The Criminal Act has regulations of criminal punishment against illegal use of authenticated document. The one who has made out document without authority and/or false document with authority shall be punished in the use of document. But, punishment against use of document truly made by authorized person is thought to be exceptional considering benefit of document crime of “public reliability on the document.” Then, what’s the meaning of“unlawful uttering” may be of problem. Supreme Court's judicial precedent has adopted not only authority of use of document but also original usage of document to judge illegal use and has made four cases to have different legal judgment. But this study adopted authority of use of document as an only standard for unlawful uttering considering differences depending upon rights in document crimes, and interpretation of various kinds of ‘illegal use’ from point of view of the Criminal Act and related special laws. Unlawful uttering has no reason to judge depending upon original usage of the document, and extends scope of punishment at punishment against unlawful uttering of document up to other purpose of use. The loss and damage at other purpose of use is out of scope of legal benefit of unlawful uttering is thought to be inappropriate. To admit of unlawful uttering from point of view of Supreme Court's judicial precedent, expansion of scope of original usage may expand scope of the punishment to violate principle of Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege. In this case, Supreme Court's judgment that did not admit of unlawful uttering was thought to be appropriate, but Supreme Court's basic position that followed judgment standard of original usage than authority of the use should be reconsidered.

Die Trennung von Eigentum und Verwaltung kennzeichnet die moderne Wirtschaft. Durch das Auseinanderfallen von Eigentumszuständigkeit und Vermögensverwaltung ist die ungetreute Vermögensverwaltung und damit die Regelung der Untreue das charakteristische Wirtschaftsdelikt. Weder in der Common Law noch im Code Penal von 1810 wurde ein allgemeines Konzept der Untreue entwickelt. Das relativ spät entstandene deutsche Strafgesetzbuch von 1871 hat dagegen einen erstaunlich modernen Straftatbestand der Untereue geschaffen. Das japanische Strafgesetzbuch hat dieses deutsches Modell rezipiert und ihm eine abstrahierende Fassung gegeben. Neben dieser Moderniserung im Abstraktionsgrad hat das kStGB im Tatbestand sowohl Vermögensschaden als auch Vermögensvorteil verlangt. Damit hat das kStGB die in der Welt am höchsten entwickelte gesetzliche Regelung. Das Vertrauen im Sinne der Untreue ist nicht individuelles Vertrauen in Redlichkeit. Dieses Vertrauen bezieht sich das Vertrauen in das Wirtschaftssystem und ihr eigenen Handlungslogiken, denen zu entsprechen von dem Vermögensbetreuer erwartet wird. Dem Vermögensbetreuer wird besondere Macht über das Vermögen des Vermögensinhabers gegeben. So vertraut der Vermögensinhaber darauf, dass sein Vermögen gemäß der wirtschaftlichen Handlungslogik betreut wird. In der Untreue sieht man eine Machtstellung über das fremdes Vermögen. Priatautonomie ist keine isolierte, sondern eine im Wirtschaftssystem in der Gesellschaft. Der Vermögensbetreuer benuzt den Vermögensinhaber als seinen Werkzeug. Er missbraucht seine besonsere Macht und siene überlegene Stellung. Die Plenarentscheidung vom koreanichen Obersten Gerichtshof (́kOGH) hat anders als früher den Schuldner freigesprochen, der die Immobilien im Vorvertrag auf Annahme an Erfüllungs- statt für Forderungssicherung doppelt an Dritten verkauft. Sie begründet damit, dass in diesem Vorvertrag die Leistung an Erfüllungssicherung kein Geschäft des Gläubigers, sondern das Geschäft des Schuldner selbst. Daran scheitert die Untreue. Im Bereich des eigentlichen Doppelverkauf der Immobilien bejaht der kOGH noch die Untreue. Nach dem kOGH sei die Struktur zwischen beiden Verträgen anders. Die zivilrechtliche Struktur zwischen beiden muss anders sein. Aber die strafrechtliche Unrechtstruktur der Untreue ist m.E. als gleich bejaht angesehen. Der jederzeitige Zugriff auf das Vermögen eines anderen ist von Rechts wegen eröffnet. Das Zivilrecht wird hier geradezu zum Vehikel der Tatbegehung. Der Gläubiger hat sein Vermögen in die Herrschaft des Schuldners gegeben. Der strafrechtliche Schutz wird dadurch ausgelöst. Das ist keine bloße Verletzung einer schlichten Schuldnerpflicht. Der Schuldner benuzt sein überlegene Position und missbraucht die Herrschaft über das Vermögen des Gläubigers. Der betreffende Fall hat die strafrechtliche Unrechtsstruktur der Untreue.

‘Dauerdelikt’ is a continuing crime. Although The ‘Dauerdelikt’ is defined as a crime subsequent misconduct and illegal state match, ‘Dauerdelikt’ or ‘Zustandsdelikt’ is very hard or impossible to distinguish and is still ambiguous case-by-case crimes. Since the existence criteria is necessary that at the time after completion of commission of crime, it must be observed whether omission of the act or acts exist. Starting from willful actors to choose from acts contrary to the norms of illegality, as long as the intentional act continues, crime will continue. And it is evaluated while the action continues willfully, illegal state not only continue, but also internal strengthening of illegality has been performed. ‘Dauerdelikt’, that is infringement after completion of commission of crime adds to the interests protected by law through inaction or omission of additional actors, gradually increasing from a base point, is a sin or a large extent has been enhanced illegality. In this study will be made a classification that authentic crime of omission, declaration of intention as juristic act, and willfully act that during continuing act unlawfulness is enhanced increasingly are ‘Dauerdelikt’

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 Korean Constitution and the Korean Criminal Procedure Code provide the emergency arrest exception for the warrant requirements. The investigative authorities can arrest suspects without an arrest warrant issued by a judge if there is "probable cause" to believe that a suspect has committed a felony and if there is concern to believe that the suspect may destroy evidence or attempt to escape. In the case of an emergency arrest, the Criminal Procedure Code does not require that an arrest warrant be filed within 48 hours but it only requires that a detention be filed, therefore, the warrantless arrest without any judicial control is legitimatized for at least 48 hours. As a result, the investigative authorities tend not to pursue the arrest on the warrant, but depend on the emergency arrest because it is free of any warrant requirement and gives them much time to interrogate the suspect without any judicial control. In addition, the investigative authorities have developed two kinds of convenient systems to avoid the warrant requirement. The first is "voluntary accompaniment," which is the Korean version of the U.S. Terry stop system. The second is "investigation of relevant persons" who voluntarily appear before the authorities following the authorities' request to come to the police station although they are not a suspect. Since these two systems are not officially a compulsory measure, the constitutional restrictions for an arrest warrant do not attach. In particular, the authorities often proceed these two systems first, try to acquire informations from citizens, then arrest citizens if they are not cooperative. This Article is to review two Korean Supreme Court decisions to deter these two investigative authorities' tactics. The Decisions of July, 6, 2006 provides strict requirements of permissible "emergency arrest" of the "relevant persons" who voluntarily appear before the authorities. The Decisions of September, 8, 2006 stablished that if the individuals who are asked to voluntarily accompany the officer to the police station are not given the "freedom to leave" at any time, as a practical matter, the "voluntary accompaniment" is an illegal arrest.