우리 형법 제27조 불능미수의 해석과 관련하여 다양하게 전개되고 있는 주요쟁점은 그 성립에서 ‘위험성’이 있을 때에만 처벌할 수 있도록 규정되어 있기 때문에 무엇이 위험한 행위인가를 판단해야 한다. 이와 같이 불능미수는 일반 미수범에서 인정되는 위험성이 인정된다고 하여 바로 처벌할 수 없고, 불능미수의 독자적인 ‘위험성’이 인정되어야 비로소 처벌할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 위와 같은 점을 고려한다면 불능미수의 독자적인 ‘위험성’을 전제로 위험성의 판단에 관한 기준을 제시하는 구체적 위험설과 추상적 위험설이 타당하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 구체적 위험설은 불능미수의 처벌 근거가 행위자의 범죄 의사에 있는 것이지만, 미수범의 처벌 한계는 법질서 내지 법적 평온의 침해에서 찾아야 할 것이므로 위험성은 객관적으로 판단할 것을 전제하고 있어 추상적 위험설에 비하여 불능미수의 처벌 범위가 좁아진다. 이에 반해 추상적 위험설은 불능미수에서 위험성 판단은 행위자가 가지고 있는 주관적 의사가 무엇보다 중요한 의미를 갖는다고 생각하여 행위자가 인식한 사정을 기초로 일반인의 관점에서 위험성을 판단하여야 한다고 보고 있다. 우리 형법 제27조는 불능미수의 처벌에 있어서 형의 감경뿐만 아니라 형의 면제까지도 규정하고 있는 점에 비추어 볼 때, 불능미수의 위험성에 관한 판단은 추상적 위험설이 보다 더 타당하다고 할 것이다.

A lot of scholars are presenting a lot of opinions according to interpretation of the 27th article of the Korean Criminal Code. The Korean Criminal Code is defining that can punish when there is 'dangerousness' that the impossible attempt, therefore, shall be enough to requirements called 'dangerousness' in order to punish the impossible attempt who did. Also, thing called dangerousness means what, and stick shall decide. Korean Criminal Code is defining dangerousness of an impossible attempt and a general attempt so as to be different. The person has to have known in order to inflict punishment to the persons who did the act that the results that porcelain thought about cannot occur in order to inflict punishment to impossible attempt that kind of act was dangerous became. That is, think that kind of act is a dangerous act, and can inflict punishment as having had to make the act. Until now a theory is proper, and think that there is a theory that was insisted by a lot of scholars, and was devoted to a crime row among theories, and had to judge by thoughts regarding the dangerousness that a person had, and was devoted to a crime row too, and you had to take together a thought of a person and the public into consideration. Be charmed to person, and be defining so as the Korean Criminal Code Article 27 can do extenuation of penalty about the persons who attacked an inability impossible attempt, and to be able to do excuse. Therefore, were devoted to a crime row, and a theory to evaluate a person only with bases is not matched with regulation of Korean Criminal Code Article 27. For this reason as was devoted to time, the crime row that try to judge, and a theory infuses with bases that you had to evaluate dangerousness, and is not matched with the Criminal Code, be not proper, and a theory is proper, and see that the public had to judge on the basis of circumstances that a crime row consolation knew.

A lot of scholars are presenting a lot of opinions according to interpretation of the 27th article of the Korean Criminal Code. The Korean Criminal Code is defining that can punish when there is 'dangerousness' that the impossible attempt, therefore, shall be enough to requirements called 'dangerousness' in order to punish the impossible attempt who did. Also, thing called dangerousness means what, and stick shall decide. Korean Criminal Code is defining dangerousness of an impossible attempt and a general attempt so as to be different. The person has to have known in order to inflict punishment to the persons who did the act that the results that porcelain thought about cannot occur in order to inflict punishment to impossible attempt that kind of act was dangerous became. That is, think that kind of act is a dangerous act, and can inflict punishment as having had to make the act. Until now a theory is proper, and think that there is a theory that was insisted by a lot of scholars, and was devoted to a crime row among theories, and had to judge by thoughts regarding the dangerousness that a person had, and was devoted to a crime row too, and you had to take together a thought of a person and the public into consideration. Be charmed to person, and be defining so as the Korean Criminal Code Article 27 can do extenuation of penalty about the persons who attacked an inability impossible attempt, and to be able to do excuse. Therefore, were devoted to a crime row, and a theory to evaluate a person only with bases is not matched with regulation of Korean Criminal Code Article 27. For this reason as was devoted to time, the crime row that try to judge, and a theory infuses with bases that you had to evaluate dangerousness, and is not matched with the Criminal Code, be not proper, and a theory is proper, and see that the public had to judge on the basis of circumstances that a crime row consolation knew.

Impossibility, Impossible Attempt Crime, Impossible Attempt.