미국 형법상 원인에서 자유로운 행위의 가벌성

According to the doctrine of actio libera in causa in Korean Criminal Law, a person who, in anticipation of danger of a crime, has intentionally incurred a mental disorder, may be punished like a person who has full criminal capacity. In common-law countries, where there is no legal basis for actio libera in causa, there is a doctrine which finds that a person who deliberately drinks himself into an intoxicated state in order to carry out a crime will have no defense. The early English common law rule was that voluntary intoxication did not serve to exculpate a wrongdoer. However, beginning in the nineteenth century, exceptions to the common law no-exculpation rule began to emerge. According to current U.S. law, defendant's intoxication may be used by a defendant to negate the mens rea of a crime. The law draws a distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. It also distinguishes between general-intent and specific-intent crimes. And according to this law, voluntary intoxication is a defense only to a specific intent crime, whereas involuntary intoxication is a defense to a general intent crime. The most common voluntary intoxication defense appearing in U.S. criminal trials is not an excuse defense but rather a failure-of-proof claim, namely that a defendant lacked the requisite mens rea because of his intoxication. This article mainly focuses on a comparative study of the theory of actio libera in causa and discusses the related laws of the U.S. in oder to suggest some favorable ideas for better understanding and development of Korean Criminal Law.