일본 형법상 자초책임무능력자의 법적책임과우리 논의에의 시사점

The ability to assume legal responsibility needs a certain thing at the time of a criminal act under the criminal law of the principle of responsibility. Therefore, I cannot punish it if I fall in mind and body loss state at the time of an act to bring about a crime result. However, in spite of having been avoided the result of the crime, fall into a lunacy state by drinking by oneself, and what I cannot punish until the case that performed a criminal act in a state to take is unfair.　The law reason to take the responsibility when it incompetent traps, and criminality is done the responsibility voluntarily in this case has been requested. In this way, I call a case to perform a criminal act by intention or a fault in a doli incapax state by oneself Actio libera in casua. The Korean criminal law clarifies the rule for this act to three clause of Article 10 and punishes it in spite of a doli incapax state at the time of a criminal act.　In contrast, the full-scale reform bill of the criminal law is submitted in 1974, and Japan was prescribed by Article 17, but prescribes only an article about the principle of responsibility without a bill being passed. However, in Japan, the punishment affirms a legal theory as a base.　I just accept the German argument situation if I examine the Korean argument situation and am going to be tied for grounds of the punishment now. In Japan, a theory to avoid the collision with the coincidence principle and an opinion to considerably need causation get much support. Japan shows an a lot of differences point in the development of the theory in conjunction with possible punishment- related grounds discussed in Korea in this way, and there are many precedents about this. Therefore I examined it with the argument in the Japanese criminal law about Actio libera in casua in this article about the argument direction about punishment grounds of Korea.