Causation in the Criminal Law is very important as it is a part of an element of a crime, especially result crime. Where an accused is charged with a result crime, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that her act or omission caused the prohibited consequence.Traditionally speaking, there has been several theories to solve the problem of causation. One is a ‘sine qua non’ or ‘but for’ theory, which must be established that the consequence would not have occurred when it did ‘but for’ the accused’s conduct. But the sine qua non theory is said to be not sufficient for it’s ambit is too wide to establish the causation. So comes an ‘adequacy’ theory, which means that when a prohibited consequence occurs whether the relation between the cause in question and the consequence is adequate or reasonable. For a long time the adequacy theory has been the majority in theory and cases in Korea. But nowadays a new theory has appeared before 25 years ago from the German Criminal Law, which is called ‘objective attribution’ theory. It is getting and getting common here. Objective attribution theory means that a prohibited consequence comes from the cause in question.However, even though objective theory is popular among the scholars, adequacy theory is the majority in the criminal cases because of the Japanese criminal law theory. But it has been attacked by some scholars because the meaning of adequacy is somehow abstract or obscure. To overcome the problems of the adequacy theory, it must settle a new way of reasoning. As a one reasoning, there comes so-called ‘Fright and Flight’ theory in Anglo-American Criminal Law. It seems to solve the problems of adequacy theory.

Bei der vorliegenden Urteil von koreanischen hoechsten Gericht handelt es sich um die erste Anwendung von Rechtsfigur der hypothetische Einwillingung. Im diesen Beitrag wurde die Rechtsfigur der hypothetische Einwilligung als soche und ihre Uebertragung auf den Strafrechtliche Urteil kritisch beleuchtet. Dazu wurde zunaechst die Herkunft dieser Rechtsfigur erklaert(Ⅱ), und dann die Nachteil und Vorteil beleuchtet, wenn diese Rechtsfigur von der strafrechtliche Rechtssprechung uebernommen worden ist. Weiterhin wurde ihre Vereinbarkeit mit Grundsaetzen der strafrechtlichen Rechtsdogmatik ueberprueft(Ⅲ). Als Ergebnis betrachtete ich die Uebertragung der Rechtsfigur der hypothetischen Einwilligung auf das strafrechtliche Urteil deswegen als unangemessen, weil dadurch das Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Patienten ausser Acht gelassen wird. Daher schlagte ich vor, einen Sondertatbestand der eigenmaechtigen Heilbehandlung zu schaffen, um den Konflikt zwischen Therafiefreiheit und Patientenautonomie sachgerecht zu loesen.

There are some crimes that requires more than two individuals who participate in committing such crimes in two opposite ways and criminal code provides that the performer is punished for committing them(one- sided criminality). It is one of the controversial issues whether it is possible to apply general provisions on accomplice liability to such crimes. Korean Supreme Court is taking a stance that only the performer can be punished for committing those crimes and it is not allowed to punish the accomplice through application of general rules on accomplice liability. For example Supreme Court decision 2011Do6287 decided November 13, 2011 applied that principle judging two-way criminality between doctors who issued false prescriptions and a taker who instigated the doctors to issues false prescriptions and ruled that the doctors(the issuers) are the only criminal and the other part(the taker) is free from that crime. But the Supreme Court rulings is facing some heavy criticisms that it is not resonable that the taker who instigated the doctors to divulge issued false prescriptions should be punished as an instigator and the Supreme Court’s stance will result in inequality between the principal offender and others actively involved.This article deals with problems concerning the liability of accomplice in one-sided criminality and proposes some solutions for them.

