The recovery of right to appeal after the appeal duration elapses, is the system which recovers the right to appeal which disappears with decision of the court of justice. The recovery of right to appeal is provided in the criminal procedure law(§345~§358). Against the right to appeal lapse the right to appeal own responsibility not recognizing the right to appeal even in nil the right to appeal it is unjust and it reaches the wave high price which it restricts. If it decides a justice, it the right to appeal it is unjust and becomes the result which it restricts. Appeal recovery volume the legal stability compared to is the system which makes an entity justice first of all. And this system justice decision form profit of the accused it is unjust and the fact that it deprives a system for it is. The criminal procedure law providing, the reexamination which it is doing, at decision judging and emergency with system and sameness, the recovery of right to appeal system is recognized with the process which excludes double jeopardy effect. Recently the research and the discussion regarding criminal procedure law opening a court are actively advanced from viewpoint of administration of justice reform. And also the simplification, nimbleness plan of criminal case administration of justice process are discussed. Against the recovery of right to appeal system specially only it will be stopping in the degree which introduces only a relation regulation to be, the research against hereupon almost there is to a condition which is not. The dissertation which in short, it sees with afterwords observes a same contents and the reporter it does. First it investigates the relation and a legislation maintenance plan of the recovery of right to appeal and reexamination from the dissertation which it sees. Second, Representative the recovery of right to appeal it will be able to requisition in order, provided special law at constitution should have infringed the justice claim which is guaranteed with, it tries to observe the legislation opening a court plan against hereupon. Third, The regulation regarding the recovery of right to appeal requisition and a suspension of executant at constitution is quick it is guaranteed and infringe the right which will administer justice with, it investigates a legislation opening a court plan, it does. And it relates with the recovery of right to appeal system and against the propriety of necessary justice suspension of executant regulation it observes and the reporter it does.

In 1983, Supreme Court ruled that policemen could not testify to the defendant's confess when the defendant objected. The Court reasoned that since the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the admissibility of the documents which was made by the police and contained the defendant's confess when the defendant object, the policeman was not allowed to testify to that effect, either. The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, does not explicitly prohibit the use of such testimony. As for the document which contains the confess of the defendant, it is extremely difficult to contest. Because the defendant cannot cross-exam the policeman who interrogated the defendant or the defendant himself. But as for the testimony, the reliability can be guaranteed by the cross-examination. In addition, such testimony often includes first-handed, accurate information and cannot be obtained otherwise. This study is an attempt to illustrate such an occasion. In this case which was ruled in 2005, Supreme Court once again denied the admissibility of the interrogator's testimony. However there are some special elements to be considered. Here, the policeman met the defendant near the crime scene just after he had committed homicide; the setting was not interrogatory; the defendant freely admitted that he had killed the victim. If he had met a civilian, he would have told the same story. In situation like this, there is no danger of misconception, manipulation, or memory lapse. This case clearly shows that under certain circumstance it is necessary, sometimes desirable to admit interrogators' testimony. In conclusion, the admissibility of the policeman's testimony should not be decided uniformly. Rather, it should be decided case by case in the light of reliability.

