Act on the Invalidation of Criminal Sentences(AICS) Article 1 (Purpose) regulates “The purpose of this Act is set out standards regarding the administration of previous criminal records and the materials of investigation records, and the invalidation of punishment, thereby guaranteeing a normal social rehabilitation for ex-convicts.” To achieve the one of the goals, AICS Article 7(Invalidation of Punishment) regulates “(1) Where the period of following subparagraphs elapses after the execution of punishment is completed or exempted without being sentenced to suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment, the punishment shall be invalidated: Provided, That detention and minor fine shall be invalidated when the execution of punishment is completed or exempted: 1. Ten years in the case of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor of more than three years; 2. Five years in the case of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor of not more than three years; 3. Two years in the case of a fine. … ” There are three more legal apparatus for the invalidation of punishment. One is the general amnesty by Amnesty Act Article 5 (1), the second is the motion to the invalidation of punishment by the person her or himself or a public prosecutor by Criminal Code Article 81, and the third is the elapse of the term of suspension of sentence without the sentence being nullified or revoked by Criminal Code Article 65. What is the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment? The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea has explained the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment by the two concept, the invalidation for the future(not retroactive) and the fact that it does not mean that the existence of the decision of the punishment is extinct. It remains to be seen that what is the specific meaning of the legal effect on the invalidation of punishment in view of the two conflicting interests between the guarantee of social security and the guarantee of civil rights.

Die Probleme des Gewerbeverbrecher ist ein Nachtragsdiput eines modernen Rechtsfolgen System auf das unfassenden Einheitsverbrechen. Das Gewerbedelikt wird wie dem fortgesetzte Delikt oder Gewohnheits Delikt ausgesehen. Die Fortsetzungstat ist ein Fall der rechtlichen Handlungseinheit. Zum Beispiel, Voraussetzung für eine fortgesetzte Tat ist zunächst, daß jeder Einzelakt alle Deliktsvoraussetzugen erfüllt, also tatbestandsmäßig, rechtswidrig und Schuldhaft beganen worden ist. Gleichfalls ist das Gewerbedelikt. Für die gewerbsmäßige Straftat ist vielmehr kennzeichnend die Absicht des Täters, sich durch wiederholte Begehung des Verbrechens eine fortlaufende Einnahmequelle von einiger Dauer und einigem Umfang zu verschffen,Das Dilemma bei dem Gewerbrdelikt besteht jedoch darin, daß es eineseits als rechtliche Einheit, d. h., als eine einzige Tat behalt wird, auf der anderen Seite aber nicht zu übersehen ist, daß es ihm aus einer Anzahl äußerlich selbständiger und tatbestandsmäßiger handlungen zusammensetzt. Auch die Gewerbsmäßigkeit wird durch den Fortsetzungszusammen-hamng nicht eo ipso ausgeschlossen, was der Fall wäre, wenn man einerseits eine Mehrheit gleichartiger Taten verlangt, gleichzeitig aber die Fortsetzungstat als eine einzige Straftat behandelt.

A subject of demand on appropriateness in accordance with social rules is thought to be the most important at behaviors by the consent. In other words, estimate of the action by criminal law shall be discussed not by an actor's internal will but by infringement upon legal interest at outside world. Either purpose or motive of the one who has infringed upon legal interest with consent shall not be considered at the estimate of appropriateness of social rules. Therefore, the subject that shall limit consent by social rules shall be not motives and purposes of the consent but ‘an action that infringes upon legal interest’ in accordance with the consent. What type of infringement upon legal interest does limit justification? The problem is related to ‘scope’ of the demand on appropriateness of social rules. Unless special provisions which punish crimes such as murder and abortion regardless of consent, Article 24 of the Criminal Act shall be applied to the crimes of all of private legal interests considering legislation purpose and systematic position. Majority of the scholars think that infringement upon legal interest of other crime types than aforementioned crimes require appropriateness of social rules, and ‘bodily injury’ with consent can be of problem. Considering various kinds of spectrum of bodily injury, the discussion has reached ‘degree’ of demand on appropriateness of social rules, in other words, scope of the permit of bodily injury subject to the consent.The value and specialty of legal interest of bodily injury subject to the consent can be discussed: But, medical treatment for beauty care, minor bodily injury and others that have minor bodily injury with consent of entity of legal interest need not be protected by the Criminal Act. When bodily injury subject to the consent jeopardizes existence of legal entity to threaten life or equivalent and to be serious, punishment against the action is thought to be admitted despite consent. Article 258(Aggravated Bodily Injury) of the Criminal Act can be used for reference.

