초록

This Article examines corporate criminal liability in the United States. Under the common law, corporations could not commit crimes. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's New York Central decision, however, it has been recognized that corporations may be held liable even for crimes requiring criminal intent. There have been two corporate criminal liability standards under which corporations may be held criminally liable for the actions of their officers, agents, or employees: the doctrine of respondent superior and the Model Penal Code standard. First of all, under the doctrine of respondent superior, a corporation may be held liable for the crime of its officer, agent, or employee provided that the officer, agent, or employee acted within the scope of his or her employment and acted with the intent to benefit the corporation. Here, the agents and the employees for whose conduct the corporation may be held criminally liable are not limited to high-level agents or employees. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the corporation has designed and implemented compliance policies in determining corporate criminal liability. Secondly, the Model Penal Code standard treats corporate criminal liability differently based on whether the offense is defined by the Criminal Code or not. According to the Model Penal Code §2.07(1)(a), a corporation may be held criminally liable for a regulatory offense that is defined by a statute other than the Criminal Code only when legislative purposes to impose criminal liability on corporations plainly appears in the statute, and its officer, agent, or employee committed the offense on behalf of the corporation within the scope of his or her employment. The Model Penal Code §2.07(5), however, allows a due diligence defense against corporate criminal liability for regulatory offenses. When it comes to crimes defined by the Criminal Code, the Model Penal Code §2.07(1)(c) provides that a corporation may be held criminally responsible only when its board of directors or high managerial agent got involved in such crimes in the form of authorization, request, command, performance, or tolerance. These two standards, however, have not been free from criticism. Especially, the doctrine of respondeat superior has been criticized in that it does not consider whether a corporation has designed and implemented effective compliance policies when determining the criminal liability of such corporation. It could be problematic with regard to deterrence that is a central justification for criminal liability in general. As a result, many legal scholars and practitioners have argued that corporate criminal jurisprudence should be improved, and thereby the existence of corporate compliance policies should be considered in determining corporate criminal liability.

키워드

법령준수프로그램, 법인의 형사책임, 양벌규정, 기업범죄, 상당한 주의의 항변

참고문헌(42)open

  1. [단행본] 이재상 / 2011 / 형법총론 / 박영사

  2. [학술지] 이주희 / 2009 / 양벌규정의 개선입법에 관한 고찰 / 한양법학 (28) : 99 ~ 120

  3. [학술지] 이진국 / 2010 / 기업범죄의 예방수단으로서 준법감시제도(Compliance)의 형법적 함의 / 형사정책연구 21 (1) : 65 ~ 89

  4. [학술지] 장한철 / 2005 / 조세포탈죄의 성립문제에 관한 일고찰 / 법과정책연구 (1(5)) : 235 ~ 254

  5. [학술지] 점승헌 / 2005 / 조세범죄에 대한 조세형법 적용상의 문제점 / 법학연구 (19) : 253 ~ 276

  6. [학술지] 지유미 / 2013 / 법인의 형사책임에 관한 미국법제의 검토 / 법학논총 37 (3) : 213 ~ 247

  7. [학위논문] 최대호 / 2010 / 법인처벌의 판단기준으로서 법준수프로그램에 관한 연구

  8. [학술지] 한성훈 / 2011 / 기업활동에 대한 고유의 처벌근거 / 법학연구 19 (3) : 255 ~ 287

  9. [단행본] Andrew Ashworth / 1999 / Principles of Criminal Law

  10. [학술지] Ann Foerschler / 1990 / Corporate Criminal Intent: Toward a Better Understanding of Corporate Misconduct / Cal. L. Rev 78 : 1287 ~ 1289

  11. [학술지] Antony Ragozino / 1995 / Replacing the Collective knowledge Doctrine with a Better Theory for Establishing Corporate Mens Rea : The Duty Stratification Approach / SW. U. L. REV 24 : 423 ~ 429

  12. [학술지] Brent Fisse / 1983 / Reconstructing Corporate Criminal Law : Deterrence, Retribution, Fault, and Sanction / S. CAL L. REV 56 : 1141 ~ 1201

  13. [학술지] Charles J. Walsh / 1995 / Corporate Compliance Programs as a Defense to Criminal Liability : Can a Corporation Save Its Soul? / RUTGERS L. REV 47 : 605 ~ 666