대상사건에서 무수혈에 의한 고관절 시술을 요구한 피해자의 요청에 응한 피고인은 피해자에 대한 인공고관절 치환술을 계속 진행하게 되면 대량출혈의 개연성을 갖고 있음을 예견할 수 있음에도 불구하고 피해자에 대한 시술행위를 중단하지 않고, 진행하였다. 그 결과 피해자의 대퇴골부 주변에 있던 혈관이 파열되었고, 그 파열된 혈관에서 3500cc 이상의 출혈이 발생하였다. 이러한 급격한 대량출혈은 일반적으로 범발성 응고장애를 야기하기 때문에, 피해자도 이런 장애로 지혈이 되지 않아 죽게 되었다. 대상사건의 사실관계가 이와 같다면, 피해자는 무수혈에 의한 수술 때문에 사망한 것이 아니지만, 피고인의 의료과실에 의한 수술로 사망한 것은 인정해야 할 것으로 보인다. 왜냐하면 피고인의 피해자에 대한 고관절수술은 처음부터 대량출혈의 가능성이 예상되었고, 수술과정에서 그런 출혈의 높은 개연성을 인식할 수 있었으며, 그렇다면 시술하지 말거나 중단했어야 함에도 피고인은 피해자에 대한 수술행위에 착수하였을 뿐만 아니라, 중단하지도 않음으로써 범발성 응고장애를 야기한 대량출혈을 일으켜 피해자를 죽게 하였기 때문이다. 따라서 피고인은 의료인으로서 요구되는 주의의무를 위반한 시술행위로 피해자를 죽게 함으로써 업무상과실치사상죄에 해당된다고 할 것이다. 한편 대상사건의 경우 피해자를 위한 인공고관절 치환술을 무수혈 방식으로 시술하는 과정에서 무수혈 방식을 요청한 피해자의 자기결정권 내지 피해자의 승낙은 업무상 과실치사죄의 위법성 조각과는 직접적 관련이 없어 보인다. 혹여 피고인의 행위가 피해자에 의한 무수혈 방식의 지속적 요청에 부합한 수술행위이며 그 결과로 피해자가 사망에 이르렀다고 하더라도, 대상사건의 경우 피해자가 인공고관절 치환술로 죽을 수 있음을 충분히 예상하고, 무수혈을 승낙한 것으로 보이지 않기 때문에, 피해자의 승낙에 의해 위법성도 조각될 수 없다.

In relation with ‘affairs’ that become protecting objects of the affairs disturbance crime, there are pro and cons discussions about whether public affairs are included in the affairs in the crime centering on relations with ‘public affairs’ at the resisting arrest crime by chances of the harmonization judge in Supreme Court at 2009, but it is in situation of hardly finding out related discussions on ‘protecting values’ of the affairs actually. So, contrary features of judgment about existence of preventing values on the same affairs in practices become to be contacted frequently from lower and higher courts. Based on such awareness of issues, this study tries to look into attitudes of existing theories and judicial precedents on affairs’ protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime first, and then analyze them. And the study accentuates urgency of standard setting-up on affairs’ protecting values with bases of existing discussions, and investigates relations between public affairs and protecting values in the resisting arrest crime and legal nature of affairs disturbance crime for making a presupposition of discussions. After that, this study will review matters that have not to be corresponded to criminality which is prohibited by laws and objected to criminal penalties as affair requirements of becoming protecting objects from the affairs disturbance crime, have not antisocial nature to the extent of not being accepted at all from social norms, and shall take protecting values by the criminal law in relation with object judgments. Above discussions aim at minimizing illegitimacy that affects influences to judgments by contributing to systematic establishment of jurisprudence on affairs which become protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime.

Früher war die Gestalt der Wohnung üblicherweise ein Einzelhaus. Dagegen wechselt sie heute im Allgemeinen nach das Hochhaus-Wohnung, z.B. die Apartment-Wohnung. Danach kommt die Frage, ob die gemeinsamen Raümen dieser Hochhaus-Wohnung durch dem Hausfriedensbruch(KStGB §319) geschützt werden dürfen. Diese gemeinsamen Räumen können wieder in zwei, also die innere und die außere Räume einteilen. Unter die innere versteht man den Duchgang, die Treppe, den Aufzug usw. Dagegen kann man unter die außere die Parkplätze, den Spilplatz usw. verstenen. Tatsächlich wird es heute immer größer, dass die inneren gemeinsamen Räumen mit dem automatischen Sicherheitsglastür unterbrochen werden. Dies erscheint uns, dass mehrere Berechtigte nicht wünschen, Unbekannte ohne ihres Einverständnis in ihren gemeinsamen Räumen einzutreten. Denn wir können vermuten, dass diese Räumen ganz nah bei ihrem inneren privaten Wohnungsraum sind, obwohl viele Leute in denen viel oft ein u. aus gehen. Deswegen glaube ich, dass der Wille des Berechtigeten, also das Hausrecht durch das Strafrecht ebenso geschützt werden soll wie ihre innere private Räumen ihrer Wohnung.