Ob und inwieweit sich Polizisten in Ausübung ihres Amtes auf die Notwehr- und Nothilfevorschrift des §21 berufen dürfen, ist sehr umstritten. Der Grund dafür liegt in der Unklarheit der öffentlich-rechtlichen Vorschriften. So gestatten Gesetz über die Amtsausübung der Polizisten einen Schusswaffengebrauch zur Abwehr von Verbrechen und von gewaffenen Vergehen. Anderseits haben es Notrechtsvorbehalte, die auf strafrechtliche Rechtsfertigungsgründe verweisen. Ihnen zufolge sollen z.B. die Vorschriften über Notwehr und Notstand unberührt bleiben. Wenn das richtig ist, kann sich die Polizei wie jeder Bürger bei Ausübung von Notwehr und Notstand auf §21 berufen. Aber dann fragt sich, welchen Sinn die den Schusswaffengebrauch einschränkenden Regeln des Gesetz über die Amtsausübung der Polizisten überhaupt haben soll. Der Widerspruch hat sich jetzt nicht befriedigend auflösen lassen. Nach der im Strafrecht überwiegenden Meinug darf der Polizist sich schlichthin in Ergänzung der polizeigesetzlichen Regelungen bei der Ausübung von Notwehr und Notstand auf §21 berufen. Aber die Bedeutung der polizeigesetzlichen Spezialregelungen ist dann nicht in einer Einschränkung der durch §21 gegebenen Nothilfebefugnis, sondern darin zu sehen, dass sie das für den Normalfall bei der Notwehr Angemessene im Form einer handlichen, konkretisierten Anweisung zusammenfassen. Wenn etwa der Schusswaffengebrauch bei der Abwehr von Verbrechen untersagt ist, bei denen der Täter selbst nicht mit Schusswaffen versehen ist, dann ist das so zu verstehen, dass ein geschulter Polizist im Regelfall mit einen solchen Vorgang ohne den Einsatz von Schusswaffen sollte fertigt werden können; dann ist ein Schuss auch nicht i.S.d. §21 angemessen. Wenn z. B. ein Dieb mit der Beute flieht, hat ein Polizist im Vergleich mit einem Privatmann so viel größere Ergreifenmöglichkeiten, dass ein Schuss meist nicht erforderlich sein wird. Dazu kommt, dass ein Einschränkungen, die bei unerheblicher Angrifen schwere Verlezugen als nicht angemessen erscheinen lassen, natürlich auch bei Polizisten gelten und sich namentlch bei der Abwehr unbeffeneter Vergehenstäter auswirken. Ähnlich vorhält es sich mit den so viel diskurierten Spezialregenlung über den gezielten Todesschuss. Nach den Rechtssprechungen nur abgegen werden darf, sofern er das einzige Mittel zur Abwehr einer gegenwärtigen Lebensgefahr oder der gegenwärtigen Gefahr einer schwehrwiegeden Verletzung der körperlichen Unversehrtheit ist. Überschreitet der Polizist die Grenzen der Notwehr, so kann das Gericht von Strafe absehen oder die Strafe nach senem Ermessen mildern(§21 Abs. 2). Und er überschreitet die Grenzen der Notwehr aus Werwirrung, Furcht oder Schrecken, so wird er nicht bestrafen(§21 Abs. 3). §21 Abs. 2 und 3 erfassen die Situation, in denen die Wahrnehmungen des Täters aufgrund der Affekte eingeschränkt sind, so dass es zu Fehlschätzung der Lage kommt oder der Täter sich überhaupt keine Gedanken macht und deshalb so handelt, weil es ihm gerade einfällt. Unbewusste Notwehrexzess unterscheidet sich von der Putativnotwehr. Nimmt der Täter irrig das Vorliegen einer Notwehrsituation an, also einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff, der weder bevorsteht noch bestaden hat, handelt es sich um eine so gennante Putativnotwehr. Der Irrtum über die tatsächlichen Voraussetzungen der Notwehr wird als Putativnotwehr bezeichnet. Nach der eingeschränkten Schuldtheorie, die von namhaften Stimmen im Schriftum vertreten wird, wird die Putativenotwehr zwar nicht als Tatbestandirrtum angesehen, wohl aber §13 unmittelbar oder entsprechen angewendet wird, weil die Strukturähnlichkeit mit dem eigentlichen Tatbestandirrtum als ausschlaggebend ercheint. Aber die Fahrlässichkeitsdilikte des geltenden Rechtes in erster Linie auf die Tatbestandsfahrlässichkeit und nicht auf die vermeidbar irrige Annahme rechtsfertigender Sachverhalte zugeschnitten sind. Und wer die Voraussetzungen eines Rechtsfertigungsgrundes annehme, wisse immerhin, dass er einen Tatbestand erfülle und damit etwas an sich Verbotenes tue. Diese Appelfunktion des Tatbestandsvorsatzes müsse ihn besonderes sorgfältiger Prüfung des Sachverhaltes veranlassen; versäume er diese, so sei das Unrecht seines Verhaltens schwer als das gewöhnlichen Tatbestandsirrtums. So die irrge Annahme rechtsfertigender Umstände soll als einen unmittelbar unter §16 zu submierenden Verbotsirrtum. Der Irrtum schliesst also nicht den Vorsatz, sondern im Falle seiner Unvermedbarkeit die Schuld aus; ist der Irrtum vermedbar, so kann die Vorsatzstrafe gemildert werden.

