본 연구의 목적은 책임감 모형의 폭넓은 현장 활성화를 위하여 소외된 지역 학교에 책임감 모형이 학생들에게 친-그리고 반-사회적 행동의 수준에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 분석 하는 것이다. 연구참여자들은 K도 J초등학교에 3학년 6개 학급 169명 중에서 조사에 불성실한 8명을 제외한 161명으로 구성하였다. 6개 학급 중 3개 학급은 책임감 모형 체육수업을 실시하는 실험집단(78명, 남=49, 여=29)으로 나머지 3개 학급은 교사 주도적인 체육수업을 실시하는 비교집단(83명, 남=50, 여=33)으로 선정하였다. 연구 참여 교사는 비확률 표집의 하나인 의도적 표본화 기법을 사용하여 선정하였으며 사회성 측정 도구인 친-그리고 반-사회적 행동에 관한 질문지 16문항을 초등학교 학생의 수준에 맞게 11문항으로 제작하였다. 사회성 증진을 위한 책임감 모형의 효과를 질적 방법으로 알아보기 위하여 실험에 참가한 3개 학급의 실험 학급 학생 중 8명에게 심층 면담, 참여 관찰을 통한 현장 기록, 관련 문서 분석의 다양한 질적 자료 수집 및 분석 방법을 이용하였다. 이들은 결손가정, 학업 능력, 문제 행동, 교우 관계에 취약한 학생들로 교사의 추천을 받아 구성하였다. 친사회성과 관련된 분석 결과는 실험 집단이 통제 집단보다 친사회성이 높은 수준을 나타내었다. 반면, 반사회성 검사에서는 실험 집단과 통제 집단의 유의성을 발견하지 못하였다. 질적 연구에서는 친사회성과 반사회성이 모두 긍정적으로 변했음을 발견할 수 있었다. 책임감 모형으로 체육 활동을 한 결과 소외된 아동들의 친사회성이 증가함을 알 수 있었다. 이는 친사회성이 그동안 이론적인 내용을 통해서 가르쳐지는 것이 아니라 체육 활동 안에서도 사회성 발달에 기여할 수 있다는 것을 보여준다. 본 연구는 초등학교 3학년을 대상으로 단기간에 이루어졌으므로 후속 연구에서는 좀 더 긴 연구가 필요하며 지속적인 발달 프로그램이 필요하다.

Bezüglich der Brandstiftungsdelikte stellen §§ 164, 165, 166, 167 KorStGB voneinander unabhängige, selbständige Tatbestände dar. Der Tatbestand der fahrläsigen Brandstiftung(§ 170) bezieht sich auf Objekte der §§ 164, 165, 166 wie des § 167. Nach herrschender Meinung kommt der Tatbestand des § 167 Abs. 1 KorStGB dann in Betracht, wenn der Täter durch eine Brandlegung die fremden Sachen ganz oder teilweise zerstört. § 167 Abs. 2 kommt dagegen in Betracht, wenn das Brandstiftungsobjekt Eigentum des Brandstifters ist; ihr Anwendungsbereich schließt nach hM aber auch das Inbrandsetzen herrenloser Sachen oder fremder Sachen mit Zustimmung ihres Eigentümers ein. Bei KorObGH Urteil 2009 do 7421 handelt es sich um eine Strafbarkeit des Täters, der allgemeine herrenlose Sachen in Brand setzt. Der KorObGH bestraft ihn wegen § 167 Abs. 2 KorStGB. Mit diesem Aufsatz mache ich durch Analysen der Urteilsbegründungen zur hM und Urteil 2009 do 7421 kritsch Anmerkungen. Den Täter muß meines Erachtens Im Rahmen des § 167 Abs. 1 in Betracht kommen. Die Gründe dafür sind folgende: 1. Beim Tatbestand des § 167 Abs. 1 kommt es dem Gesetzeswortlaut auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse überhaupt nicht an; hingegen handelt es sich beim § 167 Abs. 2 um Eigentumsverhältnisse. § 167 Abs. 2 kommt mE in Betracht, wenn das Brandstiftungsobjekt Eigentum des Brandstifters allein ist. 2. § 176 KorStGB sieht als fremde Sachen dann ein im Alleineigentum des Täters stehendes Brandstiftungsobjekt an, wenn dieses ein Objekt des fremden Rechts ist. 3. Nach hM handelt es sich bei den Brandstiftungsdelikten nicht um ein allein spezielle Sachbeschädigungsdelikt, sondern auch um eine gemeingefährliche Straftaten. Deswegen spielt Zustimmung des Eigentümers von Brandstiftungsobjekt keine Rolle als rechtfertigende Einwilligung. Der Anwendungsbereich des § 167 Abs. 1 schließt mE das Inbrandsetzen herrenloser Sachen ein. Dieses Ergebnis ist mit der vorherigen Auslegung des KorObGH in Übereinstimmung zu bringen, dabei er eine fahrlässige Brandstiftung fremder Sachen behandelte(KorObGH Beschluss 94 mo 32).