The purpose of this study was to assess viewpoints about criminal liability as one of the elements of the crime and present the importance of professional expertise on diagnosis of mental illness and physical defects. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under current criminal law that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. The legal definition of “mental and physical disorder” is, in criminal cases, quite different from psychiatric definitions of it. This excuse is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense. This study suggest the important steps in the direction of examining and analyzing the role of psychiatric diagnosis according to the responsibilities of the evaluator. It is anticipated that there will be further work in these areas to address not only diagnoses but forensic recommendations and opinions.

The issue of this paper is what is the definite limit of criminal coercion and how it can be determined. Basically, even if an actor gives threat to the victim, of which substance is within the scope of the actor’s right, that threatening expression can be subject to criminal punishment. In that case, if the actor does the act threatened, his act is out of the scope of criminal punishment. Korean Supreme Court has decided that, in consideration of motive and means of a threatening act, it can be wrong. Herewith, the problem is based on what standard the threatening act’s morality can be taken into consideration.Although morality of threatening act can be considered in the aspect of coercion, extortion and threat, is there any difference among them? The invasion on freedom of victim is the primary legal interest in this issue and also the invasion on freedom of actor should be taken seriously. These two aspects of threatening act should be taken to strike a balance in the area of our daily lives and market. Because the flexibility of decision of criminality of a threatening act makes it possible to restrict our legitimate activities too excessively, kinds of wisdom and principle should be invited in this area. We should note that the method of Korean Supreme Court of deciding criminality of verbal threatening is a wide scope of consideration of circumstances of an actor’s motives, means, benefits and disadvantages of his acts, etc. Also, the current interpretation of coercion, extortion and threat in Korean Criminal Code has paid more attention into violation of general morality in our society, rather than personal right to freedom from threatening expression. This interpretation seems to invite so various consideration of immorality of an actor’s threatening act.The standard of consideration of the cases in issue should be more specified. If it cannot be, it should be subject to constitutional review, based on principle of freedom and clarity. In America, If freedom of expression is in issue, the words existing in the provision of criminal punishment should be more rigorously reviewed. In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, the New Orleans’ criminal provision make it an offense “wantonly to cures or revile or to sue obscene or opprobrious language toward……” The supreme court of New Orleans strike down the provision in violation of the First Amendment, because it is too vague and general for the purpose of the Amendment. After the court's decision, the New Orleans legislator revise the provision, that you can be subject to punishment, if you falsely accuse some person of a crime or testify falsely or provide false information. By focusing on the wrongfulness of expression itself, the provision provide some restriction on punishment of an actor who expresses something within his right but with some inappropriate and base motives. Still, there remains flexible possibility of interpretation that must be a great challenge of that area.

Der Untreuetatbestand steht seit geraumer Zeit in Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit von Fachwelt und Öffentlichkeit. Der Untreuetatbestand sichert in allen Fällen ein im Grunde einfaches gesetzgeberisches Anliegen. Das Untreuedelikt soll insofern die Untreue nur dann strafbar sein, wenn der Täter, der die Geschäfte anderer verfügt, den Vorsatz, Vermögensschaden anderer herbeizuführen. In Hinblik auf den objektiven Tatbestand hat aber der Oberste Gerichtshof trotz der ausdrücklichen Regelung der Versuchsstrafbarkeit(§359 korStGB) auch das Untreuedelikt als Gefährdungsdelikt erfassen, so dass die Versuchshandlung nicht mehr zu bestrafen ist.24)Ob eine Tat die Tateinheit oder Tatmehrheit ist, ist ein wichtiges Problem. Weil die Konkurrenzlehre ist ein Problem nach der Entstehung einer Tat, soll die Entscheidung darüber eine rechtliche Würdigung sein. Ob eine Tat die Tateinheit oder Tatmehrheit ist, und ob eine Tat die Idealkonkurrenz oder Realkonkurrenz ist, soll nach anderem Massstab beurteilt werden. Darfür gilt es den Massstab über die natürliche Lebensauffassung. § 40 des koreanischen StGB lautet “verletzt dieselbe Handlung mehrere Strafgesetze, so wird die Strafe nach dem Gesetz bestimmt, das die schwerste Strafe androht“, also das regelt die Idealkonkurrenz. Trozdem sind viele Fragen nach der Idealkonkurrenz noch zu beantworten, insbesondere gibt es grosse Unklaheiten über ihre Bedeutung, Voraussetzungen, Arten, Rechtsfolge, Klarstellungsfunktion, und Genugtuungsfunktion.In vorliegende Arbeit wird über das Konkurrenzverhältnis zwischen Untreu und Betrug behandelt. Nach dieser Arbeit soll eine Handlung des Idealkonkurrenzes im Sinne der natürlichen Lebensauffassung ausgelegt werden.

