장물에 대한 절취행위와 절도죄의 보호법익 - 대법원과 학계의 입장에 대한 비판적 검토 -

The view of the Supreme Court and some of the comments in the academic world of criminal law that recognize the interests protected by law of theft as ownership and right of possession have the following problems. Firstly, according to the points of these views, acting of persons who commit property crimes including theft can be recognized as self-defense or self-help in some cases. This result leads to a problem which is that occupants of stolen goods who have no right to possession on the property are protected by criminal law. Secondly, in accordance with the existence and intention of occupants of stolen goods who have no right to possession on the property, a decision will be made whether to apply the regulation on the crimes and complaints among relatives or not. The decision is illogical. Therefore, right of possession which has the justification should be included in the interests protected by law of theft. On the contrary, right of possession which doesn't have the justification shouldn't be included in the interests protected by law of theft. In this article, I suggest the dual interpretation on the interests protected by law of theft as mentioned above.