1. In Korea, since there have been no legislations or legal guidance about discontinuing life-supporting treatment, recent Supreme Court's decision which I deal with in this article has a significant value as this is the first decision to recognizes the withdrawal of life-prolonging measures to the incompetent and pronounce the legal grounds and the requirements of judicial approval. 2. Supreme Court holds as follows; a. Firstly, patients have the right to self-determination which is originated from human dignity and pursuit of happiness. They can previously decide discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment if they are in the condition when there is a degree of medical certainty that there can be no recovery and death is very imminent. This holding says this condition as “the stage of unrecoverable death.” b. Secondly, if patients apparently express their message to withdraw these kinds of medical treatment in the form of ‘living will’ under the informed consent, this expression legally regards them as using the right to self-determination. In addition, even if patients did not have an expression whether they withdraw the treatment, judges can assess whether they are in the stage of unrecoverable death and they can be approved of forgoing life-supporting treatment under the considerable hypothetical circumstances. 3. I point out several arguments in this article. a. To begin with, the decision in this case has some ambiguous and abstract criteria that make judges not easy to assess the recognition of withdrawal in specific cases. This point can make a dangerous consequence how courts depend upon not will of patients will, but attitude and mind of parents or guardians. Therefore I think that this theory which states in this case should more carefully apply the similar cases. b. In addition, I argue that courts should grant the claimant the power of authorizing the discontinuance of extraordinary means of sustaining the vital processes on the condition of observation of due process to make the least possibility of misdiagnose or misjudgment. c. Also I assure that the claim which petitions the discontinuance of sustaining means should be only accepted when the case has an achievement of the proper balance between individual respect as a right and human dignity as constraint, the interest of each party such as patient, parent or guidance, doctor, state or society.

In case of injury during a sports game, to punish the offender without exception might lead to withering of sports activities, whereas to get the offender exempted on the mere ground that injury occurred in the course of a sports game might cause plummeting of either legal stability or law-abiding spirit. So, it is vital to draw a bright line between criminal liability and moral obligation with regard to injury during a sports game. Scholars suggest the theory of victim's consent, the theory of tolerated danger, the theory of social reasonableness or the theory of non-legal issue as sources of justification to limit criminal liability. Each theory has its own merits and demerits. In order to punish the offender who inflicted injury by negligence during a sports game, general requirements of 'infliction of injury by negligence' occurrence of injury, ― causal relationship between offender's act and injury, breach of objective duty of care, etc.― should be met. Objective duty of care can be derived from statutes, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or court decisions. In a sports game however, rules of the game may be the most important source of objective duty of care. As rules of the game enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sports game, player's act against these rules can be treated breach of objective duty of care. It is excessive to deem all of the acts against rules of the game, including minor ones, breach of objective duty of care in light of the way a sports game is played as well as autonomy enjoyed in the sports field. Unless injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of the game beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found to breach objective duty of care. Rules of the game differ from type to type. In so-called type of rivalry sports games, rules of the game, while allowing the player or the team to make physical attack on the opponent to some extent, focus on diminishing or eliminating the possibility of injury. In so-called type of individual sports games, rules of the game prohibit dangerous act and call the attention of the players to avoid injury. To sum up, breach of rules may be treated more harshly and less flexibly in type of individual sports games than in type of rivalry sports games. The judgment under review in this paper has something to do with golf game, which belongs to type of individual sports games. The judgment thinks highly of rules of the game as source of objective duty of care. It also denies criminal liability in case of injury resulting from minor breach of rules of the game, which would reasonably be expected. On the face of it, the judgment seems to adopt the theory of social reasonableness. However, considering the courts usually dub social rule social reasonableness, the view taken by the judgment might be different from the theory of social reasonableness advocated by the scholars. The theory of social reasonableness relates to negation of applicability of criminal statute, whereas the view taken by the judgment might relate to negation of illegality. In such type of individual sports games as golf, the players enjoy game without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper to adopt the theory of victim's consent as source of justification to limit criminal liability in golf game. The judgment, in similar context, seems to have dismissed defense of 'victim's consent' raised by the accused. Even in case that the offender is held liable for infliction of injury by negligence with regard to injury during a sports game, the possibility to get relief is still open. If the offender reaches an agreement with the victim, he or she is able to avoid criminal punishment according to Art. 266 Para. 2 of the Penal Code.

