미국 연방대법원은 2006년 5월 15일 eBay vs. MercExchange 판결에서 특허권침해에 대하여 자동적으로 금지명령을 부여하여 오던 연방순회항소법원의 입장에 쐐기를 박고, 형평법상 이념이 요구하는 요건들을 검토하여 법원의 재량에 따라 금지명령의 발령 여부를 결정하여야 한다고 판시하였다. 이 판결은 특허권침해에 대한 구제에 있어서 경직성과 도식성을 타파하고 형평성, 유연성, 기능성을 제고하려는 의미를 가진다. 이러한 사고는 우리 민법상 불법행위와 그에 대한 구제수단으로서의 금지청구권에 관하여 시사하는 바가 있다. 우리 민법 제750조는 불법행위에 대한 구제수단으로 손해배상원칙을 채택하고 있다. 이에 따라 금지청구권은 불법행위에 대한 일반적 구제수단으로 인정되지 않는다. 그러나 불법행위법의 목적을 손해회복과 손해예방 중 어디에 두더라도 금지청구권은 그 목적달성에 반드시 필요한 구제수단이다. 나아가 현실적으로 이러한 구제수단이 부여되어야 마땅한 상황도 적지 않다. 따라서 입법론으로서는 불법행위에 대한 구제수단으로 금지청구권을 인정할 필요성이 크다. 그 뿐만 아니라 현행법상 해석론으로도 금지청구권을 인정하여야 마땅한 개별적 사안에서는 이른바 전체유추의 방식으로 이를 예외적으로 허용할 수 있을 것이다. 민법 제214조, 제217조, 제389조 제3항, 제764조, 부정경쟁방지법 제4조 등에 공통적으로 존재하는 법의 일반원칙, 즉 “피해자는 침해로부터 회복될 수 있는 가장 적절하고 유효한 수단에 의하여 구제되어야 한다”는 정신이 이러한 전체유추의 근거가 될 것이다. 지나치게 경직되었던 특허권침해의 구제법에 있어서 권리와 구제수단 사이의 유연성, 형평성, 기능성의 정신을 되살리고자 하였던 eBay vs. MercExchange 판결은 같은 정신을 공유하는 위와 같은 시도에 하나의 단초가될수있을것이다.

Teshima has been a quiet and beautiful island, but started to be imaged as an "island of wastes" because of the 600,000 tons of industrial wastes thrown there illegally. Now it symbolizes the problem of industrial wastes in Japan. Teshima development company, an industrial waste disposer, started to dispose industrial wastes illegally in the west side of the island, since the late 1970s. Hyogo Police Station exposed this illegal act, and arrested 6 persons of the company, including its president, in charge of having violated the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Law in 1991. This illegal disposition has continued for 13years until it was exposed by the police. Teshima case of industrial wastes are introduced in this paper.

본 연구에서는 국내?외에서 유통되는 건강관련식품 중 성기능 개선 및 효과에 대하여 광고?판매하고 있는 제품들에 대하여 최근 의약품으로 허가된 발기부전치료제인 sildenafil, vardenafil, tadalafil 및 sildenafil의 유사물질인 homosildenafil을 대상으로 정성과 정량을 위한 동시분석법을 개발하고 유통 제품 중의 함량을 분석하여 함유 실태를 파악하고자 하였다. 네 가지 성분을 확인할 수 있는 TLC와 LC/MS 분석방법을 개발하였으며, LC/PDA를 사용한 동시 정량분석법을 개발하고, 건강보조식품 등 건강관련 식품 중 sildenafil 등 4종 물질에 대해 총 35개의 시료를 분석한 결과 sildenafil이 7종에서 0.4mg/g~360.9mg/g, homosildenafil이 7종에서 2.2gm/g~336.0mg/g, tadalafid이 2종에서 각각 19.2mg/g, 429.3mg/g로 검출되었으며, 본 연구에서 개발한 동시분석법은 유통식품에 적용 가능하였다.

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.