『공동정범의 과잉』에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 준강도 및 (준)강도상해죄의 공동정범 성립에 관한 대법원의 태도를 중심으로 -

The Korean Penal Code prescribes that “When two or more persons have jointly committed a crime, each of them shall be punished as a principal offender for the crime committed” in Article 30. To be realized ‘Co-principals', the Supreme Court and doctrines expound that it is necessary to satisfy two required conditions : (1) two or more persons have jointly determined to commit a crime, (2) take a share in the act of committing a crime. But This general rule is not kept in connection with the robbery. In particular, this relaxation of conditions to be realized co-principals become visible remarkably in the ‘Quasi-Robbery' and its ‘offense aggravated by results of a crime'. In Article 30 of the Korean Penal Code, it is provided that “A thief who uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to obliterate a trace of the crime, shall be punished in accordance with the preceding two Articles”. However in “the excess of co-principals” case, that is one[A] of the two persons who had jointly determined to commit a crime uses violence or intimidation, the other person[B] do not it, the Supreme Court charge with the Co-principals of ‘Quasi-Robbery' in Article 335 or ‘Bodily Injury resulting from Robbery' in Article 337 to [B] on condition that B could have foreseen [A]'s violence at that time. But it is not appropriate that the Supreme Court call [B] for the Co-principals' liability of robbery only on condition with the possibility of foresight, because (1) [B] didn't take part in the violence of [A], (2) the second conditions to be realized co-principals which is to take a share in the act of committing a crime is not satisfied.