This article deals with the meaning of the Nullification in criminal perspective, if existed legal status is a criminal requirement in spite of the legal annulment by the Court. Interestingly Korean Supreme Court ruled conflict judgments in two months. The judgment on March, 2014, even employed as a civil servant is invalid, when this person who act as a civil servant receiving bribes out the conclusion that those on bribery. However, the judgment on May, 2014, the same court makes the decision that if the local government’s admission of corporation establishment is nullified then the state of officers of that corporation always nullify. So these once officers of the corporation is not the subject of punishment. Even though all the two judgments already seen the legal relationship existed invalid, but the judgment on March focused on the fact that the visible on the outside and the existed status. On the other hand, the latter’s decision seems to have decided that the effects of the legal invalidity and it is more important. This article will be analyzed in terms of the latter’s decision to criticize the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, with doubts of whether ‘invalidity’ means ‘not really exist’ and the remains of the real world is really meaningless in criminal perspective.

In this article the author tries to find an element in dolus eventualis case that makes it a crime with criminal intent, not of negligence. For that purpose he analyzes mens rea, the subjective element of crime, and tries to compare the theories of dolus available in korean criminal law scholarship. Korean criminal law does not have any category similar to ‘recklessness’ in anglo-american law, so the cases subsumed by that category should be classified as either crime with intent or negligence. The author insists after some theoretical investigation on the themes around the criminal intent that the essential element in the dolus eventualis cases the criminal’s attitude of taking result seriouly during committing a crime. So if a criminal took the result seriouly, which at last occurred after her performing some activity, the result can be regarded as committed with criminal intent.

“Das Echt Unterlassungsdelikt” is crime that is the omission that violates the command norm. Das Echt Unterlassungsdelikt is that under situation truly legal interest have already been violated, certain obligator shoud be imposed intentional obligation. That crime has special logical structure as contrasted with general sin of commission or a crime of omission. Firstly that crime is always a continuing crime, so the crime has been continuined until certain obligator discharges his legal duties. And that crime is neither echtes Sonderdelikt nor Pflichtdelikt, but it is “Täterbezogenen eigenhändigen Delikt”. That is the crime offender must commit his physical use or by cognition himself, and as the result he can commit only single-handed. Nextly, that crime can’t be connived with a person in his crime nor be perpetrated by using any other people. In this study based on Supreme Court judgments about 2008do9476 and 93do1731, focused the logical structure of “Die echten Unterlassungsdelikte” as mentioned above.

The calculations of price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions in our capital market, it is regarded as technicals and normatives issues. We have a burning problem which we have to make its scoring criterias. The standard of counting unfair crimes in capital market have relevance to the calculation of its unjust profits. I can't accept the decision of supreme court that declared price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions as a comprehensive crime with a consequence that its offenders may be placed on a mild punishment unduly. We should punish offenders who have committed crimes in capital market in order to protect investor's personal property consequently we should apply our current law to unfair crimes in capital market in which price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions are regarded as severals separated-crimes not as a comprehensive crime.

In our criminal law system, rape and forcible sexual abuse are distinguished, and forcible sexual abuse and public obscenity are also different. Forcible sexual abuse is forcing undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another with force or threat. Nowadays, among some cases the meaning of force is interpreted willfully, so that even though one cannot see forcible sexual abuse, it seems to be the case. So it is advisable that the meaning of force is interpreted narrowly. There is no the offence of sexual abuse in public in our criminal law, but in special law(the Special Act of Sexual Assault) there is an offence of sexual abuse in public. But it is not good way to treat this problem, so it is advisable that the offence of sexual abuse without force should be introduced into the Criminal Act. In the Criminal Act even though sexual abuse and public obscenity is distinguished, the meaning of abuse similar to that of obscenity. To this a case said that the meaning of abuse is harm to one’s sexual determination, and obscenity is harm to public sexual morale.

In this article, we analyze the decision of the Supreme Court in Korea with respect to the unauthorized modification of information and the immediacy of property disposal in a computer fraud critically. In the mentioned case, the defendant was charged with unlawful behavior to change the information by installing a hacking program on electronic bidding system of an administrative office. The author evaluated the defendant‘s conduct at issue not as an unauthorized change of information, but as an input of false information or illegal command input for computer. In terms of the immediacy of property disposal, this paper contends that we can’t say that computer fraud doesn’t hold, without exception, if a person involved in the property disposal process. In order to determine whether the computer fraud is established, we have to analyze the contents of the involved individual’s action in detail.

