과실범의 공동정범 성립가능성에 관한 연구 - 소위 ‘규범적 공동’의 관점을 중심으로 -

This case law commentary is a case of negligence and co-principal offenders related to occupational negligence causing death. The Daegu District Prosecutors' Office appealed the decision in the first trial that did not recognize the co-principal offender for negligence causing death of the victim. The prosecution's reason for the appeal was that the co-principal offender for negligence causing death of victim V should have been recognized as defendant A, and accordingly, the second trial was held, and as the first and second trials differed in their judgments on negligence and co-principal offenders, the issue of co-principal offenders in terms of legal theory became an issue. The second trial did not take the position that A and B were co-principal offenders for negligence causing death of victim V, but rather that A and B were not even co-principal offenders for negligence causing death of victim V, and overturned the first trial's decision. In the first trial (Daegu District Court, April 20, 2022, 2021godan1102 Decision), the defendant A's negligence and the defendant B's professional negligence combined to cause the fire in this case to spread rapidly without being extinguished, resulting in serious casualties. Therefore, it was ruled that defendant A cannot avoid joint responsibility for the casualties. Therefore, it is reasonable to evaluate that the defendants have a joint principal offender relationship for the crime of professional negligence resulting in death in this case. After the first trial, the prosecutor appealed only against defendant A. It is judged that the appeal was filed due to the issue of sentencing for A. The second trial (Daegu District Court, December 8, 2022, 2022 No. 1326) ruled that if there was no minimum communication of intent, such as an exchange of opinions, between the negligent offenders, the joint offender of the negligent offender should not be considered established. However, the second trial brought about a different judgment regarding the first trial's judgment regarding the joint offender of the negligent offender. The court ruled that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that there was a specific common goal or mutual communication of intent between defendants A and B, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this, so the joint offender of the negligent offender could not be considered established, and therefore the original judgment, which assumed the existence of a joint offender relationship, could not be maintained as is. Therefore, if the judgment in question had been brought up to the Supreme Court for a judgment, it is thought that a clearer conclusion could have been reached regarding the joint offender of the negligent offender. In modern society, many casualties and property damages occur due to negligence. In this paper, It will be necessary to examine whether it was a case where a joint principal of a negligent offender was recognized, and in what cases a joint principal of a negligent offender can be recognized. Basically, with regard to ‘whether a joint principal of a negligent offender can be established,’ our Supreme Court has recognized the establishment of a joint principal of a negligent offender in several precedents.