Abstract
This paper introduces the domestic discussion of “ownership” or “occupation” of Kant, which is considered to be a meaningful review in the field of criminal law, especially in relation to “occupation” of criminals in each theory of criminal law. I hope that this study will be a meaningful suggestion for reference in re-evaluating the issue of recognition of possession by the deceased or the criteria for judging the commencement of occupation by heirs, which the Supreme Court precedent is concerned about.
 I think it is also necessary for practical law that philosophy of law, judicial history, or comparative law perspectives continue to be presented in relation to important issues of law. The subject of deceased's possession covered in this paper was also logically unconvincing to say that his possession was terminated because the victim died when he committed murder to steal goods, and to solve this problem, the precedent devised the deceased's survival possession to fill the gap. However, even in this case, the attempt to introduce 'legal philosophy, judicial history, and comparative law' thinking beyond the legal logic level is the way to revive legal philosophy, judicial history, and comparative law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