Under article 4 section 3 of Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, the Real Estate Title Trustee can transfer validly the ownership of the in-title trust-given real estate from himself to a third person. Though section 1, 2 of this article provide the title trust agreement and the transfer of a real right to real estate (based on this agreement) shall be void, this act gives section 3 superiority over section 1, 2 to protect the right of a third person.From these provisions we can know that the title trustee becomes the custodian of the title truster's real estate in relation to a third person and is able to embezzle the in-title trust-given real estate. Therefore, if the title trustee does with the in-title trust-given real estate as he pleases, he embezzles the real estate of the title truster. The vendor is paid the price in full, and the duty of the vendor is regarded as fulfilled by article 4 section 3 of this act. So the vendor is never a victim.In this case(2009Do4501) the Supreme Court judges Gap(甲) didn't embezzle the property of Eul(乙). But it is proper that title trust between Gap(甲) and Eul(乙) is considered a kind of title trust between two persons, and Gap(甲) is judged to have embezzled the property of Eul(乙).

The Supreme Court precedent is related to this litigation regarding several important issues. The first issue is on the exact definition of trade secrets acquisition and their use under the Article 18 of the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act. Other pertinent issues are, once an employee appropriates trade secrets or main assets for a rival company, in what case it would be considered as committing occupational breach of trust and what would constitute as onset of the crime.The Supreme Court held that accessing trade secrets within close time frame of the pertaining business activity with intentions to use the confidential business information regarding that activity would be sufficiently deemed as start of the crime. Additionally, in the case of electronic files such as a tub cards holder, the Supreme Court decided that running of the electronic files would be recognized as onset of the crime. These decisions by the Supreme Court are not particularly problematic. On the other hand, since it is more difficult to determine whether a retired or former employee has committed such occupational breach of trust, the issue calls for further discussion. In order to charge a former employee with professional misappropriation, the employee must be “a person who deals with affairs of others.” In such case, if the former employee has signed a contract with the employer to keep trade secret for reasonable time, there are discernable grounds for putting burden on the employee to maintain confidentiality. However, any confidentiality agreement that is either permanent or lacking specific term for time limit can be excessively infringing on the freedom of former employees to choose their occupation. As a result, provided that the former employee does not have a confidentiality agreement, he should not be punished for occupational misappropriation in order to respect constitutional freedom of career choice and to maintain a balanced interpretation. Furthermore, it is likely that the court will interpret an action requiring an employee to keep business information confidential for unreasonably long time many years after expiration of his employment contract as excessively infringing upon fundamental rights of the employee, such as the freedom of career choice. In addition, other related precedents show similar attitudes even when the employee acquires trade secrets by means of his memories. Thus, I strongly believe that the court should be more cautious in this matter in order to guard basic human rights from ambiguous interpretations.