In case of injury during a sports game, to punish the offender without exception might lead to withering of sports activities, whereas to get the offender exempted on the mere ground that injury occurred in the course of a sports game might cause plummeting of either legal stability or law-abiding spirit. So, it is vital to draw a bright line between criminal liability and moral obligation with regard to injury during a sports game. Scholars suggest the theory of victim's consent, the theory of tolerated danger, the theory of social reasonableness or the theory of non-legal issue as sources of justification to limit criminal liability. Each theory has its own merits and demerits. In order to punish the offender who inflicted injury by negligence during a sports game, general requirements of 'infliction of injury by negligence' occurrence of injury, ― causal relationship between offender's act and injury, breach of objective duty of care, etc.― should be met. Objective duty of care can be derived from statutes, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or court decisions. In a sports game however, rules of the game may be the most important source of objective duty of care. As rules of the game enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sports game, player's act against these rules can be treated breach of objective duty of care. It is excessive to deem all of the acts against rules of the game, including minor ones, breach of objective duty of care in light of the way a sports game is played as well as autonomy enjoyed in the sports field. Unless injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of the game beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found to breach objective duty of care. Rules of the game differ from type to type. In so-called type of rivalry sports games, rules of the game, while allowing the player or the team to make physical attack on the opponent to some extent, focus on diminishing or eliminating the possibility of injury. In so-called type of individual sports games, rules of the game prohibit dangerous act and call the attention of the players to avoid injury. To sum up, breach of rules may be treated more harshly and less flexibly in type of individual sports games than in type of rivalry sports games. The judgment under review in this paper has something to do with golf game, which belongs to type of individual sports games. The judgment thinks highly of rules of the game as source of objective duty of care. It also denies criminal liability in case of injury resulting from minor breach of rules of the game, which would reasonably be expected. On the face of it, the judgment seems to adopt the theory of social reasonableness. However, considering the courts usually dub social rule social reasonableness, the view taken by the judgment might be different from the theory of social reasonableness advocated by the scholars. The theory of social reasonableness relates to negation of applicability of criminal statute, whereas the view taken by the judgment might relate to negation of illegality. In such type of individual sports games as golf, the players enjoy game without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper to adopt the theory of victim's consent as source of justification to limit criminal liability in golf game. The judgment, in similar context, seems to have dismissed defense of 'victim's consent' raised by the accused. Even in case that the offender is held liable for infliction of injury by negligence with regard to injury during a sports game, the possibility to get relief is still open. If the offender reaches an agreement with the victim, he or she is able to avoid criminal punishment according to Art. 266 Para. 2 of the Penal Code.

소득의 증대와 주 5일 근무제의 정착에 따른 여가시간의 확대, 자연휴양림과 같은 새로운 개념의 휴양시설 증가와 2007년 「자연공원법」개정으로 인한 국립공원 입장료의 폐지 등으로 국민들의 산림문화·휴양에 대한 수요가 급증하는 등 야외활동(outdoor activity)에 대한 관심이 고조되고 있다. 특히 최근 웰빙 열풍(well-being trend)이라는 사회적 여건 등의 변화로 국민들의 여가생활의 패턴도 자연 친화적인 형태로 바뀌어, 국립공원 등을 비롯한 자연공원이나 각종 휴양지를 찾는 탐방객의 수가 급증함에 따라 국립공원관리공단과 지방자치단체 등 각종 공원이나 휴양지의 관리책임을 맡고 있는 관련기관의 안전사고 방지를 위한 다양한 예방적 조치에도 불구하고 추락사고, 익사사고, 낙석사고, 시설물이용관련사고 등 공원이나 휴양지 내의 안전사고는 끊이질 않고 있다. 이 연구의 목적은 위험관리의 관점에서 국립공원관리공단, 지방자치단체 등 각종 휴양지 관리주체가 직면하고 있는 안전사고로 인한 손해배상책임을 효과적이고 합리적으로 처리하기 위한 방안을 제시하고자 함에 있다. 관련 법률 규정과 법원 판례를 통해 분석한 결과, 휴양지 관리주체의 손해배상책임은 위험책임법리에 근거하여 포괄적이고 엄격하게 적용되고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 이에 따라 안전사고로 인한 손해배상책임이라는 위험을 통제 가능한 범위에서 관리하기 위해서는 위험관리 주체의 시설에서 발생하는 위험에 대한 인식의 전환, 적극적인 위험관리의식, 그리고 안전사고에 대한 다양한 위험관리 프로그램의 운영이 필요하다. 휴양지 안전사고의 손해배상책임에 대한 위험관리방법으로서 위험통제기법(risk control method)과 위험금융기법(risk financing method)을 찾아 위험관리의 문제점과 해결방안을 제시하였다. 특히, 현재 시행되고 있는 안전사고 발생에 대한 사후적 처리방법으로써 한국지방재정공제회의 손해배상사업은 클레임 발생 시 신속히 처리할 수 있는 업무구조의 개선, 적정한 보험가입조건의 제시, 미가입 휴양지시설에 대한 공제가입의 독려 등 공제회원인 지방자치단체의 1차적 보험자로서의 역할 제고가 필요하다. 향후 국민들의 향상된 권리의식으로 안전사고에 대한 손해배상의 청구건수와 배상액이 점차 증가할 것으로 예상되므로 이 연구가 휴양지 관리주체의 구체적 위험관리방안에 관한 논의의 단초가 되기를 기대한다.