Die Rechtsprechung und die herrschende Meinung im Schrifttum sind sich darüber einig, daß der Gewahrsam, den der Dieb oder der Räuber(mit Todesfolge) durch die Wegnahme bricht, ein tatsächliches Herrschaftsverhältnis ist. Darüber hinaus, jedenfalls soviel steht fest, daß keine Herrschaft ausübt, wer keinen irgendwie gearteten natürlichen Willen fassen und keine irgendwie geartete Willensäußerung von sich geben kann, wie z. B. Tote. Dennoch die Rechtsprechung und die herrschende Meinung sind sich, mit Ausnahme von wenigen Gegenmeinungen, darüber einig, daß der Gewahrsam, den der Verstorbene vor seinem Tod in sich hatte, nicht sofort nach seinem Tod verloren wird. Sie also erkennen, daß auch der Tote das Tatobjekt, die Sache vom Vermögenswert, gegebenenfalls in Gewahrsam haben kann.In dieser kritischen Untersuchung wird es versucht, die diesbezügliche Rechtsprecung und die Lehrmeinungen in Korea, Japan, Deutschland und USA zusammenfassend vorzustellen, und zu begründen, daß der Tote infolge seinem Tod seine Sache nicht mehr in Gewarhsam haben kann. Außerdem es is zuzustehen, daß Tatmehrheit zwischen dem vollendeten Totschlag, dem Versuch des Raubes, und dem vollendeten Unterschlagung liegt vor, wenn ein Raubmörder nach dem Tod des Viktims die Sache weggenommen hat. Dies gilt ebenso, wenn ein Mord nach dem Tod des Tatobjekts mit Zueignunsabsicht die Sache des Opfers weggenommen hat. Es ist wegen des Totschlages und Unterschlagung zu bestrafen.

Our Criminal Act Article 355 states that “A person who, having the custody of another’s property, embezzles of refuses to return it, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million won”. Furthermore Act Article 359 provides that “Attempts to commit the crimes specified in Articles 355 through 357 shall be punished”.However there is a debate over the legal character of “embezzlement”, that is a clash of opinions as to whether its legal character is “endangerment offenses” or “depriving offense”.In this context, during that time, the Supreme Court simply have showedthat the embezzlement is an endangerment offense. But, in this decision, the Supreme Court, to be more specific, states that its character is “offense provoking specific danger”.However, with reference to the consummated time of embezzlement, thegrounds presented by the Supreme Court is rather to support that the embezzlement is depriving offense. Because if the transfer of a real right by the delivery of movables or registration of real estate is enacted, it means that the benefit and protection of the law already is invaded.

Das Rechtsgut der Eigentumsdelikte ist das Eigentum. Das Rechtsgut der Eigentumsdelikte ist aber nicht das bürgerlich-rechtliche Eigentum als formaller Sollenssatz. Dieses wird durch Zueignungstaten in der Regel nicht einmal gefährdet. Strafrechtlich geschütztes Eigentum der Unterschlagung ist entgegen herrschenden Meinung nicht eine Herrschaftsbeziehung des Eigentümers zur Sache, sondern eine interpersonales Rechtsverhältnis zwischen Eigentümer und Täter in Bezug auf eine Sache. Die Eigentumsverletzung im Unterschlagungstatbestand liegt in der Verletzung des Ausschließungsrechtes des Eigentümers. Eine Eigentumsverletzung bedarf daher keiner Sachbehandlung. Die Vollendung der Unterschlagung heißt die Zueignung. Alle Eigentumsverletzungen sind nicht die Zueignung. Der Begriff der Zueueignung in Diebstahl und Unterschlagung ist identisch. Die Zueignung besteht aus den Elementen der Enteignung und der Aneignung. Enteignung liegt vor, wenn der Täter vereitelt, dass der Eigentümer sein Ausschließungsrecht ausüben kann, den Täter vom Zugriff auf die Sache auszuschließen. Die Enteignung muss auf Dauer angelegt sein. Aneignung ist Nutzung der Sache für selbstbezogene Zwecke. Zueignung ist somit die auf Dauer angelegte Vereitelung des Ausschließungsrechts, das dem Eigentümer gegenüber dem Täter zusteht, an einer Sache, die der Täter als Eigenbesitzer für sich nutzt. Die Enteignung als qualifizierte Eigentumsverletzung bezieht sich auf die Rechtsbeziehung zwischen Täter und Eigentümer. Die Aneignung bezieht sich unmittelbar auf die Sache. Die Manifestationstheorie zum Gehalt der Zueignung des Art. 355 Abs.1 normiert Gesinnungsstrafrecht. Für die Annahme der Unterschlagung muss eine vollendete Zueignung vorliegen. Die Verwirklichung von Enteignung und Aneignung ist zwingend erforderlich. Die Unterschlagung ist damit Verletungs-und damit Erfolgsdelikt. Im Gegensatz dazu sieht die koreanische Rechtsprechung neulich den Unterschlagungstatbestand als konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt an. Die Vollendung der Unterschlagung richte sich danach, ob das Rechtsgut Eigentum konktret gefährdet ist oder nicht. Auch die koreanische Wissenschaft berft sich auch die Eigentumsverletzung. Beide sind darüber einig. Die Vollendung bezieht sich nicht die Verletzung oder Gefährdung des Rechtsguts, sondern die Verwirklichung des Tatbestandes. Die Verwirklichung des Tatbestandes bezieht sich in der Unterschlagung natürlich die Zueignung. Trotzdem erkennt man in Korea noch nicht einmal den Zueignungsbegriff in der Unterschlagung. Die Zueignungsdogmatik ist noch nicht begonnen. Der vorliegender Beitrag versucht in diesem Sinne die Struktur der Unterschlagung zu erklären.

