Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies that had scientific seminar for the first time on February 22, 1992 had 20th anniversary. On June 1, 1993, Pakyoungsa published No.1 of Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies that included 14 theses released one year since February 1992. Since then, Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies was published continuously, and it was likely to publish volume 20 in June 2012. The annotations that were published by Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies were written by 146 authors to include 404. The Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies selected either judicial precedents in dispute or judicial precedents from anther point of view to investigate from point of view of criticism and to be likely to develop continuously. Collection of Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies that increased number of volume was likely to have model of journal of criminal case studies, for instance, wide scope of judicial precedents, variety of authors and annotation methods to have literary values.

Looking at the 2000s, the Supreme Court has no detailed research on legal issues, leave the judgment of the past and the trend seems to quote. For example, errors of law in the judgment of a legitimate reason, joint principal offender the functional activity of the dominant theory of criminal law theory, Studies of accumulated information, we accept them gradually is moving in the direction. But the Supreme Court include the specific criteria are difficult to understand the concept and are using them. Nevertheless, the fact that by missing arguments for the inclusion of judgment comes to the conclusion lacks a logical basis for a problem that is leaving. The concept of morals and social standards for the presentation of an abstract interpretation and judgment, collusion joint principal offender beliefs about the uncritical criticism of scholars for the future through careful research accumulated in Criminal Justice Studies, by accepting the theory and practice of will have to endeavor to harmonize. Thinking and knowledge learned in courses to apply it in practice will need to prevent useless. Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies is celebrating its 20th anniversary, criticism of the theory and practice through the mutual development to be able to look forward to continue to evolve.

In this article, I have investigated the major property criminal cases(i.e. embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud and theft cases) sentenced in the Supreme Court since 2000, and have analyzed the n otable importance and the implications of the judgement. I have tried to examine closely, how the Supreme Court has come to apply the judicial interpretation especially in academia to discuss issues or newly emerging types of crimes as the socio-economic situations change. In summary, it could be evaluated that the Supreme Court has emphasized on the principle of “nulla poena sine lege” to protect people from the punishment without law and the arbitrary exercise of state police power, and has made an effort to make the criminal law function at its best to defend liberty and legal benefit in property rights, in response to social and economic changes.

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.

Am 14.04.2011 hat das koreanische Verfassungsgericht eine Strafbestimmung, die vorher als verfassungsgemäßig angesehen wurden, für verfassungswidrig erklärt. In § 47 Abs. 2 kVerfGG wird geregelt, dass Gesetze oder Vorschriften, die zuvor als verfassungsgemäßig angesehen wurden, ab diesem Entscheidungstag außer Kraft treten. Indessen treten Gesetze oder Vorschriften mit Strafcharakter mit Rückwirkung außer Kraft treten. Diese Besonderheit in der Verfassungswidrigkeitsentscheidung führt dazu, dass es nicht möglich ist, ausnahmsweise die Rückwirkung der für verfassungswidrig erklärten Strafbestimmungen teilweise zuzuerkennen oder eine teilweise Begrenzung der Rückwirkung zu ermöglichen. Der Gesetzgeber muss vor allem die Eigenschaft, die Funktion, den historischen Werdegang und die Auswirkungen des Außerkrafttretens mit Rückwirkung der für verfassungswidrig erklärten Gesetze oder Vorschriften usw. berücksichtigen und den Wirkungsbereich der Verfassungswidrigkeitsentscheidung nach Maß beziehungsweise mit Elastizität bestimmen.

The punishment laws and regulations should be strictly interpreted and applied according to phrases based on ‘Nullum crimen sine lege’ principles, and they should not be interpreted excessively in disadvantage of the defendant nor be interpreted analogically, and requirements and/or conditions of attachment of electronic device should be also interpreted in same way. The prosecutors were permitted to ask the court order of attachment of electronic device in accordance with the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders when a criminal was admitted to have habit by committing sex violence crime two times or more(including guilty judgment). Majority opinions accepted 'guilty judgment' only: When the court judged whether or not the one who was given request for oder to attachment of electronic device committed sex violence crime two times or more, it should not consider previous record of protective disposition in accordance with the Juvenile Act. On the other hand, minority opinions said that the regulation should be applied at guilty judgment only, so that previous record of protective disposition against sexual violence in accordance with the Juvenile Act should be applied to sex violence crime two times or more. Majority opinion followed not only the Juvenile Act but also protective disposition to be advantageous to the one who was given request for oder to attachment of electronic device: But, ‘committing crime’ was limited to ‘guilty judgment’ except for behavior of corresponding case not to be good from point of view of interpretation of the Criminal Act. Majority opinion said that the one who committed sex violence crime should be punished in accordance with the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders depending upon two cases to be unfair, that is to say, guilty judgment in accordance with general criminal procedures and protective disposition in accordance with the Juvenile Act. Judicial precedents of lower court differed to require legislative supplementation.

