‘Dauerdelikt’ is a continuing crime. Although The ‘Dauerdelikt’ is defined as a crime subsequent misconduct and illegal state match, ‘Dauerdelikt’ or ‘Zustandsdelikt’ is very hard or impossible to distinguish and is still ambiguous case-by-case crimes. Since the existence criteria is necessary that at the time after completion of commission of crime, it must be observed whether omission of the act or acts exist. Starting from willful actors to choose from acts contrary to the norms of illegality, as long as the intentional act continues, crime will continue. And it is evaluated while the action continues willfully, illegal state not only continue, but also internal strengthening of illegality has been performed. ‘Dauerdelikt’, that is infringement after completion of commission of crime adds to the interests protected by law through inaction or omission of additional actors, gradually increasing from a base point, is a sin or a large extent has been enhanced illegality. In this study will be made a classification that authentic crime of omission, declaration of intention as juristic act, and willfully act that during continuing act unlawfulness is enhanced increasingly are ‘Dauerdelikt’

Die Abstandnahme von der Tat vor Versuchsbeginn bei mehreren Beteiligten richtet sich nach Kausalität und Teilnahmeregeln. Die Rücktrittsregelung findet im Abstandnahme von mehreren Beteiligten keine Anwendung, weil Rücktritt und Abstandnahme sich unterscheidet werden sollen. Mittäterschaft hat neben dem gemeinsamen Tatplan eine gemeisame Tatausführung zur Voraussetzung. Ob hierbei als Tatbeitrg bereits eine Mitwirkung eines Beteiligten in der Vorbereitungphase und nach dem Versuchsbeginn der Tat genügen kann, ist umstritten. Für die Abstandnahme von der mittäterschaftlichen Begehung genügt grundsätzlich die Aufgabe des Tatentschlusses oder die Aufkündigung gegenüber den anderen Beteiligten. Anderes gilt nur dann, wenn der Abstandnehmende den Erfolg führenden Beiträge der anderen Mittäter noch vor Anstandnahme zugerechnet werden oder er bereit alle nach dem Tatplan zu leistenden Beiträge erbracht hat. Es stellt sich Frage, ob eine Abstandnahme durch Beseitigung der tatfördernden Wirkung erfolgen kann. Daher get es sich darum, ob der Abstandnehmende seiner Verantwortlichkeit entgehen kann, indem er noch im Vorbereitungsstadium und auch nach dem Versuchsbeginn verhindert, dass seine Tatbeitrag für die Vollendung der Tat kausal wird, oder er die Wirkungen seines Tatbeitrag im Vorbereitungsstadium und auch nach dem Versuchsbeginn so rückgängig machen kann. Wenn die tatfördernden Wirkung durch eine Abstandnahme im Sinne Kausalität beseitigt wird, dann die Beziehung von Beteiligten aufgelöst werden kann.

Today we live in a global village owing to the development of transportation and communication and almost one of ten couples in Korea are married with a different nationality every year. In addition, divorce cases between international marriage couples are increasing rapidly. As families form and dissolve across international borders, domestic family law does not adequately address the needs of parents and children with ties to multiple legal systems. The international parental child abduction exemplifies these complex issues. When the child has been taken or kept overseas by one of the parents, that child may suffer from linguistic, social and cultural barriers and the left-behind parent may have difficulties in finding or recovering a child. Accordingly, it is necessary that the international parental child abduction should be handled differently considering the differences with child kidnapping within the country. The international society(Hague Conference on Private International Law) adopted the “Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction(Hague Child Abduction Convention)” in 1980 and South Korea acceded to the Hague Child Abduction Convention on December 13, 2012, whereby South Korea became the 89th contracting nation to the convention. However, considerable number of marriage immigrants in Korea came from countries such as China, Vietnam and the Philippines and these countries are not party to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. In this respect, the effectiveness of the international civil remedy through the Hague Child Abduction Convention is being questioned. The Supreme Court of Korea declared the defendant(Vietnamese female marriage immigrant) not guilty on June 30, 2013. The defendant took a 13 month old baby to her native Vietnam without husband’s consent and she was charged with kidnapping and transporting kidnapped person to foreign country. In this ruling, there was a fierce theoretical battle between Justices and 5 of 13 Justices wrote a dissenting opinion. As the divorce rate of multi-cultural family is raising, the number of korean parents who suffer from problems related to international child kidnapping by foreign spouses is on the increase. Under these circumstances, this Supreme Court judgement has a significant meaning. This paper reviews this Supreme Court judgement mainly with the established requirements of kidnapping minor and transporting abductee to foreign country.