The article §329 of Criminal Act of Korea lay down like this; 'A person who steals another's property shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won'. Larceny is one of the most common occurred crime and make out a most basic theory of property offences. The purpose of this study is to analysis the object of larceny. 2010. 2. 25. the Supreme Court of Korea made judgement that a free newspaper could be the object of larceny, while the Supreme Court did not gave a decision concrete reason. Also to relate with value of property as the object of larceny, there is not provision in the criminal law. So value of property as the object of larceny entrusts a interpretation with full argument. The property as 'a thing of value' should be divided active value, passive value, financial value, subjective value and exchange value etc. The most contentious issue of these is interpretation of passive value and subjective value. But there has been no judical precedent for this kind of case especially subjective value as of yet. In my judgement, if any thing has only subjective value, it is not property.The contents of this study is as follows; Ⅰ. A progress report of judgementⅡ. Raise a questionⅢ. The relation of property and value Ⅳ. Review of judgement

This article is a critical review on a case, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1017 delivered on 2010. 7. 15. In the present case, the intimidated person neither felt fear nor was the subject of the harm threatened. Defendant threatened a person with a notice of harm that he would harm the legal interest of a corporation operated by the intimidated person. Supreme Court held that although the object of intimidation was not the subject of harm threatened, the behavior of defendant constitutes a crime of intimidation on the ground that a corporation can be a subject of harm threatened. Article 283 (1) of Criminal Law stipulates that the meaning of intimidation is “to threat a person” but it remains silent in the meaning and types of legal interest. This is why the concept of intimidation remains in the arena of interpretation. In order to interpret the meaning and the content of intimidation reasonably, it is essential to conduct comparative research on constituent elements of the crime of intimidation, as conducted in this study with provisions of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan. In the case of Korean Criminal law, not surprisingly, a third party including family members of intimidated person can be a subject of harm notified as there is no provision applicable to a situation in which the object of intimidation is not a subject of harm threatened. However, the object of intimidation should be in ‘close relationship’ with the subject of harm threatened. Especially, for a corporation to be an subject of harm threatened, the content of intimidation should be interpreted narrowly, when considering the legislative examples of countries aforementioned which confine the scope of subject of harm threatened. It is thought to be unreasonable to expand the scope of punishment on the crime of intimidation by interpreting the provision to provide no limitation on the content of harm notified. In the present case, intimidated person did not feel fear because the subject of harm threatened was not himself, but his corporation. Even from the standpoint that crime of intimidation is a crime of danger, it is unreasonable to disregard the statement of the victim made in court in judging harmfulness of the notice. Moreover, considering the content of the notice which contained a threat that defendant would accuse the corporation of its illegal practice to the supervising department, Court should have been more cautious in its holdings on the consummation of the crime of intimidation.

This article aims to analyse the statutes and cases as to sexual morality offences which involve sexual ethics in society and make a proposal of idealistic sexual criminal law.Out current criminal law deals with sexual crimes in the way that divides sexual violent crimes with sexual morality crimes: the former violates the private right of sexual self-determination, and the latter decays the public decency. Of them the sexual morality crimes involve social environment and ethics. Especially the statues and cases of sexual morality crimes reflect social ever-changing ethics after 1990s and the perspectives of the scholars and specialists. And a various of NGO as well as interest groups have deeply involved with the legislation of kinds of sexual criminal laws just like Prostitution Act, Protection of Juvenile sex Act, Sexual Violence Act etc. To regulate sexual morality crimes reasonably, I suggest, needs the following alternative: to extract ethical element from the criminal law, respect the private right of sexual self-determination, keep alert about penal populism, and in the end, it is required that sexual moral crimes must be decriminalized and sex crimes are integrated in terms of the right of sexual self-determination.

In this case, the appeal court says, the fact that the defendant used the privilege against self-incrimination and denied answering the questions of the police in the investigative process could not be used as evidence for evaluating the charge to the disadvantage of the defendant. This reference is appropriate. But the principle that we must not use the fact of no answer as evidence for regarding the assertion of the defendant as unreliable should not be confused as a principle that we must give an advantage to the no answer defendant. No answer could not prohibit the fact finder from infering truth from the indirect circumstantial facts. In this case, the defendant insisted that the drug in his body was not injected by him and he did not know how it was in his body. As two persons known visited him the day of arrest and he saw they put injectors in the waterpot, he thouhgt propably they injected the drug in his body in a stealthy way. But the defendant only insisted this story and did not give any clue with which this story could be checked up and for identifying the two persons. Therefore his assertion should be valued as unreliable because of the unreliability of the assertion itself, not because of the fact of no answer. And as the subjective factors as perception, intention, knowing etc could be infered by indirect factors, in this case, the fact that the defendant injected the drug voluntarily could be presumed from the fact that he was arrested in the intoxication in his room, there was none in his room when he was arrested, injectors were founded in his room. So the fact-finding of the court would be said inappropriate.On the other hand, the appeal court says, when the defendant decided to use the privilege against self-incrimination and not to answer, the police should immediately stop questioning. As in this case the police continued questioning, the interrogation is illegal. But this comment is inappropriate because the current criminal process law recognize the right to question to the public attorney and the police independently to the right of the defendant not to answer. Consequently the police can put questions to the defendant though he uses the privilege. But it is up to the decision of the defendant, whether he refuses all questions from the beginning to the end, or reply partly. As for ruling the interrogation, Korean law is different from the American law. Furthemore, in this case, the questions the police put to the silent defendant were for the name or for affirming whether the defendant would use the privilege or not. Because the questions are not for the fact for the defendant's charge, it would be not illegal with the viewpoint of American law.