With the rapid development of communications technologies today, wiretapping equipment has also seen great strides in improvement, making it easier than ever before to wiretap communications or record conversations and thus threatening the secrecy and freedom of communications. Furthermore, the recent domestic and overseas illegal wiretaps have raised the suspicion and fear that ordinary citizens, and not just political and industry figures, may be subject to wiretapping. The secrecy and freedom of communications broaden the privacy of citizens and promote social communication, while the freedom of the press functions as a means of heightening the individuality of autonomous individuals, promoting the formation of public opinion for social unity, and a prerequisite for a democratic order of governance. When the freedom of communications and the freedom of the press, both core values in a democratic society, are in conflict with each other, the question is how to harmonize the two while protecting them both to the maximum possible extent. That is the issue in the judgment which is the subject of this work. In the conflict between the secrecy of communications and the freedom of the press, the majority opinion in the judgment appears to place more weight on the protection of personal communications secrets over the freedom of the press which serves the public’s right to know, even while acknowledging the importance of both values. This position of the Supreme Court differs from its previous judgments on libel, privacy infringement, and announcement of criminal accusations by news reports, in which the Court emphasized the public’s right to know (or the public interest) and recognized the defense of legality for the reports of the news media. However, in the case at issue, the conversation which was disclosed resulted from an illegal wiretap by a state agency, while the news agency who made the disclosure was a third party that did not participate in the illegal wiretap. The content of the disclosed conversation is also factual and pertains to an important public interest in a democratic society, and the parties to the conversation are also public figures. These facts make render questionable the Court’s emphasis on the protection of communications secrets over the public interest, and it is incorrect in concluding that the news reporting was unjustified. In conclusion, the conversation disclosed by the news agency which did not participate in the illegal wiretap pertained to an important public interest, and the defendant cannot be said to have used illegal means to obtain the wiretapped information in his payment of compensation. The report also directly concerned an important public interest, and while the names of the parties were made public in the course of reporting, proportionality in the means of reporting may be recognized in consideration of the importance of the conversation and the public status of the parties to the conversation. Taking further into consideration that the instigator of the illegal wiretap was a state agency, that the defendant did not take an active or leading role in obtaining the wiretapped information, and that the interest from the reporting is superior to the interest from the maintenance of communications secrets when the process of reporting and the purpose and means of the reporting are taken into account as a whole, the reporting is a justified act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act that does not violate social norms.

Notwendige Teilnahme meint den Fall, daß ein Strafbestand zu seiner Erfüllung notwendigerewise der Beteiligung mehrerer bedarf. Begegnungsdelikte sind solche, bei denen mehrere Beteiligte von verschiedenen Seiten her aufeinander und damit auch auf das Rechtgut einwirken. Aber der notwendig Beteilite ist jedenfalls dann straflos, wenn seine Mitwirkung das zur Erfüllung des Tatbestandes ergorderliche mindestmaß nicht überschreitet. Und Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist daß wer unbefugt ein fremdes Geheimnis, namentlich ein zum persönlichen Lebensbereichgehörendes Geheimnis oder Betriebsgeheimnis offenbart, wird bestraf. Koreanische Gerichts verstehen die Verletzung von Geheimnissen als Notwendige Teilnehme. Also Koreanische Gerichts urteilen daß der notwendig Beteilighte des delikt ist straflos. Aber Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist nicht nur Notwendige Teilnehme. Im Strafrecht kommt der folgende Fall als der Mittelpunkt des Unrechts oft vor, ob man freiwillig gegen den Norm handelt. Hierbei wird jeder, der sich an der Handlung des Täters beteiligt, nicht für die Täterschaft gelten. Das nennt man die eigenhändigen Delikte. Und teilen die eigenhändigen Delikte sich in zwei Grundformen, d.h. täterbezogene Delikte und tatbezogene Delikte. Dann man versteht unter den tatbezogenen Delikte, dass die Tatbestandsvollendung vom Dritte nicht als die Verletzung des Rechtsgutes angesehen wird, sondern nur die höchstpersönliche Tat oder die persönliche Haltung des Täters zum Zentrum der Tatbestandsvollendung wird. Also Verletzung von Geheimnissen ist Eigenhädigendelikt.