Anyone who defames another by publicly alleging facts can be punished, even though the facts are true. Because In korean criminal law there are the article, “A person who defames another by publicly alleging facts shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won(Art. 307 (1))”. Furthermore, “A person who defames another by publicly alleging false facts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding ten million won(Art. 307 (2))”. But If the facts alleged under Article 307 (1) are true and solely for the public interest, the act shall not be punishable(Art. 310). However, there is no rule about the unsettled facts(It’s not sure whether the publicly alleging facts is true or false). In practice, this cases are applied to Art. 307 (2). And the practice deal with the unsettled facts in the field of a mistake of face. But in Art. 307 (2) the “fale facts” is a element of a crime, so that the unsettled facts should be applied not to Art. 307 (2), but Art. 307 (1). Otherwise, the unsettled facts can make misunderstand to the public by the guilty or not guilty of a judge. Because if the judge found the defendant guilty, then the unsetlled fact turn to be a true fact in spite of not proving of the fact. But if the judge found the defendant not guilty, then the unsettled fact turn to be a false fact. Therefore, if a judge can not prove the truth of the unsettled fact, then the Art. 307 (1) must be applied.

Kann eine durch strafbare Handlung bereits zugeeignete Sache erneut zugeeignet werden? Im Schriftum wird nach dieser Frage überwiegend die Meinung vertreten, daß in einer wiederholten Betätigung des Herrschaftenswillen eine erneute Zueignung liegt, diese aber als mitbestrafte Nachtat gegenüber dem ersten Zueignungsakt zurücktritt. Straflose od. mitbestrafte Nachtat ist eine tatbestandsmäßige Handlung, die nicht bestraft wird, weil das Schwergewicht des Unrechts im Gesamtkomplex der Straftaten maßgeblich bei der bestraften Vortat liegt. Nach der alten Rechtsprechung des KorObGH sind die Voraussetzungen für die Straflosigkeit einer späteren (Zweit-)Zueignungsakt, daß der Täter in aller Regel auch die Nachtat begehen muß, wenn die erste (od. Haupt-)Tat für ihn einen Sinn haben soll. So ist, daß die Nachtat sich in der Auswertung od. Sicherung der durch die Vortat erlangten Position erschöpft, den schon angerichteten Schaden nicht wesentlich erweitert und kein neues Rechtsgut verletzt. Mit dem jüngeren Urteil 2010 Do 10500 des Großen Senates hat der Koreanichen Obersten Gerichtshof seine Meinung verändert. So geht er davon aus, daß in diesem Fall eine später wiederholte Zueignungsakt aber nicht als mitbestrafte Nachtat gegenüber dem ersten Zueignungsakt zurücktritt, sondern den selbständigen Zueignungstatbestand verwirklicht. Der maßgebliche Grund dafür ist, daß die Zweitzueignunstat sich in der Bewertung des durch die erste Vortat erlangten Unrechtsinhaltes nicht erschöpft, den schon angerichteten Schaden wesentlich erweitert und ein neues Rechtsgut verletzt. In diesem Aufsatz habe ich hingegen die andere Meinung herangezogen, die jeweils etwa an einer Normlogik des KorObGH orientiert wird. Seine Begründung miteinander hat aber m. E. keine Übereinstimmung in allen wesentlichen Punkten. Sie steht nicht Einklang mit seiner bisherigen Normlogik über das Wesen von Zueignungsakt, die Abgrenzung der Unterschalgung und Untreue, den Unterschied zwischen subjektivem Vorsatz und einer Zueignungswille (eine Zueignungsabsicht im Sinne von § 329 KorStGB (Diebstahl) ist hier nicht erforderlich).