Die Trennung von Eigentum und Verwaltung kennzeichnet die moderne Wirtschaft. Durch das Auseinanderfallen von Eigentumszuständigkeit und Vermögensverwaltung ist die ungetreute Vermögensverwaltung und damit die Regelung der Untreue das charakteristische Wirtschaftsdelikt. Weder in der Common Law noch im Code Penal von 1810 wurde ein allgemeines Konzept der Untreue entwickelt. Das relativ spät entstandene deutsche Strafgesetzbuch von 1871 hat dagegen einen erstaunlich modernen Straftatbestand der Untereue geschaffen. Das japanische Strafgesetzbuch hat dieses deutsches Modell rezipiert und ihm eine abstrahierende Fassung gegeben. Neben dieser Moderniserung im Abstraktionsgrad hat das kStGB im Tatbestand sowohl Vermögensschaden als auch Vermögensvorteil verlangt. Damit hat das kStGB die in der Welt am höchsten entwickelte gesetzliche Regelung. Das Vertrauen im Sinne der Untreue ist nicht individuelles Vertrauen in Redlichkeit. Dieses Vertrauen bezieht sich das Vertrauen in das Wirtschaftssystem und ihr eigenen Handlungslogiken, denen zu entsprechen von dem Vermögensbetreuer erwartet wird. Dem Vermögensbetreuer wird besondere Macht über das Vermögen des Vermögensinhabers gegeben. So vertraut der Vermögensinhaber darauf, dass sein Vermögen gemäß der wirtschaftlichen Handlungslogik betreut wird. In der Untreue sieht man eine Machtstellung über das fremdes Vermögen. Priatautonomie ist keine isolierte, sondern eine im Wirtschaftssystem in der Gesellschaft. Der Vermögensbetreuer benuzt den Vermögensinhaber als seinen Werkzeug. Er missbraucht seine besonsere Macht und siene überlegene Stellung. Die Plenarentscheidung vom koreanichen Obersten Gerichtshof (́kOGH) hat anders als früher den Schuldner freigesprochen, der die Immobilien im Vorvertrag auf Annahme an Erfüllungs- statt für Forderungssicherung doppelt an Dritten verkauft. Sie begründet damit, dass in diesem Vorvertrag die Leistung an Erfüllungssicherung kein Geschäft des Gläubigers, sondern das Geschäft des Schuldner selbst. Daran scheitert die Untreue. Im Bereich des eigentlichen Doppelverkauf der Immobilien bejaht der kOGH noch die Untreue. Nach dem kOGH sei die Struktur zwischen beiden Verträgen anders. Die zivilrechtliche Struktur zwischen beiden muss anders sein. Aber die strafrechtliche Unrechtstruktur der Untreue ist m.E. als gleich bejaht angesehen. Der jederzeitige Zugriff auf das Vermögen eines anderen ist von Rechts wegen eröffnet. Das Zivilrecht wird hier geradezu zum Vehikel der Tatbegehung. Der Gläubiger hat sein Vermögen in die Herrschaft des Schuldners gegeben. Der strafrechtliche Schutz wird dadurch ausgelöst. Das ist keine bloße Verletzung einer schlichten Schuldnerpflicht. Der Schuldner benuzt sein überlegene Position und missbraucht die Herrschaft über das Vermögen des Gläubigers. Der betreffende Fall hat die strafrechtliche Unrechtsstruktur der Untreue.

By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.

