- Volume 17 Issue 2
While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.
Supported by : 단국대학교
- 이상돈, 치료중단과 형사책임, 2002.
- Alexander, Thorsten, Die strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit fur die Wahrung der Verkehrssicherungspflichten in Unternehmen, 2005.
- Colussi, Marc, Produzentenkriminalitat und strafrechtliche Verantwortung, 2003.
- Deutsch, Edwin/Spickhoff, Andreas, Medizinrecht, 6. neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Aufl., 2008.
- Hassemer, Winfried, Produktverantwortung im modernen Strafrecht, 1994.
- Lackner, Karl/Kuhl, Kristian, Strafgesetzbuch, 26. Auflage, 2007.
- Roxin, Claus, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I, 2003.
- 김호기, "개발위험의 항변과 형법적 제조물책임", 형사정책연구 제27권 제1호, 2016.
- 이석배, "형법상 이중적 의미를 가지는 행위의 작위.부작위 구별과 형사책임의 귀속", 형사법연구 제25호, 2006.
- 전지연, "형법적 제조물책임에서 주의의무위반과 신뢰의 원칙", 연세대학교 법학연구 제17권 제4호, 2007.
- 하태훈, "결함제조물로 인한 법익침해와 그 형사책임", 형사법연구 제17호, 2002.
- Brammsen, Joerg, Kausalitats- und Taterschaftsfragen bei Produktfehlern, Jura 1991, 533.
- Hilgendorf, Eric, Strafprozessuale Probleme im Licht der modernen Kausallehre am Beispiel der jungsten Produkthaftungsfalle, FS-Lenckner (1998), S.699
- Kuhlen, Lothar, Strafhaftung bei unterlassenem Ruckruf gesundheitsgefahrdender Produkte - Zugleich Anmerkung zum Urteil des BGH vom 6. 7. 1990, 2 StR 549/89, NStZ 1990, 566.
- Rotsch, Thomas, Unternehmen, Umwelt und Strafrecht - Atiologie einer Misere, wistra 1999, 321.
- Samson, Erich, Probleme strafrechtlicher Produkthaftung, StV 1991, 182,
- Vogel, Joachim, Verbraucherschutz durch strafrechtliche Produkthaftung, GA 1990, 241.