2009. 9. 10. the Supreme Court of Korea made judgement that a transsexual person could be the object of rape, while the Supreme Court did not admitted it 13 years ago. However the judgement does not seem to apply to all transsexuals persons because the Supreme Court needs several conditions to admit a transsexual person as an object of rape. It requires that ① the person should be diagnosed as transsexualism patient by a psychiatrist ② the person should take psychiatric and hormone treatment for quite a long time but no improvement ③ the person should take sex reassignment surgery and have successful external shape of opposite sex organ ④ the person should be satisfied with the new gender and under the constant gender-identity have appearance of opposite sex ⑤ the person should be recognized as a woman(man) by people around her(him) ⑥ the trans-gender identity does not affect any status of other people. But, if the Court requires all of those conditions strictly, there would be few persons who could be the object of rape. In my opinion, if the person has diagnosed as transsexualism patient and took sex reassignment surgery and there are not any intentions to be exempted from military service, she(he) could be the object of rape. Eventually, as many western countries revised the criminal code, the object of rape could cover men as well as women, and the methods of raping should include anal and oral sex.

Though the article 314(Interference with Business) of Korean Criminal Code requires the result of interference with the business of another in constitution of that crime, those who give rise to a danger of the result are being judged guilty of it in judicial trials. To prohibit the excessive application overpunishment by the judiciary authorities, this article suggests some points. First, the means of interference with Business, that is fraudulent means or the threat of force, are so vague that it might infringe on the liberty of speech and press, and of meeting and assembly. So they should be interpreted within a narrow boundary or restricted to similar degree to violence or intimidation. Second, the article 314 should be only applied to the cases in which the result of interference with the business of another are practically occurred. Because the attempt to commit that crime shall not be punished, the interference with the business could not be punished for that crime so long as it put an end to causing that result.

In case that a consignee who had pledged a mortgage over the realty under consignment agreement, places the same realty under the mortgage again or sells it to the 3rd party, the first mortgage constitutes an embezzlement. Then, can the second mortgage or the sales in the above transaction can constitute another embezzlement ? The Supreme Court ruling regards the second mortgage or sales in the forementioned example as unpunishable post-activities, which accordingly cannot constitute an embezzlement again. However, as the second action satisfies all the requirements of an embezzlement, it seems more appropriate to constitute additional embezzlement for the post-activity separate from the first. Such reasoning would prevent unreasonable outcomes where the second action requiring more severe punishment than the first action could avoid punishment.

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.

Bezüglich der Brandstiftungsdelikte stellen §§ 164, 165, 166, 167 KorStGB voneinander unabhängige, selbständige Tatbestände dar. Der Tatbestand der fahrläsigen Brandstiftung(§ 170) bezieht sich auf Objekte der §§ 164, 165, 166 wie des § 167. Nach herrschender Meinung kommt der Tatbestand des § 167 Abs. 1 KorStGB dann in Betracht, wenn der Täter durch eine Brandlegung die fremden Sachen ganz oder teilweise zerstört. § 167 Abs. 2 kommt dagegen in Betracht, wenn das Brandstiftungsobjekt Eigentum des Brandstifters ist; ihr Anwendungsbereich schließt nach hM aber auch das Inbrandsetzen herrenloser Sachen oder fremder Sachen mit Zustimmung ihres Eigentümers ein. Bei KorObGH Urteil 2009 do 7421 handelt es sich um eine Strafbarkeit des Täters, der allgemeine herrenlose Sachen in Brand setzt. Der KorObGH bestraft ihn wegen § 167 Abs. 2 KorStGB. Mit diesem Aufsatz mache ich durch Analysen der Urteilsbegründungen zur hM und Urteil 2009 do 7421 kritsch Anmerkungen. Den Täter muß meines Erachtens Im Rahmen des § 167 Abs. 1 in Betracht kommen. Die Gründe dafür sind folgende: 1. Beim Tatbestand des § 167 Abs. 1 kommt es dem Gesetzeswortlaut auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse überhaupt nicht an; hingegen handelt es sich beim § 167 Abs. 2 um Eigentumsverhältnisse. § 167 Abs. 2 kommt mE in Betracht, wenn das Brandstiftungsobjekt Eigentum des Brandstifters allein ist. 2. § 176 KorStGB sieht als fremde Sachen dann ein im Alleineigentum des Täters stehendes Brandstiftungsobjekt an, wenn dieses ein Objekt des fremden Rechts ist. 3. Nach hM handelt es sich bei den Brandstiftungsdelikten nicht um ein allein spezielle Sachbeschädigungsdelikt, sondern auch um eine gemeingefährliche Straftaten. Deswegen spielt Zustimmung des Eigentümers von Brandstiftungsobjekt keine Rolle als rechtfertigende Einwilligung. Der Anwendungsbereich des § 167 Abs. 1 schließt mE das Inbrandsetzen herrenloser Sachen ein. Dieses Ergebnis ist mit der vorherigen Auslegung des KorObGH in Übereinstimmung zu bringen, dabei er eine fahrlässige Brandstiftung fremder Sachen behandelte(KorObGH Beschluss 94 mo 32).