This article examines a Supreme Court decision on November 11, 2010(docket number 2010Do7955). The rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration(the rule against the disadvantageous alteration) in Korean criminal procedure code prescribes not to sentence more serious punishment than the punishment sentenced by judgement of the original instance in case of defendant appeal case and appeal case for the criminal defendant.In this case, the originally sentenced punishment was the “imprisonment of upper term 7 years, lower term 5 years” in addition to imposing the sanction of 5-year electronic monitoring(electronic tagging), and the court of appeal imposed the sanction of 20-year electronic monitoring while it reduced the length of imprisonment to “upper term 5 years, lower term 3 years”.This Supreme Court decision indicate that the nature of the court order imposing electronic monitoring is a kind of probation, and Supreme Court decided that court of appeal did not break the rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration in light of the nature of the electronic monitoring.In this article, I review the monitoring system for sexual criminals, along with overseeing “The Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, and then I analyze the Supreme Court decision regarding the rule against the disadvantageous alteration in Korean criminal procedure code. In this article, I argue that it might comprise the disadvantageous alteration if the length of probation(electronic monitoring) was altered essentially too much. Lastly, I examine the Supplementary Provision of “the Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, which apply the act to the criminals who committed crimes before the act was amended, is against “The Prohibition of ex post facto law”.

Criminal procedure holds the discovery of substantive truth as its highest value. However, this fact-finding function cannot be the sole aim of criminal procedure to be attained at all costs. Rather, it is constrained by the principles of due process and a timely trial. Therefore, although the Criminal Code provides for the crime of perjury which deters witnesses from hindering a fair trial with false testimony, the Criminal Procedure Code partially concedes the fact-finding function of criminal procedure by providing for the witness’s right to refuse testimony as a function of due process.This right to refuse testimony is enforced by the obligation to inform the witness on the existence of this right. The question is, if the judge questions a witness in violation of the right to refuse testimony and the obligation to inform, and the witness makes a false statement under oath, can the witness be punished for perjury? This is a question of weighing the values of substantive truth and the principle of due process when they are in contradiction, as due process is the source of the right to refuse testimony and, in certain circumstances, constitutes a limit on the ideal of substantive fact-finding.The decisions in this study take the position that the standard for finding a witness guilty on perjury should be whether there has been an actual hindrance to exercise the right to refuse testimony due to the failure to inform. In this sense, the cases give more weight to the due process considerations of witness examination than previous Korean Supreme Court cases. However, the studied cases are incorrect in limiting the affirmative defense to perjury to those cases where the failure to inform resulted in an actual hindrance to exercise the right. The witness is an individual who bears the obligation to appear at court even though it is not the witness’s own trial, swear a legally binding oath, and testify, all in the interest of substantive fact-finding. The Criminal Procedure Code obligates these witnesses to give testimony, but also gives them the right to refuse testimony where the witness may incriminate himself or herself or close family members. The obligation to inform the witness of this right forms a procedural safeguard to enforce the right. Therefore, the presiding judge’s failure to inform the witness of the existence of the right is a violation of due process and the testimony is given illegally, meaning the witness should not be found guilty of perjury even if the testimony was false.The obligation to inform the witness of the right to refuse testimony exists to guarantee the right to refuse testimony by reminding the witness of the right, thereby giving the witness the ample opportunity to reached an informed decision on whether to stay silent or testify. Therefore, the obligation to inform (Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code) guarantees the exercise of this right even when the witness does not know he or she has this right, or is ignorant of how to exercise the right. If the presiding judge violates this regulation and compels the witness to testify without informing the witness that the witness has the right not to testify, such an act on the judge’s part is far more than a minor infraction that has no effect on the legal existence of the crime of perjury. In the cases where the court has failed to inform the holder of the right to refuse testimony, there is no expectation that the witness in question will not commit perjury. It is worth noting that the newly amended Criminal Procedure Code now provides for the exclusion of illegal evidence, and due process is increasingly important at trial as well as during the investigative phase. Therefore, a failure to adhere to laws protecting the witness, especially the failure to inform the witness of a right to refuse testimony should be a full defense to the crime of perjury.