In General, cases, where the money received is mixed up and with those related to duties and those that are not, and as a result inseparably combined to each other, are classified into two categories. Type One is when a part or all of the received money is not related to duties, but materially as a whole can be recognized as a bribe, as it is in general precedents. Type Two is when only a part of the received money can be recognized as a bribe, and the rest is not recognized as a bribe (for example, since it is a justifiable compensation), but is objectively hard to divide the parts. In regards to Type One, the whole money received shall be recognized as a bribe, and therefore be treated as a general bribery case. Therefore bribery is charged for all the money received, and “special criminal laws on specific crimes” is applied according to the amount of the bribery. However, in regards to Type Two, since only a part of the received money is bribery, the received amount of money cannot be calculated by a normal estimation method. Thus, in principle, the amount is handled as not calculable, so that “special criminal laws on specific crimes” cannot be applied. This judgement showed that Type Two exists, and has a significant meaning as a precedent since it showed that in such a case the amount of bribery cannot be calculated and thus is unable to be additionally collected. Nevertheless, subsequent judgments seem to have distorted this judgement. It restricted this judgement’s range of application only to “when the money was received on several occasions, and when each receiving act is needed to be individually judged whether it is related to duties or not.”

These acts of unfair trades are increasing in our capital market and especially the occurrences of new type of unfair trades cast attentions on same fields for example manipulations disguising hedge in Knock-out option trade etc. Elements of some crimes in which unfair trades result are composed of requirements objective and subjective, in that case the latter is more important than the former.We could prove it the satisfaction of objective elements by comparing the share price produced by manipulations with original price. But it is very difficulty that we prove the satisfaction of subjective elements because it is inward intentions.When intending on manipulations, the intention is represented by inducing transactions. Inducing transactions is usually so unrevealed that unless a criminal confesses his intentions, we should prove it by assembling indirect evidences and total circumstances.Crimes in manipulations fields are developing without halts. In order to cope with its revolutions, we should make flexible applications of inducing meaning and establish concrete legal basis focused on specific features according to trading shares in each stage. Further more it is necessary to abolish one of several subjective requirement that is inducing through a future revision of law.

Online game industry in Korea is growing up. The growth of game industry brings new problem of Item fraud, stealing by hacking other’s game account, trade of online game accounts etc. Korea Supreme Court decided that a person who had sold his account of online game to others is not guilty when he changed the password of that account after trading game account.The buyer has illegal rights to access to a game accounts, even though he purchased a game accounts. On the contrary the seller has a rightful to access that account. Game service providers prohibit the account trade at their adhesion contracts. Though accounts trading is prohibited from adhesion contracts of online game, the effect of contract is valid to game user and service provider. The trading is a valid contract to the party concerned and the right to access is moved to the buyer entirely.The ‘information of others’ in the article 49 in Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc. is to be interpreted from the legality to access to the information not to the network of information service. That is not correct that the Seller who made account first in online game changed this password after trading game account, he is not guilty. Rather this is correct that he violates his contract because he blocked the buyer’s use of account including change of password, playing games, etc. Buyer has an information proprietary rights about games because he buys game account.