Im Bereich der sukzessiven Beihilfe ist die Frage, ob der beihilfe trotz ihres erst späteren Einschreitens eine Verantwortung für das gesamte Delikt angelastet wied oder ob sich eine Haftung auf den zeitlichlich mitgewirkten Teil beschränkt, den die Beihilfehandlung erst verwirklicht. Die herrschende Meinung und die Rechtsprechung lassen den sukzessiven Mittäter nicht als Täter für das gesamte Delikt haften, während eine sukzessive Beihilfe mit Verantwortung für eine Teinahme am gesamten Delikt. für möglich gehalten wird. Man findet aber keine Begründung. Neulich lenht andere Auffassung die Veranzwortung der sukzessiven Beihilfe für vor deren Einschreiten schon verwirklichten Teil ab. Aber findet man jedenfalls keine Begründung. Im vorliegenden Urteil wählt die koreanische Rechtsprechung den einigermassen beschränkten Weg, der grundsätzlich auf die Haftung für das gesamte Teil beruht. Der gesamte Teil außerhalb den Todeserfolgsteil bzw. Verletzungsteil ist der sukzessiven Beihilfe zugerechnet. Das hat die Rechtsprechung damit begründet, dass das gesamte Teil unzerlegbar sei und der Teil des Todes- oder Verletzungserfolgs keine kausale Bezihung zur Beihilfe habe. In der deutschen Lehre wird die sukzessiven Beihilfe mit der Akzessoietät begründet. Der Beihilfe wird kraft Akzessorietät das gesamte durch den Täter verwirklichet Unrecht zugerechnet. Die Akzessorietät sollte aber nicht genützt werden, um den Teilnehmer jenes fremde Unrecht zuzurechnen, zu dem er nicht kausal ist. Wenn die koreanische Rechtsprechung ihre richtige Argumentation durchsetzt, hat die sukzessive Beibilfe gar keine kausale Beziehung zur Tat, die der Täter vor dem Einschreiten der Beihilfe schon verwirklicht hat. Das gesamte Tatbestandsteil ist zerlegbar.

Counts in the prosecution should be specified by crime time, place and method. It is required not only for defendants to protect their procedural rights but also for courts to limit the scope of the trials. Moreover, count specification is helpful for prosecutors to prove that defendants are guilty. Drug abuse is usually committed secretly at a private place. It has few evidences, in case a suspect denies his/her drug abuse charge. About a decade ago, the Supreme Court of Korea tended to rule that the defendant charged for drug abuse was guilty with only hair analysis that revealed a drug component at the dependant's hair. However the Court has dismissed the drug abuse case that had hair analysis as single evidence since 2000. The Court's 2005Do7465 decision delivered Dec. 9, 2005 confirmed the recent Court's holdings that the drug abuse count based only on hair analysis didn't meet the requirement of count specification. This article reviews most Court's decisions related to count specification, examines hair analysis and focuses on the drug abuse indictment mainly based on hair analysis. I totally agree with the Court's view for following reasons. First, although hair analysis is admissible, it has still limitations as evidence; it doesn't prove when or how the dependant consumed drugs. In addition, it doesn't show the correlation between used drug amount and detected drug amount. Second, when a dependant denies hair analysis, a prosecutor is responsible for showing the custody of chains in the hair analysis. Third, considering the function of the count specification - protecting dependants' procedural rights - the drug abuse count relied only on the hair analysis is deemed not specified.

Criminal Procedure Act(CP ACT) Article 266 regulates ‘When a public trial has been instituted, the court shall serve the defendant or his defence counsel with a copy of the indictment without delay---'. According to the Act Article 63 (1), when the dwelling, office or present residence of the defendant is unknown, the service may be made by public notice. Service by public notice may be made only when a court so orders in accordance with the Supreme Court Regulations and service by public notice shall be made by the court administrative officer or clerk preserving the document to be served and by his putting a summary thereof on the court bulletin board to show it to the public{CP ACT Article 64 (1), (2)}. The previous provisions tell us that in case of service by public notice, the defendant has the difficulty to be informed on the schedule on his trial in modern times, and therefore we reach the conclusion that the trial cannot be opened because when the defendant does not appear on the day fixed for public trial, the court shall not sit without special provisions(The Act Article 276). To solve the problem mentioned above, ACT ON SPECIAL CASES CONCERNING EXPEDITION, ETC. OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS(ACT ON SC) has been made. When it is impossible to confirm the whereabouts of an accused, in the procedures at the court of first instance, up to an elapse of 6-month from the time when the report on impossibility of service on the accused has been received, the judgment may be rendered without hearing a statement of the accused under the conditions as determined by the Supreme Court Regualtions(ACT ON SC Article 23). The Supreme Court has decided that the court need to make every effort to find out the whereabouts of an defendant to satisfy the requirements asked by ACT ON SC Article 23. If the court did not make every effort to do, the procedures of the court would be illgal and the decision of the court should be reversed. If so, the defendant may apply for recovery of his right to appeal{When a person entitled to make an appeal --- has been prevented, by a cause not imputable to himself or his representative, from lodging an appeal within the period for making an appeal, he may apply for recovery of his right to appeal(CP ACT Article 345)}. It remains to be seen that how much effort has to be made by lower courts.

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.