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht erklärte am 15.5.1995, dass die Strafverfolgung von Spionagehandlungen, die durch die Staatsbürger der DDR vom Boden der DDR aus begangen wurden, gegen Art. 2 GG in Verbindung mit dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit verstieße. Danach hat der Bundesgerichtshof seine entgegenstehende frühere Auffassung in BGHSt 39, 260 aufgegeben und vertritt im vorliegenden Urteil in Anlehnung an das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts nunmehr folgende Auffassung: “(…) derjenigen Personen (…), die als Staatsbürger der DDR Spionagestraftaten gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland oder deren Verbündete allein vom Boden der DDR aus begangen haben und im Zeitpunkt des Wirksamwerdens der Einheit Deutschlands dort ihren Lebensmittelpunkt hatten, ergibt sich unmittelbar von Verfassungs wegen ein Verfolgungshindernis. (…) Dieselben Gründe gelten darüber hinaus für Bürger der DDR, die im Zeitpunkt der Wiedervereinigung ihren Lebensmittelpunkt in der DDR hatten, wenn sie Spionagestraftaten gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (…) auch in anderen Staaten begangen haben, in denen sie vor Strafverfolgung wegen solcher Taten aus Rechtsgründen sicher waren und diese Sicherheit auch für sie erst durch die Wiedervereinigung entfallen ist.″ Zu fragen ist hier, ob die deutsche Theorie der Verfolgungshindernis im Falle der koreanischen Wiedervereinigung auch für diejenigen anwendbar wäre, die ihre Spionagestraftaten gegen Südkorea vor der Wiedervereinigung vom Boden des Nordkoreas aus begangen haben. Diese Frage ist allerdings negativ zu beantworten, denn Nordkorea gilt bloß als eine „antistaatliche Vereinigung“ bei seiner „antistaatlischen Handlungen“ gegen Südkorea wie Spionagetätigkeiten; es wird also nicht als einen Staat mit seiner Souveränität betrachtet, während die DDR von der BRD als einen souveränen Staat bzw. als ein Teilstaat des Gesamtdeutschlands anerkannt war. So ist die Theorie der Verfolgungshindernis nicht einfach im Falle der koreanischen Wiedervereinigung bzw. Unrechtsaufarbeitung zu übertragen. Selbst wenn Nordkorea seine Souveränität zuerkannt würde, wären Spionagestraftaten zu bestrafen, weil ihre einst gegen den liberalen Rechtsstaat gerichtete Rechtswidrigkeit nicht einfach durch die Wiedervereinigung entfällt, welche für Nordkorea bedeutet, dass die Sicherheit vor der Strafverfolgung wegen der Spionagestraftaten entfällt.

On January in 2013, a district judge made a constitutional suit to the Constitutional Court whether voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. The key point is that the legal interest of the punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, to punish it is not accorded with the properness of manner and the minimum of victim, and it is questionable in point of equal protection. The question that voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional is during debate since long time ago. Some says it should not be punished because everybody has a sexual self-determination, others it is crime because it is immoral, and the others it is controlled by the state because it is harmful to the moral people. I make a couple of proposals in the following points. Firstly, because the legal interest of punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, so that it should not be punished. Secondly, punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional because everybody has a sexual self-determination and buying or selling sexual service is absolutely depending on the individual. Thirdly, punishing voluntary prostitution is out of the principle because it goes against with the ultima ratio rule. Fourthly, punishing all the patterns of voluntary prostitution is not possible and punishing some peculiar types of prostitution does not accord with equal protection. Finally, punishing voluntary prostitution is against the principle of less restrictive alternative because everybody has a right to have a sex without force with another. So punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. However, if the Constitutional Court proclaims that it is unconstitutional, it would give a shock to the ordinary people because they do not have an open mind with it. So I dare to say that punishing voluntary prostitution is committed to the ‘factual’ decriminalization for a while before punishing adultery is unconstitutional proclaimed by the Constitutional Court.