해양사고는 민사법상의 손해배상, 형법상의 책임의 귀속 및 행정상의 제재와 같은 여러 가지 법적 책임 문제를 야기한다. 어떠한 행위에 의하여 결과가 발생하였다고 하여 바로 책임귀속이 되는 것은 아니다. 이러한 책임의 전제로서 해양사고를 야기한 행위와 그 결과 발생사이에 인과관계가 문제된다. 해양사고에 있어서 그 원인 규명은 해양이라는 사고 발생 장소, 증거확보의 어려움, 사고 발생시와 조사 시점과의 시간차 등으로 어려움이 많다. 그러나 정확한 원인 규명은 유사 사고 방지와 책임 소재를 가리는데 매우 중요한 요소이다. 인과관계를 논리학적으로 보면 무한히 확산 가능한 개념이지만 책임귀속에 있어서는 이를 제한할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 인과관계 이론을 바탕으로 해양사고에서의 인과관계를 검토하여 책임귀속의 합리적인 판단 기준을 논증한 것이다.

Der Gesetzgeber geht davon aus, daß der Erwachsene, der strafrechtliches Unrecht verwirklicht, normalerweise schuldfähig ist. Er regelt daher nicht die Schuldfähigkeit, sondern deren ausnahmsweises Fehlen(Schuldunfähigkeit). Nach dem § 10 kor. StGB wird nicht bestraft, wer wegen einer psychiatrischen Störung ohne Einsichts- und Steuerungsfähigkeit handelt. Zu den psychiatrischen Störungen gehören die krankhafte seelische Störung, Schwachsinn und die tiefgreifende Bewußtseinsstörung. Momentan passierten in Korea einige schwere Sexualdelikte gegen Kinder. Deshalb kommt “Pädophilie” bei der Schuldfähigkeitsbeurteilung in Beracht. Aber unser Gericht anerkannt Pädophilie nicht als eine psychiatrische Störung. Die um die Entwicklung objektiver Abgrenzungskriterien bemühten psychiatrischen Klassifikationssysteme sind für die rechtliche Schuldfähigkeitsbeurteilung zwar nicht verbindlich und enthalten insbesondere keine Angaben darüber, ob und inwieweit die bescriebenen Defekte die Schuldfähigkeit des Täters beeinträchtigen. Aber wenn die solche Störung(Pädophilie) Krankheitswert hat, müssen ihre möglichen Auswirkungen auf die Einsichts- und Steuerungsfähigkeit beurteilt werden.

In our society, in which a great variety of risk business transaction are carried, the parties concerned require often untypical mortgage to the contraries to make such transaction easy and effective. According to this requirement, the contraries, members of corporation, should offer assets of their companies as an mortgage arbitrarily. Members, who dare to carry out risk transaction for excessively profitable business, are very likely to commit breach of corporational trust. Accordingly it comes to be very important issue, to what extent criminal law should intervene in attitude of counter partner involved in those cases. If members conducting affairs of business commit jointly breach of trust, they can be punished as accomplice each all, but it is disputable, whether counter partner without status as members can be punished as an accomplice under the same condition, namely the Act Control('Tatherrschaft' in german). Under the precondition of answering this question affirmatively, it becomes an issue to put meaning of the Act Control into shape. Related to what the Act Control means, its constituents, mainly division of execution as an objective condition, mutual connection of intention, should be analysed on after another. If counter partner without status as members can not be punished as accomplice because of lacking the necessary condition, another problem becomes to be posed, whether his conduct leave no room for being punished especially as assistance. Because he assists the principal, member of company, in a way of daily deal activity('alltaegliches Verhalten' in german), he can be probably not punished as assistance of trust breach. The decision concerned(supreme court 2005.10.8. adjudged 2005do4915 sentence) declared 'not guilty' because of lack of illegality based on social adequateness. Despite of proper conclusion, I doubt whether the restriction of the extent of assistance should be made at the second level of illegality, because the first level of elements of constitung the case("Tatbestandsmaessigkeit" in german) can restrict the extent of assistance, by means of normative restriction or objective imputation.