It is defined that digital evidence is all valuable information as evidence that is preserved and delivered in digital form, the salient traits of its character is independent from a storage, invisible, unreadable etc., it must be solved authenticity, reliability, best evidence for the purpose of its admissibility.In our criminal procedure law, the evidence is classified into two types, statements and objects, objects as evidence are composed of documents and things, it could be included statements by a person or not in documents as evidence. In essence digital evidence is regarded as documents evidence so hearsay-rule is applicable to it.To acquire admissibility of digital evidence made by a person it is important that the person acknowledges his digitals documents produced by him-self according to the criminal procedure law art. 313① in a court but the opinion that only the acknowledgement by a writer can give admissibility of digital evidence is very dangerous in criminal procedure because it may make valuable evidences useless things.In the revised criminal procedure law new solution is imposed in it. Even though a person deny its contents in a report said by him-self for example “I didn’t talk like that in a report”, prosecutor could prove that a report made by a investigator is credible and exact in the objective way including recording video-tape etc., the admissibility of a report evidence can be achieved recognition.This revised purpose must be regraded as a new basis in evidence law totally, even if a person deny his digital document made by him-self for example “I didn't make digital document like that”, prosecutor could prove that a digital document is made by him-self in the objective way including analysis meta-data etc., “it is you who made this digital document”, the admissibility of a digital document evidence could be achieved recognition. if to prove who made a digital document evidence end in failure, its admissibility have to be reviewed again according to criminal procedure law art. 315, valuable digital evidence must not go into the dumper easily.Anyone talking about evidence in criminal procedure cannot help but mention digital information that is essential in it by progress of scientific technology.Much to our regret, there is not at all rule for the purpose of admissibility of digital evidence in present criminal procedure law, as a result many opinions and judicial decisions consider requisites of admissibility of digital document as one of admissibility of non-digital document but an intrinsic attribute of digital evidence is profoundly different from one of traditional evidence.Ultimately I think that criminal procedure law must be revised referring to foreign country’ law to acquire admissibility of digital evidence although a person deny a digital document that is made by him-self, if prosecutor could be successful in pr○○f, “it is written by him-self”, in other words witness or suspect, the digital evidence shall be useful.I wish to be collected g○○d thoughts to prevent that valuable digital evidence may be discharged by only one statement of a wicked-person.

Eine private Vorteilsannahme unter Verletzung einer Treuepflicht wird nach § 357 ① kStGB mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu 5 Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 10,000,000 won und eine private Vorteilsgewährung unter Verletzung einer Treuepflicht wird nach § 357 ② kStGB mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu 2 Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 5,000,000 won. Es ist schwer zu finden eine solche Vorschrift von der Strafe für die privaten Vorteilsannahme und -gewährung unter Verletzung einer Treuepflicht, außer § 153a StGB von Österreich. Die Bestimmung dient der Bekämpfung der Korruption privater Machthaber.Darüber hinaus wird nach § 38-2 Rahmengesetzes über die Bauwirtschaft von Korea Erfassung und Bereitstellung der Gewinne in Sach- oder Vermögensschäden durch rechtswidrige Anträge, im Bereich der Bauarbeiten, bestraft. Diese Bestimmung dient besonders der ordnungsgemäßen Ausführung der Bauarbeiten und der gesunden Entwicklung der Bauwirtschaft.Nach dem koreanischen Obersten Gerichtshof bestehe Tateinheit zwischen § 357 kStGB und § 38-2 Rahmengesetzes über die Bauwirtschaft, aber man soll die Konkurrenz zwischen § 357 kStGB und § 38-2 Rahmengesetzes über die Bauwirtschaft als Gesetzeseinheit (genau genommen materielle Subsidiarität) verstehen. Denn die verwirklichten Straftatbestände verfolgen jeweils die gleiche Schutzrichtung.