The question of what type of warrant is required in order to administer compulsory blood extraction without the intoxicated driver’s consent is closely related to the legal characteristics of the compulsory blood extraction which is a kind of a compulsory measure. Prior Supreme Court precedents had not clarified the legal characteristics of compulsory blood extractions, and so it was unclear which type of warrant allows compulsory blood extractions. This Supreme Court decision merits attention since it explicitly holds that a compulsory blood extraction is permitted by issuing a ‘warrant of permission of expert examination’ or a ‘confiscation warrant.’Regarding the legality of warrantless compulsory blood extractions, although there was the need to recognize an exception to the warrant requirement principle in order to permit compulsory blood extraction, prior Supreme Court opinions provided no clarification of the provisional grounds in the Criminal Procedure Act upon which such warrantless compulsory blood extractions can be sustained. This Supreme Court decision is important because the Court, while maintaining the previous posture that it will strictly adhere to the warrant requirement principle, recognized Article 216 (3) of Criminal Procedure Act as the grounds upon which warrantless compulsory blood extractions are allowed, thereby conspicuously enumerating the specific requirements for permissible warrantless compulsory blood extractions.

In the Prosecution Service Act, it is prescribed that the attending officer of the public attorney has the role of the document officer and the helping agency for the public attorney. As the helping officer, he participate in the interrogation of the public attorney and put questions to the suspect or witness and other persons.As for the questioning of the attending officer, it was judged by the Court in this case that it is allowed, but has limitations. First, the public attorney should in person put questions about the important matters and after it, the attending officer can put questions about details or ambiguous answers. Second, during the question of the attending officer, the public attorney should be present the interrogating place with the attending officer and preside the process. There are some people who insist that the attending officer’s questioning should be prohibited and the public attorney should put all questions in person. But this opinion does not accord with the current law. On enacting the Prosecution service Act, the legislature made the choice with the provision §46 ① 1. that allows the attending officer to do the works relating to the investigation which the public attorney orders. It is thought that this choice would be made because of the insufficient numbers of the public attorney and the necessity of the sharing the burden of works.Considering the overweighting burden of works for the public attorney, the Court’s interpretation could be said to be right to the present. But in practice, if we can say the public attorney’s interrogation, the role of the attending officer should be limited within the supplement of the factual work.

Although vivid testimony of the witness and/or the defendant in the courtroom is very important in fact-finding, hearsay evidences are widely accepted in relation to the criminal cases. Recently diverse medias such as documents, audio-tapes, video-tapes, computer discs or electronic files which recorded statements spoken by a private person under the private circumstance are available as evidences to prove the fact asserted in such statements.According to the Criminal Procedure Act in Korea the document which contains the statements of the defendant or the witness written by a private person is admissible when autograph, sign or seal of the writer or the speaker is certified and correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer or the speaker in the courtroom during the trial. But the document which contains the statement of the defendant is admissible when correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer in the courtroom during the trial and especially reliable circumstance is affirmed, even if the speaker deny the statement in the document.With regard to the admissibility of recorded statement, the authentication of record might be established by the speaker or the recorder. And the correctness of recording in principle should be confirmed by the speaker. But the defendant is inclined to deny his/her own past statement which may be construed as evidence leading to conviction. So the recorder might confirm the correctness of recording if the speaker made the statement under the especially reliable circumstance.

The defendant consulted an attorney-at-law regarding legal issues which might constitute crimes before commencement of an investigation. The defendant received legal opinion from the counsel by e-mail, which was later seized and presented as evidence of guilt by investigative authority.The court of original instance rejected to accept written legal opinion from the counsel as evidence on the ground of Attorney-Client Privilege. The Supreme Court, however, deemed Attorney-Client Privilege is not rooted in our legal system.I concur with the opinion of the Supreme Court in that we have yet to find traditional or provisional basis for Attorney-Client Privilege. It is premature to acknowledge the concept of Attorney-Client Privilege without in-depth probe. Instead, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court looked to Articles 314 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 314 provides one of the exceptions to hearsay rule, which allows the written statement to be admitted as evidence of guilt without cross-examination against the person who wrote the statement, in case that the person is not available due to illness, unknown whereabouts, etc. as well as that the statement is proved to have been written under especially reliable circumstances. Article 149 confers the right to refuse to testify on the legal counsel regarding professional secrets he obtained in the course of business. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. The majority opinion based its rationale on the fact that Article 314 had been revised with a tendency to reinforce oral hearing and direct examination by narrowing the scope of the exceptions to hearsay rule, as well as on the purpose Article 149 seeks to achieve. On the contrary, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court deemed that Article 314 shall apply in case of exercise of right for refusal of witness under Article 149. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Article 314 serves to discover the truth by allowing hearsay evidence under exceptional circumstances. According to the dissenting opinion, there is no difference between situation where the witness is unable to appear because of illness, etc. and situation where the witness exercises his right to refuse to testify when it comes to applying Article 314.I concur with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. The witness who refuses to testify may or may not have lawful grounds to refuse. If he has sufficient lawful grounds, we should pay attention to the purpose of the Article which confers the right to refuse to testify. In this context, it stands to reason to declare that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. By denying the admissibility of legal opinion as evidence of guilt, written by the legal counsel who lawfully exercises the right to refuse to testify, we can further the right to refuse to testify as well as the principle of oral hearing and direct examination.