Through the judgement 2013Do13095 Decided March 27, 2014, the supreme court held the act on special cases concerning the punishment of sexual crimes stipulates the enforcement date of the order system of disclosure and notification of personal information. The sexual assault Special Law was provided through Supplementary provision of revision. You have applied the exception of retrospective application for the notification order system and disclosure of personal information instruction In relation to this, children youth protection law, has placed the provisions of the Supplementary Provisions to limit the crime that was committed after the enforcement of the law. In contrast, sexual assault method is not provided any limitation. Was ruling that it is possible to apply retroactively as this reason. Anyone who commits a crime prior to enact sexual assault law in this way, it has given a notice command imposition and disclosure of personal information instruction. we have affirmed the notification request command and disclosure of personal information instruction. The legal character of the system of disclosure and notification of sexual offender`s personal information is not defined precisely yet The guilty part should not destroy. Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Sex in a public notice of the command should be called subjects. Timely and important issues in the first viable target children and youth taking action to avoid sexual offenses should be take precautions. The current system of personal information disclosure, notice the careful analysis of children and youth have a sex offender and implement a plan to expand its type will be needed The current system of personal information disclosure, notice the careful analysis of children and youth have a sex offender and implement a plan to expand its type will be needed.

En 2006, la Cour de Cassation coréenne énonce que les dispositions de la loi sur la circulation de route ne peuvent servir de base de mesure coercitif afin de vérifier l’alcoolémie. Pourtant en 2012, elle déclare que une demand de souffler dans l’éthylomètre à un conducteur placé en dégrisement n’a pas été illégale dès lors que cette mesure était conforme aux dispositions de l’article 4 de la loi sur l’exécution des missions des agents de police. Quelques mois plus tard, la Cour de Cassation prends une position contraire dans une affaire où le conducteur n’a pas obtempéré au contrôle d’alcoolémie au volant en énonçant que le délit de refus de se soumettre aux vérification d’alcoolémie ne s’est pas constitué dès lors qu’une demande de souffler dans l’éthylomètre n’a pas été régulière dans la mesure où l’état d’ivresse n’était pas manifeste pour la placer en dégrisement. Cette position montre que la Cour de cassation craint que la mesure de police administrative ne puisse porter atteinte au principe de légalité des procédures pénales.

Artikel 12 GG garantiert Menschenrecht und Grundrechte. StPO regelt aufgrund von GG das Prozess über Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme und den Schutz der Rechte des Einzelnen im Strafverfahren. Aus den Bestimmungen von StPO und der Gerichtsentscheidung wurde einige Problemen erscheint, die im Prozess von Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme über die elektronische Beweis auftaucht wurde. Der erste ist, was die Gegestand zur Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme über die Elektronische Beweis ist. Ist es Datenspeichermedien, insbesondere Smartphon oder elektronischen Information? Der zweite ist, was richitige Methode zur Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme über die Elektronische Beweis ist. Ist die Durchsucung von Datenspeichermedien prinzipielle Methode oder Drucken und Replication von elektronischer Informationen prinzipielle Methode? Der dritte ist, kann die Angeklagte und ihrer Rechtsanwalt an dem Prozess der Analyse über die elektronische Information teilnehmen? Schließlich ist, muß die Beweis eine verfügbare Beweis anerkennen, die im Prozess der Analyse über die elektronische Information neu entdeckt wird? Im folgenden werde ich über diese Fragen forschen.