해적행위는 오래 전부터 국제범죄로 인정되어 왔으며, 해적행위를 행하는 자는 인류공동의 적으로 간주되고, 국제관습법상 어떠한 국가의 군함 또는 정부명령을 받은 선박으로도 해적을 공해상에서 나포하여 자국항으로 연행해 처벌할 수 있다. 1982년 유엔해양법협약에서는 해적행위를 "사적인 목적을 위하여 민간 선박의 승무원 또는 승객이 공해상 또는 어떤 국가의 관할권 밖의 지역에서 다른 선박, 승무원 또는 재산에 대하여 자행하는 모든 불법폭력·구금 또는 약탈행위"라고 정의하고 있으며, 더 나아가 해적행위에는 그러한 행위를 의도적으로 조장 또는 선동하는 행위와 그 선박이 해적 선박임을 알면서도 그 선박의 운항에 자발적으로 참여한 행위도 포함된다고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 해적행위에 대처하기 위해 국제기구는 물론 우리나라 정부도 해적행위에 적극적으로 대처해 오고 있으나, 해적행위는 점점 흉포화 되고 있으며, 매년증가추세에 있다 따라서 이 논문은 해상에서의 안전한 선박운항을 확보하기 위해 형사법적, 사법적, 국제적 대응방안을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다.

In 1986, the People's Insurance Company of China(hereinafter called PICC) Hull Insurance Clauses, which were amended on the basis of the version 1972, were put into effect. Since PICC is the biggest state-owned insurance company in China, its hull insurance clauses have been used nationwide. In the clauses are included the following contents： scope of cover, exclusions, period of insurance, automatical termination of insurance, duty of assured, claim and indemnity, treatment of disputes and so on. However, this study is only limited to the legal interpretation of the most important clauses relating to indemnity of the insurer. The writers attempt to supply some basic materials necessary for the establishment and enforcement of the Korean hull insurance clauses.

As a matter of fact, the document which has been developed to resolve the obvious conflicts between the interests of buyer and seller is the bill of lading. The bill of lading provides the seller with some security against default by the buyer and the buyer with some assurance of performance of the seller before the buyer is required to make payment. So to speak, the B/L provides some extent protection for both seller and buyer. This is a study on the construction of Liner Bill of Lading(Code name : CONLINEBILL) adopted by BIMCO(The Baltic and International Maritime Conference) and is using a basic bill of lading in the liner ship's operation. In this study, the writer makes a wider and deeper study of rights and obligations of Contract Parties by means of the rules of construction, specially focusing the Carrier's liability under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971(COGSA 1971), Hague-Visby Rules and Korea Commercial Law.

Since 1979, the People's Republic of China has been opeining their marke tprogressively toward all over the world for developing its own domestic economy and international trade. China also has paid a great attention to the international maritime transport due to the fact that its volume of international trade has increased continuoulsy. Under such circumstance, the Chinese Maritime Code was issued in 1992 in which the regulation with regard to carrier's liability occupied an important position. The author, therefore, selected this issue for demonstration of the legal proinciples about carrier's liability which is provided in the Chinese Maritime Code. The study on the issue is under guidance of related international conventions. On the basis of the above, the differences between the Code and relevant conventions have been pointed out in order to make the people in the field of shipping understood for legal system with regard to carrier's liability in China which is a great potential partner of Korea in shipping and trade.

The international trade is basically founded on the contract of international sale of goods and backed up by the contract of international carriage of goods and the contract of insurance in the goods carried. For the efficient development of international trade, it is essential to incorporate the above three fields closely together. Economic growth has developed international trade which has accelerated the development of international carriage of goods. As a result of rapid expansion of international carriage of goods, rationalization of transport was required, which has brought about the International Multimodal Transport System(herein after referred to as 'IMT') through containerization. International multimodal transport system has affected international trade a lot, especially the field of insurance a great deal. The aim of this paper is to analyze contents of Multimodal Transport Operator's(MTO's) liability system in the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980 and FIATA Bill of Lading(FBL) as one of current Multimodal Transport Documents. The analysis of MTO's liability system will be a good introductory concept for the further study of insurance problems for the development of IMT.

There are more damages from collision at sea because of the multiple reasons of sea conditions. For the purpose of avoiding collision at sea, Internaitonal Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea, 1972 as an international convention is in force having the nature of international navigating law. According to the nature of the convention and the principle of legislation of the convention, not only it has the preventing nature on collision but it is a basic rules to make clear the faults of collision between vessels by the admiralty court in the developed maritime countries. Since there is no so much case law on it in this country and not to fixed the legal theory to define the faults of collision in civil law as per the above convention, the further study of the civil liability on collision based upon the above convention shall be recognized in the principle of fair of the civil law.