동가치성기준설을 중심으로 한 부작위 공범구조론 ― 상응성과 동가치성 개념을 중심으로 ―

The vocabulary of ‘same valuableness’, which refers to the correspondence with the act, and the ‘same valuableness’ as a criterion for distinguishing between the principal offender and the accomplice of omission, should be clearly distinguished, but it is not a totally different concept at all. The vocabulary indicating the correspondence between act and omission and the vocabulary of same valuableness used to distinguish between the principal offender and the accomplice of omission can be seen as the same concept throughout. Whether this is expressed as Entsprechung or Gleichwertigkeit, the expression itself might not be a big problem. If there is only one participant, the same valuableness criteria theory does not function as a criterion for distinguishing between the principal offender and the accomplice of omission, but if it functions as an equivalent criminal value in the dimension that omission corresponds to the act. For example, the agenda of which the crime of omission murder is an illegal attack such as killing a person by act is an important prerequisite Of course, it is a discussion derived from self-defense for omission, but the agenda of whether or not it has the aggressiveness of omission is important and there is sufficient benefit to discuss it as a correspondence with omission, not an agenda surrounding the self-defense law clause. In this paper, I try to establish the concept of same valuableness, equivalence, and correspondence, which have been confusedly used so far, and discussed on omission which the precedents take these days.