책임판단의 대상은 자유로운 의사와 그 의사에 기인하여 실현된 행위이다. 이러한 책임의 근거는 행위자에게 달리 행동할 수 있는 가능성이 있었다는 것이며, 이는 의사자유를 전제로 하고 있다. 하지만 최근의 일부 연구에 의하면 인간에게는 의사를 결정할 수 있는 자유는 존재하지 않고, 인간이 자유롭게 결정할 수 있다는 인식은 단지 망상 내지 착각에 불과하다. 물론 뇌신경과학의 새로운 발견들이 여러 가지 흥미로운 결과를 제시하고 있기는 하지만, 적어도 의사자유나 책임과 같은 주제에 대해 지금까지의 논의에서 간과하거나 새롭게 고려할 만한 자료를 제시하는데 성공했다고 판단하기에는 무리가 있어 보인다. 그러나 의사자유가 우리 인식체계에 포착되지 않는다 할지라도 우리를 규정하는데 매우 중요한 문제이기 때문에 앞으로도 계속 많은 연구자들이 의사형성과정의 본질을 파헤치기 위하여 모종의 시도를 할 가능성이 높으며, 최근의 과학 발전 속도를 고려하면 이와 같은 문제제기는 더 빈번해 질 가능성이 높다. 특히 뇌신경과학의 발달은 특별예방적 단초로 활용되어 전통적인 제제의 대안으로 치료를 전면에 내세우는 결과를 초래할 수도 있으며, 더 나아가 의사자유를 전제로 하는 도의적 책임론을 벗어나 사회의 질서유지와 개인의 기본권을 보다 더 확실하게 보장할 수 있는 책임개념을 요구할 수도 있다.

해양사고가 발생하게 되면 총론적으로는 해원의 형사책임은 자기부죄의 원칙상 해원이 직접 부담하지 아니할 수 없다. 그러므로 해원의 형사책임에 대한 대책은 형사상의 절차(영장실질심사제도, 구속적부심제도 등)를 최대한 이용하여 자신의 형사책임을 줄이는 방법 밖에는 없을 것이다. 기존법률의 개정을 통해 형벌을 낮추는 것도 하나의 방법이 될 것이다. 각론적으로 벌금 관련한 예로서 현행 해양오염방지법상의 과실로 인한 기름유출사고의 벌금인 3천만원은 유출량에 관계없이 최고액수가 벌금으로 나오는 경향이 있으므로 이를 유출량에 따라 차등화 시키는 것도 고려해볼 가치가 있을 것으로 판단된다. P&I의 벌금납부는 일반의 인식과는 달리 P&I가 법적의무를 부담하거나 P&I납부를 인정하는 경우에만 전보가 가능하다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 새로운 집단적 보험이나 공제제도를 신설하는 것도 하나의 대안이 될 것이다. 또한 해원들은 법률적인 문제에 대하여 전문가가 아니므로 법률적인 문제에 연루되게 되면 변호사 등 법률전문가의 조력을 체계적으로 받을 수 있도록 선주협회나 해기사협회 등에서 대안을 마련할 필요가 있다. (예 농어민무료법률구조지원사업 등). 끝으로 별도의 법률을 제정하든지 그렇지 않으면 기존의 교통사고처리특례법을 개정하여 해양사고부분을 삽입하는 것도 대안일 수 있을 것이다.

The Public preservation measure is a Kind of legal sanctions other than criminal punishments, which is to be imposed on a person who should be protected, because of his (her) future risk on the ground of his(her) behaviors open to the public, for the main purpose of giving medical treatment or educating or reinstating. Therefore in the view of a possibility of risk according to the responsibility, generally a criminal punishment has been understood as a treasure of peace preservation. That is to say that a criminal punishment is a retributive justice to a crime based on the responsibility, on the other hand the public preservation measure is a legal sanction for the social protection as well as his(her) correction and education related with social danger. A sharp line between the two legal viewpoints mentioned has been drawn. Accordingly as mentioned above judging from this point of view of distinction between a criminal punishment and the public preservation measure, the responsibility system is to be linked with a criminal punishment, but is not to be linked with the public preservation measure. For all that recently a view that the public preservation measure is able to be imposed even to the matter of responsibility has been on the rise. So the purpose of this study consists in the matter of the theory that the enforcement of preservation measure even to the responsibility is possible or not. In other words, it's a question that whether the responsibility system and the public preservation measure can be linked, if possible, how is it coming along with each other and if not possible, for what reason is it? On such problems a study has been pursued from the point of view of the criminal policy.

It often happens that after someone purchases a specific part in one parcel of land, a shared equity registration is made according to the area ratio of the specific part in the whole land, and this legal relation is called co-ownership of divided ownership. This is substantially sole ownership of the relevant party on the inside and takes the form of “co-ownership registration” on the outside, but Korean precedents solve this problem by the so-called co-title trust principle by citing the legal principle of title trust. Therefore, in the relation of co-ownership of divided ownership, each co-owner can dispose of his or her specific division part independently and freely transfer the corresponding shared equity registration. However, if a land is divided into independent parcels by specific division parts owned separately, our precedents consider that the shared equity registration of the co-owner name transferred to each remaining parcel other than the parcel corresponding to each specific division part can no longer be regarded as a registration to represent a parcel corresponding to a particular division part of the co-owner, and only the co-title trust relation between the co-owners will survive. Thus, each co-owner is in the position of a person keeping the shared equity in relation to the other co-owners with respect to the shared equity of his or her name transferred over each remaining parcel, and if he or she disposes of it, an embezzlement is established. But it is doubtful whether a shared equity can be regarded as a property of embezzlement in the “person who keeps other’s property” among constitutional elements of embezzlement. Shared equity, which is a quantitative part held by a co-owner, is an idea that can govern things, and it is problematic to regard it as a property. Therefore, even though Korean precedents acknowledge embezzlement in this case, it is reasonable to regard it as a breach of trust rather than embezzlement.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.