As our Statute of Criminal Procedure compels the appellant to file statement of reason for appeal, the court is to hand down ruling of rejection without reviewing the merits of the case when the appellant fails to file statement of reason for appeal. However despite the appellant's negligence to file that statement, the court is obliged to review the case as far as the case involves the issues to be investigated ex officio. The case at issue not merely shows that it does not suffice for the prosecutor to just claim 'error in fact', 'error in legal principles' or 'the intent to modify the indictment' without elaborating on grounds for appeal when filing statement of reason for appeal, but also informs that the court cannot hand down ruling of rejection without reviewing the merits of the case once the appellant has filed statement of reason for appeal, which does not meet the requirement. While the Statute of Criminal Procedure remains silent concerning the scope and limit of ex officio investigation, the Supreme Court defines the issues to be investigated ex officio as issues the court is obliged to investigate regardless of the parties' claims, such as misapplication or misunderstanding of statutes. As the Court's definition is too vague, it serves too little. It will be useful to categorize the issues to be investigated ex officio. The Court seems to be indifferent in drawing a clear line between the issue to be investigated ex officio pursuant to Art. 361-4 Para. 1 and the issue to be examined ex officio pursuant to Art. 364 Para. 2. However it is desirable to distinguish the former from the latter since each has its own ground, conditions or legal effect.

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.

The Supreme court admits the real evidence in spite of the unlawfulness during the process of acquiring it. The reason of the theory is that truth-worthiness of the real evidence has not been changed by the fault of the investigation in gathering evidence. Considering the want of Destruction of Justice statutes, the Supreme court strikes the balance between the public interest and private protection by admitting the real evidence on all occasions. The reformed Criminal procedure law is going to introduce the exclusionary rule. The §302-2 stipulates that "The evidence which is not gathered by lawful process should be excluded." Comparing with other developed countries exclusionary rule, it is too broad. For instance, PACE act §78 (1) in England is “In any proceeding the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it." In Canada, the constitution §24 ② provides that “Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice in to disrepute." Even in the U.S., there are lots of exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Good faith theory, harmless error rule, the standing, restrictive application in Miranda rule violation. collateral use are the examples. The German's Beweisverwertungsverbote is the theory concerned about balancing the interest to protect the privacy. Thus basically it doesn't matter the manner of gathering the evidence. So it stats from quite different angle. When it comes to our exclusionary rule, we must be prudent when we apply the rules to the real case. We don't have to exclude the real evidence solely because it is not obtained according to the process of law. We should take into account the motive of the police, the seriousness of the case, the deterrence effects, the influence on the administration of justice, the value of the evidence. If the evidence is procured by private party, it should not be excluded. The criminal justice system don't have to depend on third party's action. Also there is the possibility that the third party or dependant will abuse the rule. There will be no remarkable deterrent effect, even if we remove the evidence on account of private party's illegal behavior.

The hearsay rule was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Law by the Act No. 705, Sep. 1, 1961 in Korea. Any document which contains statements in place of the statements made at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt except as provided by a few articles of the Criminal Procedure Law(§310-2). The investigation report which contains statements of witnesses prepared by the public prosecutors or by the judicial police officers may be introduced into evidence if the genuineness thereof is established by the person who made original statements at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial(§312 (1), §313 (1)). If the witnesses are unable to be present or to testify at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial because of death, sickness, residing abroad or other reasons, the recorded statements of witnesses are not excluded by the hearsay rule(§314). And the probative value of evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judges(§308). Recently the innovative reformation of trial has been the hottest issue and the Criminal Procedure Law is amended by the Act No. Apr. 30, 2007. During that turmoil the Supreme Court ruled that even though the admissibility of recorded statements of witnesses is accepted on the basis of agreement between adversarial parties(§318), the credibility of those statements is extremely restricted in the case the confrontation right of the defendant is limited. The witness-investigation report may have probative values when the recorded statements are so accurate that they are self-evident or if other evidences collaborate the reliability of the recorded statements.

