이 연구는 음주라는 고전적인 청소년의 일탈과 범죄의 주요한 영향요인을 보호관찰 대상 청소년일 경우, 보호관찰 위반 행위에 미치는 요인인지를 실증연구를 통하여 검 증하고, 소년 보호관찰대상자들을 관리･감독을 하는데 있어 강화 요인으로 보고자 하 였다. 이를 위해 한국형사정책연구원의 ‘소년원생의 안정적 사회정착을 위한 실태조사 및 정책지원 방안 연구’의 2차 데이터자료를 활용하였으며, 통계분석프로그램을 활용 하여, 최종적으로 로지스틱회귀분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과, 소년원 출소 후 보호관 찰 대상 청소년의 음주 문제행동이 보호관찰 기간 동안의 경고 또는 위반 행위 등의 경험에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 남자 청소년보다 여자 청소년이 보호관찰 기간 동안 준수사항 위반 수준이 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이를 근거로 하 여, 보호관찰 소년대상들의 음주 위험 수준에 대한 교육 및 지도 강화를 통해 비행, 문제 행동 및 범죄를 예방하는 정책적 방안에 근거자료로 활용하기를 기대한다.

FRAND 선언은 불특정 다수의 실시권자에게 당연히 실시권을 부여하는 계약법적 효력을 가진다고 볼 수 없고, 다만 표준특허권자에게 FRAND 조건에 따라 실시계약을 체결하도록 성실하게 협상할 의무를 부과하는 것으로 이해함이 타당하다. FRAND 선언의 구체적인 의미 중 합리성과 비차별성 위반 여부를 판단하는 것은 단순하지 않은 문제이다. 합리적인 실시료를 다양한 이론과 방법에 의해 산정해서 종합적으로 비교해야 할 것이고, 실시조건에 영향을 미치는 다양한 변수들을 고려 하여 차별취급의 부당성을 평가해야 할 것이다. FRAND 선언한 표준특허권자가 실시권자에게 실시허락을 하지 않고 침해금지청구를 하는 것은 성실협상의무 이행 여부, 실시권자의 자발성 유무 등에 따라 민법상 권리남용에 해당하는 것으로 기각될 수 있다. 그러나 일반적으로 FRAND 선언을 한 표준특허권자의 침해금지청구가 금지되거나 제한된다고 볼 수는 없고, 오히려 표준특허권자는 특허법 제126조 제1항에 의해 침해금지청구를 할 수 있는 것이 원칙이므로, 표준특허권자가 FRAND 선언을 위반하였다는 등의 사정을 실시 권자가 입증하여야 할 것이다. 표준특허권자의 남용행위에 관하여는 공정거 래법상 폭넓은 규제 근거가 마련되어 있다. 다만, FRAND 위반과 공정거래법상 부당성은 구별되는 개념이므로, FRAND 위반행위를 곧바로 공정거래법상 부당한 남용행위로 단정하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 표준특허권자의 행위가 부당한 남용행위 인지 여부는 공정거래법 관련 조항의 요건에 따라 검토하여야 하고, FRAND 위반 여부는 그 과정에 서 참고가 되는 고려요소 중 하나라고 보는 것이 타당하다. 삼성 대 애플 사건에서 각국 법원이 서로 다른 결론을 내린 이유는 FRAND 선언한 표준특허권 자와 실시권자 사이의 이해관계의 균형점을 모색하는 규범적 판단에 있어서 미묘한 입장 차이가 있었기 때문이다. 표준특허권자에 대한 정당한 보 상을 통해 혁신을 촉진할 필요성과 자발적 실시권자에 대한 실시허락을 통해 표준기술의 확산과 공 정한 경쟁을 촉진할 필요성은 반드시 조화되어야 하는 법정책적 가치로서, 표준특허에 관한 특허법과 경쟁법 적용의 제반 쟁점에 있어서 양자의 조화를 모색하는 입법론과 해석론이 깊이 연구되기를 기대한다.

The purpose of the Act on The Protection of Children Against Sexual Abuse is to prepare procedures for relieving and assisting victimized children and juveniles, and protecting them against sexual abuse and assisting them to become sound members of society. Any person who commits an offense of indecent act against a child or juvenile shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a limited term of at least two years or by a fine of at least ten million won, but not more than 30 million won. From the perspective of children and juveniles, protection of their sexual autonomy should have special meaning. Understanding of self, will, sex, age, and environment of children must be considered when the court make decision on the relevant cases. Sexual violence against children must have devastated effect on their development towards a man or woman who fully enjoys his or her own self determination of sex. The case reviewed by this essay is on the issue of medical treatment by pediatrist and indecent act against children patients. The court denied victims’ statement on their victimization as a guess or emotional reaction, not real experiences. Investigators and judges should have special understanding on the characteristics of child victim’s statements on his or her experiences. Most of all, the criminal court in sexual violence cases should pay attention not to the consistency of statement by children, but to the special behaviour and mind of their victimization, and further to the social context of sexual violence.

By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.

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.