In modern medical practice it is not uncommon for a patient to be treated independently by several physicians at various stages. A situation may arise in which the combined negligence of different physicians—who are not in partnership or otherwise vicariously liable for each other’s acts—results in one indivisible injury. These physicians, although acting independently of each other, have sometimes been sued as joint tortfeasors, each allegedly jointly and severally liable to the patient for the entire injury.There is a principle that restrict or exclude criminal negligence in corporative division of labor. It is so called as ‘Principle of Trust’. As this principle, the physician who trust the other physician acts without negligence in the other physician’s division of labor is not liable. There is some cases that considered ‘Principle of Trust’ in judging criminal negligence in Korea. We will review two remarkable cases. The first case(2009do7070) is that the physician who operated cesarean delivery and transfered the patient to the upper hospital is liable for negligence of preparing transfusion and explaining to the physician of upper hospital. The other case is 2008na46021, the fact may be summarized as follows. The patient who was presumed having breast cancer through biopsy of ‘Y hospital’, she transferred hospital and had operation to remove her breast in ‘S hospital’. After operation, it is confirmed that there is no cancer cell in her breast. In fact, the cells for biopsy was changed with another women’s at the clinical laboratory of ‘Y hospital’. This case is still remained in court.

In Online-Rollenspielen ist es schon längst Normalität, dass besonders wertvolle und seltene Gegenstände, Rüstungsteile oder Waffen für reales Geld auf Handelsportalen wie Itembay verkauft werden. Nach der Nutzungsbediengungen haben Games Firmen gegen diese Praxis vorgegangen. Spieler, die in der Realität mit In-Game-Gegenständen handeln, müssten damit rechnen, alle Charaktere und Zugänge zu verlieren. Auch die Accounts von Käufern würden zeitweise deaktiviert und die betreffenden Objekte gelöscht. Ein Verhalten, dass man Items für reales Geld auf Handelsporalen handelt, war damit bisher nach dem betroffenen Gesetz, “Act on Promotion of Game Industry” nicht nur als illegal betrachtet, sondern auch der Handler des Items als bestraftet. Es war dennoch immer noch erlaubt gesetzlich, nicht via Handelnspotalen privat mit In-Game-Gegenständen zu handeln.Aber das höchst Gericht in Korea entscheidet dass das Verhalten sei frei, dass der Handler des Items mit Game-Items handeln lässt. Dies Urteil war eine sensationelle Entscheidung in der Game Industrie, dennoch könnte die Überlegung zum betroffenen Gesetz und Game-Items nicht ausreichend sein, wenn man den Inhalt des Urteils überprüft hat. Weil es keine zusätzlichen Begründungen für erste Instanz sowie Berufungsgericht gab. Vor allem beschäftigte sich der Berufungsgericht auf die Zufällichkeit des Leneage-Game, so wurde es übergesehen, ob das Leneage ein Grücksiel ist oder nicht. Das heisst, sind nicht nur die Zufällichkeit im Online-Games ein Schlüsselpunkt, sondern auch die Möglichkeit des Glückspiels. Deswegen wurden die Entscheidung der Gerichte(der ersten Intanz, der Berufungsgericht und das höchst Gericht) in der vorhanden Arbeit kritisch beleuchtet.

In the year of 2010, 286 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. Four cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, two cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other two cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows;Ⅰ. IntroductionⅡ. The Cases relating to General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. The Review is constituted as follows: (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The comment on the case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2008Do4762 2. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 28. 2008Do8606 3. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 23. 2010Do7412 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 9. 2010Do6924 5. Supreme Court 2010. 7. 8. 2010Do931 6. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do6403 Ⅲ. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal LawIn this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every review is constituted as follows: (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2010. 7. 15. 2010Do1017 2. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 27. 2009Do9008 3. Supreme Court 2010. 4. 29. 2009Do14554 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7405 5. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 9. 2010Do9630 6. Supreme Court 2010. 8. 19. 2010Do6280 7. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do387 8. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 13. 2010Do1040 9. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do8591 10. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7525