Diese Besprechung über die Rechtsprechung befasst sich mit den erfolgsqualifizierten Delikten im geltenden korStGB. In heutiger Lage streiten sich die Rechtsprechung und die Lehrmeinung darüber, ob die geltenden Vorschriften für die erfolgsqualifizierten Delikte nur in Fälle angewandt werden soll, in denen der Täter den schwereren Erfolg nur fahrlässig herbeigeführt hat. Anders als § 18 deutStGB lautet § 15 Abs. 2 korStGB: Wer bei Begehung der Tat den Eintritt einer besonders schwereren Folge nicht voraussehen könnte, wird nicht mit einer schwereren Strafe bestraft, wenn das Gesetz an eine besondere Folge der Tat eine schwerere Strafe knüpt. Die Rechtsprechung hat die Vorschriften für die erfolgsqualifizierten Delikte grundsätzlich als Regelungen angesehen, unter die nicht nur echte, sondern auch unechte erfolgsqualifizierten Delikte subsumiert werden kann. Dagegen anerkannt die Lehrmeinung überwiegend die geltenden Regelungen als Vorsaz-Fahrlässigkeit-Kombination. In dieser Besprechung versucht es zu begründen: § 15 Abs. 2 korStGB und die Vorschriften im Besonderen Teil, die als erfolgsqualifiziertes Delikt angesehen werden, finden nicht nur im echten, sondern auch im unechten erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt Anwendung. 2. Gesetzeseinheit zwischen Brandstifung mit Todesfolge und Totschlag, Totschlag an einem Verwandten aufsteigender Linie oder Kindestötung ist gegeben, wenn der Täter durch eine Brandstiftung vorsätzlich einen anderen, einen(oder eine) Verwandte oder Kind getötet hat.

On the evidence for the impeachment, in literature, four problems are in discussion. At first, whether a hearsay evidence is admissible for impeachment, although it is not admissible in view of the hearsay rule. Second, whether the oral evidence of the defendant in trial is impeachable, and whehter the defendant's pre-trial statements protocol of the police is admissible for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. At last, whether the authentification is required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. For first problem, though a hearsay evidence is not admissible according to the hearsay rule, it is admissible for impeachment. The hearsay rule is operated only where pre-trial statement is produced for asserting the truth of the statement. Because impeachment is not asserting the truth of the pre-trial statement, but swaying the crediblity of the oral evidence in trial, hearsay rule is not operated when the evidence is produced for impeachment. For second problem, the oral evidence of the defendant in trial can be impeached for the appropriate way of truth-finding. In practice, the prior inconsistent statement of the defendant can be often used for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. § 312 ② of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. Because of the provision, some say that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible for impeachment when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. But the Court admits the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol although the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment, and it is with me on that. For the last problem, the majority in literature and the Court are with the opinion that the authentification is not required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. In this point I cannot agree with the Court. The requirement of the authentification is essential for producing all the evidences. It is a different rule from the hearsay rule. In my opinion, It could be said that the majority and the Court confuse the difference. It should be said that a hearsay written statement cannot be used for impeachment when it is not authentifcated.

Till now we have inquired into problems about application of the Criminal Code Article 310 centering around the Supreme Court's case. To apply Article 310 to the case, the action of article 307① is to be true and a thing about only public interest. As the truth is a objective structure factor of article 307①, it is an acknowledge object of Intent, therefore if one believe non-true factor as true factor, he falls into an error of factor, So his action conforms not to article 307② but rticle 307①. And the aim of public interest is an subjective factor for justification of article 310, but the aim of maligning an innocent person is an subjective factor for justification of article 309. So the former is factor for decision of unlawfulness, the latter is a factor for decision of structure. After all without the former, the unlawfulness of the action is still recognized, without the latter the structure of the action is cut.

Notwehr und Notstand als Rechtfertigungsgrund verlangen Gegenwärtigkeit, Interressenabwägung und Erfordernis. In der Regel, die Gegenwärtigkeit des Angriffs daß eine zeitliche Eingenzung der Notwehrlage vergelangt wird, stimmt mit diesen Notstand. Vom Standpunkt der Defensivnotstand, wenn Präventive Notwehr anwenden soll, es kommt in Frage daß eine zeitliche Eingernzung zu weiter wird. Aber die zeitliche Eingrenzung der Notwehrlage soll unter dem Einfluß von den Existenz des Angreffs. Die akute Bedrohung der Rechtsgüter des Angegriffenen liegt nicht nur einem laufenden Angriff vor, sondern auch im davorliegenden und im darauffolgenden Stadium. Wenn durch Strafgewalt Staat die Rechtbewährung nicht beschützen kann, in diesem Moment die Gegenwärtigkeit in Notwehrlage soll anerkannt werden. Das folgt aus der ratio des rechtfertigenden Notstands, der nicht auf dem Prinzip des maximalen Gesamtnutzens, sondern auf dem der Solidarität beruht. So die Verletzung eines abstrakt höherwertigen Rechtsguts kann also zum Zweck des Schutzes eines geringerwertigen, dem im konkreten Fall eine erheblich intensivere Verletzung droht, gerechtfertigt sein. Das soll nicht nur Aggressiver Notstand sondern auch Defensivnotstand angewendet werden. Um es kurz zu sagen, Gegenwärtigkeit in Notwehrlage soll sowohl zeitliche Umstand als auch situationliche Umstand in ferner Zukunft begewert werden.