In 2003, some cases were reported to Attorney General of Korea in Supreme Prosecution Service, in which the suspect in detention rejected the request of the prosecutor to attend at his office. Previously, the Prosecution Service interpreted the request to attend for interrogation of the suspect to have the power to impose the duty on the suspect. But in the Academic circles, the majority viewed the request to have no power to impose the duty. Thus they explained the suspect may refuse to attend and during the interrogation leave the office anytime. The suspects who refused to attend rely on the view of the majority of the literature. The Prosecution Service insisted that the interrogation system of Korean Criminal Procedure give the prosecutor and the judicial police the authority to impose the duty to attend on the suspect, especially the duty to attend and to stay on the suspect in arrest or detention. The duty could be forced by arrest warrant or detention warrant. The provision of detention(§ 69, Korean Criminal Procedure) give the definition that it includes the power to take the suspect to a place and to detain in custody. The power to take to a place should be interpreted to include the power to take the suspect to the investigator’s office during the detention. In this Case of the suspect in detention, the Court approved the view of the Prosecution Service and concluded the judicial police officer who took the suspect to the office for interrogation to be lawful. Notwithstanding, the Court explained the character of the interrogation to be voluntary because the statement of the suspect should not be forced. But it could be said contradictory between the possibility of forcing the duty to attend and stay against the suspect’s will and the character of voluntainess. The compulsory nature could be said to be proper to this system.

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribes that a written statement prepared by the investigative authority is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method. The requirement of ‘due process and proper method’ means the legality of the process and method of preparing a written statement by the investigative authority. On the other hand, the Article 7 of the Korean act on protection of specific crime informants(hereinafter referred to as “the informants protection act”) provides that when any retaliation is likely to be taken against an informant of a crime or his/her relatives, prosecutors or police officers are not required to note all or part of information which verifies the identity of the informant of the crime, such as a name, age, address or occupation. In regard to the requirement of ‘due process and proper method’, it is questionable whether a written statement of witness under a pseudonym is admissible as evidence where it is prepared on the crimes other than the specific crime prescribed in the informants protection act. In this case, the lower court and the appellate court decided that a written statement of witness under a pseudonym was not admissible because the questioned crime of blackmail was not the specific crime and the statement under a pseudonym did not comply with the due process and proper method. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that the investigative authority could prepare the protocol of a written statement under a pseudonym, if there had been a probable cause considering a combination of circumstances such as the relation between witness and the defendant, the type of crime, the necessity of protecting the witness because the Criminal Procedure Act did not require a real name in the written statement to verify the identity of witness. And the Court ruled that the meaning of ‘due process and proper method’ prescribed in the Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act was that the investigative authority must comply with all process and methods provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, like informing of the right to remain silent where a written statement was prepared. However, the balancing test of a probable cause in the ruling has a problem with not presenting a bright-line rule in the investigative procedure and arousing new controversies.

This research paper is a commentary on the Constitutional Court’s 2013.10.24. sentence 2011 Hunba 79 decision. The point issues of the Constitutional Court’s decisions are as follows. Whether it has violated the principle of definiteness, the principle of excess prohibition, and whether including the accomplice’s protocol of trial in the same article is a violation of the constitution. This writer is a testifier who has suggested a constitutional opinion in the Constitutional Court’s public defense. Therefore, there will be an annotation on the Court’s decision based on the written opinion which may agree with the Court’s basis of decision or have a different perspective towards it. The legislative intent of the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is to accept creditable papers with exceptions to the hearsay rule, allowing the trial procedure to get along smoothly and contributing to the finding of the truth of substance. Japan, on the other hand does not allow a protocol of trial from a different case to have admissibility of evidence. However, there is not a big difference in the procedure of deciding the actual admissibility. Similarly, the United States enumerates the exceptions to the hearsay rule, presuming it limitedly, but with multiple instances laid in the legislation, there is not much difference, compared to Korea’s criminal procedure, in how the evidence law is operated. In addition, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is a regulation on the procedure for the preservation of evidence, not applied to the principle of definiteness. Also, the interpretation itself can concretely determine the range of application, therefore not a vague regulation. As seen above, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure does not transgress the principle of legal step or the principle of excess prohibition. In short, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is constitutional, considering the legislative intent, comparison with foreign legislation cases, and juridical examination. Though the protocol of trial with an accomplice’s testimony is guaranteed to have a high level of ‘voluntariness’ and ‘due process’ because it is realized in the court before judges, considering the content, there may be a possibility of false testimony to shift responsibility on the defendant. In conclusion, this writer approves of the improvement of the legislation, for it is more desirable to have a definite legislation to guarantee people’s basic human rights and develop the code of criminal procedure based on the principle of constitutional state.