Any copies of documents or drawings reproduced using the electronic reproduction machines, facsimile telegraphs or other similar apparatus should be considered as document or drawing in Criminal Law. But it seems not to coincide with the concept of copy and meaning of duplicated document. Especially as far as media records, such as another person's electromagnetic records are concerned, there are many unsettled problems. The interests protected by law of crime concerning Documents are public credibility. so I think that constituent elements of a crime have to be interpreted by means of improving public credibility. That's to say that we should connect with crime-concerning condition and something protected by criminal law. but Supreme court didn't accept copies of documents concerning copy from documents to electromagnetic records in 2007do7480 and 2008do 5200. Any copies of documents should be protected because they establish the existence of original documents. that's reason that Any copies of documents reproduced using the electronic reproduction machines, facsimile telegraphs or other similar apparatus should be considered as document or drawing in Criminal Law. So someone would scan the documents and make new electromagnetic reproduction records of the scanned document, we must regard that as duplicated documents.

En général, le réquisitoire définitif du procureur est rédigèe apres examen du dossier de la procédure. On ne peut pas trouver l'article sur le réquisitoire définitif du procureur dans le Code de procédure pénale coréene, mais 1l existe dans le règlement de procédure pénale coréene. Ainsi, selon alinéa 2 de l'article 118 du celui-ci, dans le réquisitoire définitif du procureur il est intérdi d'ajouter ni les preuves ni les choses suscéptibles de pouvoir donnerr les préjuges sur le fait.. En droit coréen, on respecte cette exigence comme le soi-disant principe de l'unité de réquisitoire définitif du procureur. L'arrêt de la cour suprême coréene du 22 oct. 2009 a décidé que ce soi-disant principe de l'unité de réquisitoire définitif du procureur n'est pas supérieur aux princpes essentiels (idées fondamentales) du proèes pénal coréen comme l'idéologie de vérité dans le procès pénal, l'équité de procédure criminelle et le soi-disant principe de centralisation de l'audience et les débats. A mon avis, ce soi-disant principe n'est que le simple exigence du réglement de procédure pénale coréene. De ce point de vue, il est naturell d'accepter la constatation de cet arrêt de la cour suprême. A propos du soi-disant principe de l'unité de réquisitoire définitif du procureur, il n'est pas question de savoir si la véritable confrontation existe entre la procédure de type accusatoire et celle de type inquisitoire. En réel, Il nous faudra non seulement bien absorber les mérites de deux sortes de procédure, mais aussi techniquement réduire le danger de ces défauts.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea gives very important opinion for the evidence law in general, ① Lowering of the probative power of the statesment in the protocol of investigative agent in the light of the weakness of the written record ② Unrecognizing the proof value of the statements where the cross-examination lacks. First, With indicating the inaccuracy of the record in the light of statements in fact, lowering of the probative power of the statesments in the protocol of investigative agent in general is inappropriate. In order to complement such a weakness, the law provide the strict provisions for the protocol drawing up. Furthermore, this kind of view falls into difficulty in answer to the question, “Can be the lowering problems all solved, if we, for the complement of such weakness, record the total statements or record them in tapes or video tapes?” This problem is not for statement in the protocol, but for the probative power of the out of court statement. Probative power is the thing which should be judged in each case individually with considering total situation with relation to the situation in which the statements were made, contents of the statements and comparison with other evidences. By the way, the problem of confrontation has important meaning from the new tendency which views the problem in other way than hearsay approach. But the method of the Court leads to the confusion with the meaning or the standard because of the termonology which the Court has used, that is , substantial proof value and inadmissible. Recently, the problem of confrontation is understood as a procedural right of the defendant in the criminal procedure and there is an American approach and a European Union approach. In my opinion, Considering our constitutional provision and criminal procedure, the European Union solution is proper. The admissiblity of the statements made in the situation in which the defendant cannot confront the speaker should be judged be the standard of the fairness of the process, that is, the question, “Would it harm the fairness of the process in the whole to admit the statements?” By the judgement, it would give an important ground to see the resposibility of the investigative agent for the nonconfrontation situation. But the responsibility of the investigative agent should not be an absolute ground for the inadmissibility of the statements, but would be the ground for prudent judgement of the probative power considering whether the substantial parts of the statements could be confirmed by other materials, when the statements are the only one important evidence to support the charge. Furthermore, Because the time of the confrontation is not limited to the trial, it would be useful to evaluate the provision in our criminal procedure for the interrogation with confrontation by the public attorney and investigative officer and to use it as a meaningful tool for guaranteeing the chance of confrontation of the defendant.

