-punishable opponents has fallen into a formal and logical circular argument that only provides formal grounds for non-punishment and has failed to provide practical grounds. In addition, it can be said that it has a criminal policy problem contrary to the legal sentiment of the general public by not punishing the active government travel activities of non-punishable accomplices. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to respect the legislator's intention that general non-punishment accomplices can be punished if they exceed the 'minimum government travel commission'. Therefore, if an unpunishable accomplice acts at least within the act required to realize the constituent requirements, the application of the accomplice regulations shall be excluded, and the accomplice regulations shall be applied only if they exceed that extent. In addition, if the indispensable counterparty is a protected person or has no responsibility (possibility of expectation), it can be said that it has provided a practical basis for the inability to punish, so it can be understood as impossible to punish. This interpretation method is thought to be able to present concrete validity in marginal cases where the counterparty is more responsible by substantially presenting the basis for an unpunishable accomplice.

처벌규정이 없는 불가벌적 대향자에 대한 공범규정 적용을 부정하여 처벌하지 않는다는 논거는 적극적인 관여행위까지 처벌하지 않는다는 문제점을 가지고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 이를 해결하기 위해서는 일반적인 불가벌적 대향자가 대향범 구성요건을 실현하기 위해 최소한의 정도를 초과하지 않은 경우에는 불가벌이지만, 최소한의 정도를 초과하는 경우에는 공범으로 처벌이 가능하다고 볼 수 있다. 또한 불가벌적 대향자가 보호받는 자이거나 기대가능성이 없는 경우에는 불가벌로 파악할 수 있다. 이와 같이 해석하는 것은 일방행위자에 대한 처벌규정이 없는 불가벌적 대향자에 대한 불가벌의 근거를 설명하는데 적합하다고 생각한다.