I think the spirit of the introduction of the testimony system of investigators, is in order to prevent, it is possible, among other things, what happens to overturn sentence unfair of witness or defendant, the absurd result, to deal effectively with this. If you look at the relevant case law of the testimony system after the introduction of the investigators, the main material used to determine the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of investigators. If there is participants at the time, it is possible to mention his statement, a description of statement was created in the course of the investigation. Therefore, in order to be recognized innocuously the special guarantees of trustworthiness from the perspective of law enforcement, it or enlist a person or trusted counsel in the course of the investigation, to record the all process of investigation is most preferred and counsel or if the video recording research and participation of people with a trust relationship has not been made, and that along with the testimony itself of investigators, will be discussed in a comprehensive manner, such as the description of the written statement and assertion of the accused, the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, it is necessary to judge. And, by notifying explicitly whether the certification of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of the investigator in the course of the trial, so as to additional proof activities for inspection, by this, the court, a sufficient psychological it is necessary while securing the article must determine the adoption of evidence.

So-called Wang-jaesan decision (2013do2511) was declared by ‘Korean Supreme Court’ (hereafter ‘KSC’) in July, 2013. The decision had a lot of important substantial and procedural issues in criminal spheres. However, what I have tried to concentrate in this review are only two issues, the one is the issue of the authenticity of electronic evidence (or digital evidence), the other is the issue of the application of ‘the Korean version hearsay rule’ (hereafter ‘KHR’) of the electronic evidence. The methodology of this review is the comparative analysis of the Wang-jaesan decision from the perspective of Federal Rules of Evidence (hereafter ‘FRE’). In Wang-jaesan decision KSC defined the concept of integrity of electronic evidence as ‘the contents of the digital data have not been altered in any manner from the moment that were seized’ or ‘that evidence wasn’t changed after it was captured or collected.’ The meaning of this concept is different from the meaning of the traditional ‘exactness of utterances’(成立의 眞正) of article 312, 312 of KHR. That concept was made from the unique Korean modern legal history. However, it cannot deal with so many hard cases properly. Therefore I suggest in chapter Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ that We Korean legal scholars and practitioners should adopt the concept of authentication something like FRE, even though Korean Criminal Procedure Law does not have clear stipulations about it. In chapter Ⅴ, Ⅵ I did comparing analyses about the applications of KHR by KSC since 1990’s up to the 2010’s. I found that KSC has adopted enormously FRE when there were no clear stipulations in Korean Criminal Procedure Law. This is a kind of interesting phenomenon which deserves to be analyzed from the perspective of comparative law and global legal transplant of evidence rule.

In the year of 2013, 171 criminal cases decided by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) are registered on the internet homepage of the Court. 3 cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. In this paper, 13 cases of the 171 cases are reviewed which, I think, are comparatively imporant. 4 cases are concerning the general provisions of Korean Criminal Law. The other 6 cases are concening the pariticular provisions of Korean Criminal Law. All the reviews are constituted of 1. The Fact of the Case, 2. The Summary of Decision and 3. The Note.