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The other major civilized country, such as UK, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, and Germany, also have their own exclusionary rule related with the improperly, illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the major opinion of Korean Supreme Court recently held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. According to this ruling, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in exclusion. I disagree with this opinion of Korean Supreme Court because this opinion did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure - the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling.

Some appellate courts find facts using the pharase on their written judgments as “with the evidence which was legally examined and admitted by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally examined, admitted by the lower court.” However those kinds of expressions are inappropriate because those do not exactly describe the proceedings of examining eivdence made by lower courts. The lower courts, especially trial courts, admit evidences, such as testimonies of witnesses or protocols made by prosecutors, which are admissible under the criminal procedure law before they examine those evidences. So those expressions on the written judgment should be corrected into the phrases like “with the evidence which was legally admitted and examined by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally admitted, examined by the lower court.” Appellate courts should be careful about using the phrase, “as the record shows that ”, even though they … pronounce not guilty judgment because there are various kinds of documents in the court record. The evidence which is put in the court record and cited by the appellate court should be legally obtained and examined in the courtroom. If the appleallte court rules guilty judgment using that pharase even though there are illegally obtained or examined evidence in the court record, that judgment breaches evidence rules. To pronounce the guilty judgment, the appellate court should cite the evidences of the trial court which are legally admitted and examined. However the appellate courts should not find fact with no evidence on its written judgment, because fact finding shall be based on evidence(Article 307 of Korean Criminal Procedure Law).

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribe that only the prosecutor is authorized to prosecute a criminal case and to determine whether or not a criminal case will be prosecuted. On the other hand, the judicial review system is implemented in the Korean criminal procedure to protect the constitutional right of criminal victims to make a statement in a trial and to judicially control the prosecutorial discretion. It was limited to some abusive crimes of authority by a public officer but is expanded to all crimes after the revised Act took effect on and after January 1, 2008. An accuser as a victim of crime should file a review by the prosecution before appealing to the court against the prosecutorial disposition not to be prosecuted. And the prosecutorial review is compulsory as a legal obligation prior to the judicial review. It helps to enhance the efficiency of the reviewing system on prosecutorial discretion. It also is intended to minimize expenditures of time and to prevent abusing the judicial reviews. But there are some exceptions in the preliminary proceeding. An accuser as a victim of crime can appeal directly to the court against the prosecutorial disposition not to be prosecuted without going through a prosecutorial review where ⅰ) a notice that the prosecutor made a decision not to be prosecuted is reached after being investigated again through the prosecutorial review, ⅱ) 3 months has passed without any decision since filing a prosecutorial review, or ⅲ) the prosecutor doesn't indict until 30 days to the completion of prescription for prosecution. The accusers shall file to the court a written petition of the judicial review on the prosecutorial disposition within 10 days of the notice's arrival. They shall appeal to the court within 10 days when the exceptional condition has been fulfilled. Even though an exception is applicable, the accuser may go through a prosecutorial review. That is to say, the accuser is not forced to appeal to the court in case of an exception. Because it is intended by the lawmakers to protect the right of an accuser as a victim and is not proper to disadvantage an accuser who go through the statutory procedure. Especially, the purpose of allowing the direct appeal to the court after 3 months' passing without any decision of the prosecutorial review is not to force the appeal to the court but to protect the interest of an accuser.

Korean citizen participate in trial. Two years have passed since the onset of participation. For the meantime, the performance is evaluate positively. The number of filings, the number of enforcement, has increased. The court has been fixed legal terms for the jury. In court we can see a fierce legal battle with prosecutors and lawyers. Also, criticism were reduced about the jury's sentencing opinion reflects the sentencing. There are so many things to be improved. In this case Judge decided lesser included offense. It was not judge's duty to decide lesser included offense. This situation gets different result by each case. In this case start it by robbery, but jury's verdict was acquittal. As part of the democratization of judicial dispute the meaning of the cases were considered to be unreasonable to fade. The first of these results, public participation in the trial, the jury's verdict did not get reflect by judicial officer. Second, if the prosecutor had made a preliminary statement or a written arraignment change, which could prevent these situations. This has violated the defendant's self defense and the judge did not give the jury the opportunity to make decision. Third, if the judge want to lesser included offense to be approval, a judicial officer should explain the (Jury Instruction) to the member of a jury.