  14. [학술지] Daniel R. Fischel / 1996 / Corporate Crime / J. Legal Stud 25 : 319 ~ 322

  15. [학술지] Developments in the Law / 1979 / Corporate Crime: Regulating Corporate Behavior through Criminal Sanctions / Harv. L. Rev 92 : 1227 ~ 1249

  16. [학술지] Eliezer Lederman / 1985 / Criminal Law, Perpetrator and Corporation : Rethinking a Complex Triangle / J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 76 : 285 ~ 290

  17. [단행본] Janis M. Berry / 1990 / Defense of Business, Individual Officers and Employees in Corporate Criminal Investigations / PUB. CONTRACT L. J : 648 ~ 657

  18. [단행본] John C. Coffe, Jr / 1983 / ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRIME AND JUSTICE 255

  19. [학술지] Kathleen F. Bricky / 1982 / Corporate Criminal Accountability : A Brief History and an Observation / WASH. U.L.Q 60 : 393 ~ 406

  20. [학술지] Larry May / 1983 / Vicarious Agency and Corporate Responsibility / PHIL. STUD 43 : 69 ~ 78

  21. [학술지] Michael E. Tiger / 1990 / It Does the Crime But Not the Time; Corporate Criminal Liability in Federal Law / AM. J. CRIM. LAW 17 : 211 ~ 229

  22. [학술지] Pamela A. Bucy / 1991 / Corporate Ethos: A Standard for Imposing corporate Criminal Liability / Minn. L. Rev 75 : 1095 ~ 1162

  23. [단행본] Peter French / 1984 / Collective and Corporate Responsibility : 31 ~ 47

  24. [단행본] Rechard S. Gruner / 1994 / Corporate Crime and Sentencing

  25. [학술지] Richard J. Favretto / 1980 / A Prosecutor's Perspective on the Gypsum Opinion / ANTITRUST L. J 49 : 1127 ~ 1131

  26. [학술지] Robert E. Bloch / 1988 / Compliance Programs and Criminal Antitrust Litigation : A Prosecutor's Perspective / ANTITRUST L. J 57 : 223 ~ 223

  27. [학술지] V.S. Khanna / 1999 / Is the Notion of Corporate Fault a Faulty Notion? : The Case of Corporate Mens Rea / B.U.L.REV 79 : 355 ~ 362

  28. [단행본] Rechard S. Gruner / 1994 / Corporate Crime and Sentencing

  29. [학술지] William S. Laufer / Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds / Emory L. J 43 : 647

  30. [학술지] Steven M. Morgan / 1991 / Perils of the profession: Responsible corporate Officer Doctrine May Facilitate a Dramatic Increase in criminal Prosecutions of Environmental Offenders / SW. L. J 45 : 1199 ~ 1215

  31. [학술지] V. S. Khanna / 1996 / Corporate Criminal Liability: What Purpose Does It Serve? / Harv. L. Rev 109 : 1477 ~ 1534

  32. [학술지] Commonwealth / 1854 / Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge / Mass 68 : 339

  33. [학술지] People / 1834 / Corporation of Albany / Wend 11 : 539

  34. [기타] People / 1908 / John H. Woodbury Dermatological Inst., 192 N.Y. 454, 85 N.E. 697

  35. [학술지] State / 1852 / Morris and Essex Railroad Co / N.J.L 23 : 360

  36. [기타] State / 1892 / First Nat'l Bank, 2 S.D.568, 51 N.W. 587

  37. [기타] Southern Express Co / 1907 / State, 1 Ga. App.700, 58 S.E. 67

  38. [기타] Telegram Newspaper Co / 1899 / Commonwealth, 172 Mass, 294, 52 N.E. 445

  39. [기타] United States / 1979 / Beusch 596 F. 2d 878 (9th Cir. 1979)

  40. [기타] United States / 1983 / Basic Construction Co. 711 F. 2d 570 (4th Cir. 1983)

  41. [기타] United States / 1962 / American Stevedores, Inc., 310 F. 2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1962)

  42. [기타] United States / 1979 / Willi Beusch and Deak & Company of California, Inc., 596 F. 2d 871 (9th Cir. 1979)