In the domain of hearsay evidence, “special guarantees of trustworthiness” now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far.I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.

The scientific evidence has become more important in judicial conflict. Aside from its authenticity, scientific evidence combining with tendency in perception of people affect establishment of the fact greatly when it is adopted as evidence. Therefore, which channel is used to have the court recognize science evidence has emerged as an important issue, especially in the U.S. where jury trials have taken place in stead of judge trials. The U.S. Supreme Court has provided a variety of legal grounds on this issue and is developing the grounds. In this commentary, the progress of discussion in the U.S. regarding adoption of scientific evidence is reviewed in detail.Korea is about to introduce full-fledged criminal trial by jury, so how to adopt expert testimony including scientific evidence to confirm the fact of judicial conflicts will have more grave importance. In this regard, discussion over the role of a justice as a gate keeper, suggested in the Supreme Court’s decision on Daubert case, will take shape.The court has tried to evaluate scientific evidence through precedents on individual evidence including a polygraph. The subject decision is very significant because it went further to suggest common standard for validity of scientific evidence by referring to the reliability standard suggested in the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings. However, suggesting the generality without legal basis like the U.S. Federal rules on evidence has a room for criticism such as ‘creating the law’ by court’s decisions. To resolve such concerns, admissibility of evidence and reliability should be divided and standards appropriate for Korea’s criminal procedure system where strict evidence reliability is needed. Then, based on those efforts, interpretation on court rulings should be developed. The discussion between the academia and the field is urgently necessary. Also, judgement on scientific evidence requires collaboration between the science and the judicial society. Therefore, various efforts for communication and institutional improvements shown in the commentary must be developed and there should be improvements regarding the system of seeking an expert opinion.

Nach dem § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 3 des ‘Gesetz zum Anziehen des elektronische Fußfessel zur Lageverfolgung der bestimmten Sexualstraftätern’ wird ein Person, wer wegen den über zweimal Strafdelikten bestraft wird, eine elektronischen Überwachung urteilt. Ein Problem ist, ob ein Person, wer früher eine Schutzmaßnahme für Jugendliche urteilt wurde, Das koreanische Jugendstrafrecht definiert Personen unter Vollendung des 19. lebensjahres als “Jugendliche”. Ferner bestimmt das koreanische Jugendstrafrecht die zwie Grundarten der jugendstrafrechtlichen Santionierung, d.h. Schutzmaßnahme und Strafmaßnahme. Nach dem § 32 Abs. 6 werden Jugendliche wegen des Vorlebens, das sie eine Schutzmaßnahme urteilt wurden, nicht benachteiligt.Die Bindung der Auslegung an die Wortlautgrenze ist keineswegs willkürlich, sondern ergibt sich aus den staat- und strafrechtlichen Grundlagen des Gesetzlichkeitsprinzips. Solche Auslegung des Gesetzes startet vom Sinn des Wortes, aber sie wird vom Zweck des Gesetzes abgegrenzt. D.h. eine Interpretation im Rahmen des möglichen Wortsinnes kann die Präventivwirkung des Gesetzes sichdem und eine verbotsüberbestrtung vorwerfbar machen.Meiner Meinung nach, ein Vorleben der Schutzmaßnahme darf nicht eine Voraussetzung des § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 3 des ‘Gesetz zum Anziehen des elektronische Fußfessel zur Lageverfolgung der bestimmten Sexualstraftätern’ anerkennt werden.

In the year of 2012, 259 criminal cases decided by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) are registered on the internet homepage of the Court. 4 cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. In this paper, 20 cases of the 259 cases are reviewed which, I think, are comparatively imporant. 7 cases are conceruing the general provisions of Korean Criminal Law. The other 13 cases are concering the pariticular provisions of Korean Cirminal Law. All the reviews are constituted of 1. The Fact of the Case, 2. The Summary of Decision and 3. The Critical Note.