CAJ | 학술논문

犯意转移原则用以解决D意图杀死V1而实际杀死了v2等类似情形之责任认定问题。该原则起源于16世纪的英国普通法，对英美刑法司法及立法产生了广泛、深远的影响，但亦面临着实践窘境及学者的猛烈批判。作为事实错误不免责之理论，犯意转移原则是建立在抽象故意观基础上的刑罚政策选择。在打击错误的场合，犯意转移原则对于D的责任认定并不妥适，因为它忽视了刑事责任的认定在主观与客观、事实与规范、自由与强制之间的博弈。
범의전이원칙용이해결D의도살사V1이실제살사료v2등유사정형지책임인정문제。해원칙기원우16세기적영국보통법，대영미형법사법급입법산생료엄범、심원적영향，단역면림착실천군경급학자적맹렬비판。작위사실착오불면책지이론，범의전이원칙시건립재추상고의관기출상적형벌정책선택。재타격착오적장합，범의전이원칙대우D적책임인정병불타괄，인위타홀시료형사책임적인정재주관여객관、사실여규범、자유여강제지간적박혁。
The principle of transferred malice is available to find responsibility of D who intents to kill V1 but actually kills V2. The principle of English common law originated in 16th century, producing extensive and far - reaching impact on judicial and legislation of Anglo - American criminal law, however it encounters a practical dilemma and fierce criticism of academics. As an exception of relieving responsibility from mistake of fact, the principle of transferred malice is a penalty policy options basing on impersonality principle. When D wrongly strikes, the responsibility of D cannot be properly found by principle of transferred malice, because the principle ignores the finding of criminal responsibility in the game between subjective and objective, facts and norms, freedom and compulsory.