O.S.P. shall be criminally liable for offenses committed in cyber space on condition that it could be aware of its occurrences nevertheless nothing is taken expected elimination measures technically by itself. In principle, a professional person who manages its cyber space may suffer punishment and then a company that hires him suffer punishment as prescribed by penalty against employer and employee. O.S.P. could receive a criminal penalty for a crime omission as in the following conditions, first, it has found offenses committed in its cyber space or has not found it because of gross negligence, carelessness by O.S.P., second, O.S.P. have a technical skill and system for expected prevention or elimination a crime happened in cyber space but it didn’t do anything. A willful negligence by O.S.P. may be sufficient for criminal responsibility. The judgement as aforementioned cast a long shadow to us because it has set up the condition of O.S.P.’s criminal penalty in other words, possibilities of awareness, technical prevention, expectation for elimination illegal situation in cyber space etc. It is significant that O.S.P. could supervise and control its cyber space as a dangerous factor connected to offenses. However it feels lack of logical reasoning such like that. Now, we should fully discuss the matter that the building measures of prevention adverse effect by cyber space. The responsibility of O.S.P. should be imposed stringently than ever because offenses in cyber space could be occurred under unsuspected, usual time as a result damage may be very serious, mortal to a personal victim.

Selon alinéa 1 de l'article 314 du Code pénal coréen, l'entrave de la liberté du travail se constitue dans le fait de porter atteinte à la libre exercice du travail à l'aide de violences, voies de fait, menaces ou manoeuvres frauduleuses. En général, la grève est considerée comme l'entrave de la liberté du travail à condition d'être la raison de cessation concertée en collectivité de travail. L'arrêt de la Cour suprême coréene du 17 mars 2011 a décidé que la grève peut être considerée comme l'entrave du travail à condition que la cessation concertée de travail en collctivité soit imprevue. De ce point de vue, il nous faut qu,examiner la necessité des conditions de la grève ,exigées par cet arrêt de la cour suprême. L'article 414 du Code pénal francais(Créé par Loi 1810-02-19 promulguée le 1er mars 1810 Modifié par Loi 1864-05-25 art.1 Modifié par Loi 56-1327 1956-12-29 art.7 JORF 30 décembre 1956 Abrogé par Loi n°92-1336 du 16 décembre 1992 - art.372 (V) JORF 23 décembre 1992 en vigueur le 1er mars 1994) prevoit que “Sera puni d'un emprisonnement de six jours à trois ans et d'une amende de 500 F à 20.000 F, ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement, quiconque, à l'aide de violences, voies de fait, menaces ou manoeuvres frauduleuses, aura amené ou maintenu, tenté d'amener ou de maintenir une cessation concertée de travail, dans le but de forcer la hausse ou la baisse des salaires ou de porter atteinte au libre exercice de l'industrie ou du travail.” A mon avis, les conditions de la grève doivent être plus précisement indiquées dans l'article 314 du Code pénal coréen pour être considerée comme l'entrave de la liberté du travail à condition que la cessation concertée de travail en collctivité soit imprevue. L'arrêt precité de la Cour suprême coréene est discutable sur le point de savoir si ces conditions est réellement nécessaies.