The ruling that declared the restriction of right of arraignment according to exemption law is unconstitutional in case of grieve bodily harm regardless of light/heavy negligence poses several problems. This is especially the case in heavy negligence, but it is in overall problematic in execution levels if negligence is not considered. Even though heavy negligence is not seen as a weighing factor of professional negligence and instead either is seen as a weighing factor of normal negligence in criminal law, the ruling completely ignores this. It is also problematic in that heavy negligence is not a solid concept and leaves much to the judgement of the jury. In addition, the fact that decision of heavy negligence depends on doctor's opinion is also a problem. The unconstitutional declaration saw the exemption law as a violation of the equality rights, but it actually helps the people's convenience by speeding up the process of compensation, and the differentiation of death and heavy negligence is according to their inherent differences. The exemption law serves its purpose by transferring the loss of property of victims to the car insurance and preventing the mass production of ex-convicts.

This study has considered on basis of constitutionality that the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy, over-prohibition, and rights to equality. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy because it is a security measure to restrict freedom without imprisonment. However double assessment of second conviction dangerousness at additional punishment to repeated offense and sentence of the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location could be raised objection of double jeopardy. A sex offence has a character that second conviction dangerousness and crime victimization are serious. Thus to release sex offenders is very dangerous, and protection of victims and social defence are necessary. Therefore the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of over-prohibition because there is a balance between human rights violation and public interest. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location is applied special offences, but it doesn't violate the principle of rights to equality because of a sanction to character of sex offenders.

As crimes generating huge sum of benefit such as organized crimes, narcotic crimes, and pornography related crimes have been increasing, criminal special act intends to make a redemption for the benefits from criminal acts by the provisions of forfeit or additional collection. Generally, forfeit based on criminal law is characterized as security measure in that it prevents from keeping unlawful benefits by depriving criminals of profit from the wrongful acts. Therefore, when suspended sentence is added to the primary sentence, suspended sentence can be imposed to the additional collection. However, it is not available if it is not added to the primary sentence. Independent appeal on the additional collection is also impossible if there is no appeal for the final judgement. On the contrary, the additional collection from Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc, Customs Act, and Act on aggravated punishment, etc. of specific economic crimes is characterized as a punishment based on the fact of crime. However, in the targeted case, it is questionable that special laws consider the additional collection as punishment. Punitive additional collection is unfavorable to the offender because it can be imposed even though there is no actual benefit from the wrongful acts. Moreover, it is not reasonable to impose not only jointed additional collection based on civil law but also punishment. It is contradictory to the responsibility principle that criminal law calls for and the way of weighing of an offense. Additional collection to a person who simply transport or keep some goods, not to the person who obtain the goods, is not appropriate to the responsibility principle of criminal law. In this respect, the scope of the additional collection needs to be narrowed and it seems to be more reasonable to use the concept of deprivation of benefits from criminal acts.

In the year of 2009, 346 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. 6 cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, 3 cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other 3 cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court and 1 case by the constitutional court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows; Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. The Cases relating to General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every Review is constituted as follows : (1)The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. 1. Supreme Court 2009. 9. 24. 2009도5302 2. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 11. 2008도11784 3. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 25. 2009도3505 4. Constitutional Court 2009. 6. 25. 2007헌바25 Ⅲ. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every review is constituted as follows : (1)The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. 1. Supreme Court 2009. 5. 14. 2009도1947, 2009전도5 2. Supreme Court 2009. 3. 26. 2007도3520 3. Supreme Court 2009. 9. 10. 2009도3580 4. Supreme Court 2009. 10. 29. 2009도5704 5. Supreme Court 2009. 8. 20. 2009도3452 6. Supreme Court 2009. 4. 9. 2009도128 7. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 25. 2008도3792 8. Supreme Court 2009. 5. 14. 2007도2168 9. Supreme Court 2009. 10. 15. 2009도7421 10. Supreme Court 2009. 2. 26. 2006도3119 11. Supreme Court 2009. 7. 23. 2009도3924