Das Koreanische Oberstgerichtshof entscheidet sich immer, der Streik als Arbeitskampf verwirkliche den Tatbestand “Geschäftshindernis” nach §314 KStGB. Und das Gericht entscheidet sich die Strafbarkeit des Streiks im Bezug auf die Rechtswidrigkeit, besonders als Rechtmässige Handlungen nach §20 KStGB. Aber diese Auffassung verstoße die Grundrechte der koreanischen Verfassung nach §33 Absatz 1, die Arbeitskampfrechte regelt. Das Geschäftshindernis nach §314 regelt als Tathandlung drei Modalitäten, nämlich die Vorspiegelung falscher oder durch die Entstellung wahrer Tatsachen einen Irrtum erregt, die Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel oder die Verbreitung falscher Tatsachen. Alle drei Tatmodalitäten sind aktives Tun. Aber das Streik ist Untrelassung. Die Entscheidung setzt auch die Vorhersehbarkeit des Streiks für die Verhüttung des Verlustes und der Verwirrung. Diese Auffassung steht auch nicht mit dem Grundgedanken des Arbeitskampfrechts als letztes, stärkst Kampfmittel gegen Arbeitsnehmer im Einklang. Die Auffassung des Oberstgerichtshofs, die das Streik als Strafhandlung (“Geschäftshindernis”) nach koreanischen Strafgesetzbuches anzusehen, verstoßt auch den Vorschlag der ILO, der das Streik als rechtmässiges Recht des Arbeitnehmers anzuerkenn fordert. Zum Schluß muß sich das Urteil des koreanischen Oberstgerichthofs, das das Streik als Geschäftshindernis tatbestandmäßig sei, ändern.

In the Korean Criminal Act Article 355 ②, it is provided that a person who, administering another’s business, obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to do so from another in violation of ones duty, thereby causing loss to such person, shall be punished by penal servitude for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million Won. On the one hand, in Article 357 ①, it is specified that a person who, administering another’s business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Two crimes have one thing in common with reference to principal agent of each crime. But the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② is one thing, the “another’s business” in Article 357① is quite another. The reason is as follows. (1) while the former is property crimes, the latter is a kind of bribery crimes, (2) The crime of Article 355 ② is required a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions such as the protecting benefit, act, result. Thus, the content and range of “another’s business” in Article 355② must be a business appertaining to the property. But, as regards an interpretation of the “another’s business” in Article 357 ①, there is no necessity for restricting that content to a business appertaining to the property, because it doesn’t exist a particular relevance with the contents among crime constitutions in Article 357 ①.

South Korea’s economic indicators is not far from the top 10. But its Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI) according to Transparency International has been within the top 40 for a long time as well, showing a significant deviation from the economic indicators. Plus in the execution of the OECD anti-bribery act Korea is classified as ‘passive follower’ which is not an improvement from the last year, and there has been no policies to try to improve it. Civil servant corruption level from 2011 June anti-corruption network’s research shows that 61.9% answered that bribes affect the administrative process, and 57.5% answered that it was customary to provide money or valuables in public affairs. Corruption index of politicians, public officials, and businessmen seem to have evolved on a completely different level from the normal citizens, and while there have been attempts the chances of improvement seem slim. So it is interesting to note the Supreme Court case that actually supports the formation of corruption legally. It is a ruling from 10 years ago so it may seem to be reflecting on the political landscape of the time, but it shall be looked at in more detail because in fact it has not been overruled and is still being used as a standard in recent corruption cases. The following is the reason this case study shall focus on. According to a publishing about the investigation of a leader of a certain regional autonomous body, the court has declined a warrant from the prosecution based on our 1999 precedent. This precedent concerns the criminal law article 129 clause 2 about Advance Acceptance, and there are very few other precedents - especially rare are those about the common ‘implicit request.’ So this precedent has now been resurfaced as a critical basis for Advance Acceptance in the court. Because this precedent is used so widely and yet is virtually unknown in the academia or the routine I have researched the precedent, and have concluded that it does not agree with either the legal philosophy or with other precedents in terms of fairness. So even though the case is more than 10 years old, it is being used by the court today as a precedent, so it was deemed necessary to re-evaluate this case and conduct more in depth analysis.

Si la demande de la part d'un agent de police de le suivre au commissariat comme un moyen d'enquête ne parvient pas à satisfaire la force de maintien requise sensiblement, c'est l'arrestation illégale. Donc détention illégale que les preuves recueillies dans le cadre de la loi de la preuve comme preuve de la recevabilité devrait être négatif. Toutefois, la demande de la part d'un agent de police de le suivre au commissariat rassemblement arrestation illégale, des preuves illégale recueillies dans de telles circonstances à titre de preuve, même la preuve que le défendeur seront recueillies auprès de tiers plutôt que de les lorsque le défendeur directement sur l e s affirmations qui peuvent être utilisés comme preuve de culpabilité. Perçues illégalement principe d'exclusion de la preuve est la proposition du bien absolu, mais en fonction de cas individuels d'intérêt public et intérêts privés en harmonie avec la phrase spécifique afin de s'assurer de la validité des restrictions à certains principes mesure inévitable, et d'autres grands pays qui ont une telle raison, le principe d'exclusion illégalement recueilli des preuves a reconnu une exception pour une variété de théories qui peuvent être vus.

Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not limit explicitly the time limit that public prosecutor should request a warrant to seize, search or inspect evidence. But after the public prosecutor filed the charges, he cannot request a warrant by article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. After the indictment, the court may seize any articles which, it believes, may be used as evidence, or liable to confiscation, by article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act. And the court may, if necessary, search the defendant, effects, or dwelling or any other place of the defendant, by article 109(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court may search the person, effects, dwelling or any other place of a person other than the defendant, only when there are circumstances which warrant the belief that there are articles liable to seize therein. If the public prosecutor collected the evidence by a search warrant issued from a district court judge other than the court in charge of the case, those evidence are not admissible in principle, because those collection of evidence does not follow legal procedures, which are prepared for human rights. Supreme Court decided it April 28, 2011, on 2009Do10412 case.

Introducing hearsay rule in 1961, the words of provisions that provide the authentication and attendance of the declarant as exceptions of principle of the court's self-experience, were used as exceptions of the hearsay rule. It results in confusion of the elements of the hearsay rule with the elements of the authentication in the jurisprudence. Many literatures insist and place emphasis on the elements of the authentication as the elements of exceptions of the hearsay rule. With this confusion and misunderstanding, it became very difficult to understand the hearsay rule and many improper interpretations result from this confusion. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the elements of the hearsay rule from the elements of the authentication should be made actively and lead the academy and practice.

The Supreme Court held that a physical therapist's performance of Oriental physical therapy without supervision of doctor or dental doctor was unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Services Law, and the Oriental medicine doctor who had directed the physical therapist with such act was charged as an accomplice. However, under the current Medical Services Law, which differentiates between Western and Oriental medical practices, the Oriental physical therapy performed by the physical therapist was outside the duty of physical therapists; thus it should have been recognized as unlicensed medical practice under that respect. The current case led to confusion as to the boundaries of licensed medical practices, because the Supreme Court had failed to make clear determination on the medical practice performed by the physical therapist. With advancement of science and technology, the boundaries of medical practice among medical doctors, dental doctors, and Oriental medicine doctors, as well as the boundaries of medical practice and non-medical practice have blurred. Previous Supreme Court cases had interpreted medical practice broadly, which include illness treatment, prevention as well as activities harmful to public health. As such broad interpretation can hinder specialization and effectiveness, those areas with low or no public heath threats should be limited to medical practitioners with specialized knowledge and skills. Moreover, the areas that overlap among the medical practitioners should be determined as to whether they are within the boundaries of licensed areas in accordance with the purpose of the Medical Services Law, which is the advancement of citizens’ health.

The Supreme Court of Korea convicted Jung Bong-Ju, a former National Assembly member(United New Democratic Party) on the charge of violating Article 250, Section 2 of the Public Office Election Law on December 22, 2012. The Conviction and Imprisonment of Jung Bong-Ju who is one of the 4 hosts of the popular podcast “I'm a Weasel(Naneun Ggomsuda)” drew public attention, and this leads to the heated social discussion about freedom of expression. Moreover, the problem is raised that the crime of disseminating false information under the existing provision(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) result in the excessive restrictions on freedom of political expression. In order to solve this problem legislatively, “the partial amendment bill of the Public Office Election Law” was proposed on January 9, 2012. In such a high profile situation that public attention has focused on the crime of disseminating false information, it is required to review the criminal justice issues on this judgement of the Supreme Court. This article considers this judgement focusing the constituent elements of the crime of disseminating false information(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) and the burden of proving falsity.

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. Introduction II. The Cases relating to the 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 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 2011. 4. 14. 2010Do5605 2. Supreme Court 2011. 1. 13. 2010Do9927 3. Supreme Court 2011. 9. 29. 2008Do9109 III. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal Law In 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 2011. 6. 9. 선고 2010Do10677 2. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 14. 2011Do300 3. Supreme Court 2011. 10. 13. 2009Do13751 4. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 14. 2011Do3180 5. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 28. 2010Do15350 6. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 28. 2009Do14928