En général, le détournement de fonds est l'appropriation frauduleuse de biens par quelqu'un pour son propre intérêt à qui l'on avait fait confiance pour gérer l'argent et les fonds détenus par un autre individu ou par une organisation tiers. Les fonds peuvent être des fonds sociaux ou des fonds publics. Les qualifications pénales d'abus de biens sociaux et d'abus de confiance sont voisines. L'abus de confiance couvre tous les agissements de détournement de fonds ou d'objet qui ont été confiés à une personne de confiance. Il s'agit ici moins de protéger la propriété d’autrui que de protéger les droits des créanciers. En cela l’infraction se distingue de l'abus de confiance qui, quant à elle protège non pas le créancier, mais le propriétaire ou le possesseur d'un bien. Si un débiteur, propriétaire de la chose remise en gage, détourne le bien gagé, il se rend coupable, non pas d’abus de confiance, mais de détournement d’objet constitué en gage. Ici, le cas, en l'espece, est du détournement d’objet constitué en gage: Il s'agit du fait, par un preteur du nom pour fiducie par l'organisme de propriété de famille de détourner l'objet constitué en gage. En général, l’incrimination s'applique à tout gage, qu'il s'agisse d'un gage avec dépossession ou sans dépossession, d’un gage civil ou commercial, d'un gage conventionnel ou d'un gage légal. L'arrêt de la cour suprême coréenne, jugé l'accord de puissance de corps, du 21 fev. 2013 a décidé que "le détournement est l'acte par lequel un individu dépossède une personne d'un bien qu'elle lui a confié. Il constitue l'élément matériel des délits de la nature de l'abus de confiance" et que "l'article 355 du Code pénal coréen est applicable au cas où le détournement d'objet constitué en gage est intervenue après la vente tardif pour le tiers." En effet, cet arrêt de la cour suprême coréene a changé son opinion postérieure, malheureusement, sans l'explication concrète. A mon avis, cet arrêt de la cour suprême coréene a refusé de bien respecter "le principe de non-punissabilité de l'acte postérieure en cas de l'abus de confiance". De ce point de vue, il est très naturel de critiquer la constatation de cet arrêt de la cour suprême coréenne.

A legal purposes of ‘Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name’ and ‘Act on the real name financial transaction’-currently being implemented revised on November 29-reason for the amendment, and when you see ‘Real Estate Real Name Registration Act’ Article 3 paragraph 1, From the premise that change is invalid lend the name of the property to another person and its rights under the contract, a review is needed for the attitude of the Supreme Court judgment that character to keep the heir’s about the person registered as the owner of the property. In other words, between actual owners and heirs of the estate are kept relationship based on trust each other is not permitted. Therefore, even if the heir to the disposal of real estate or deny the return embezzlement is not true. And as others have to borrow the name agreement and its premise the No. 2 Article 8 of this law will see a change in the rights of a valid, If the spouse who is the spouse parties who trustee is a fiduciary relationship ended by killing, whether civil, even people who trustee and fiduciary arrangements remain in full force and effect between the heir to Article 187 of one trustee of a trust estate by acquiring the rights, the fiduciary relationship and analysis for the presence, And if you refuse to return the heirs of those who trustee on the basis of this judicial discretion, trustees who are required to take and interpret whether civil remedies in any way for the preservation of the property of the trust estate. Moreover, this interpretation is that the same legal principles to be applied even if the disappearance or death or divorce of a marriage partner relationships cancellation of either spouse. The Supreme Court has interpreted to establish a trust relationship for the heirs of the people who destroyed fiduciary trustees who have a partner relationship. However, as the interpretation of the Court of Appeals after a valid contract between the couple if the spouse who trust relationship has ended, In particular, because the people who trustee if the trustee is not recognized, the murder of people who trust relationship between the heirs and trustees who trustee, Even if the heirs of the people trustee disposes of the trust estate, or even arbitrarily refuse to return embezzlement is reasonable to interpret that which is not true.

Im koreanischen Strafgesezbuch(KStGB) regelt den Tatbestand der Störung der Geschäfte(§ 314). Das KStGB regelt in § 314(Störung derGeschäfte) wie folgt: “ Wenn man durch die Verteilung der unrichtiger Tatsache, die Vorspiegelung der falscher Tatsache oder Gewaltanwendung die Geschäfte der anderen stört, wird bis zu 5 Jahre Freiheitsstrafe oder mit 1,500,000 Won Geldstrafe bestraft.” Nach dieser Regelung wird der Streik als Mittel des Arbeitskampfs durch den Oberste Gerichtshof in Korea als die Störung der Geschäfte strafbar verurteilt. Nach neuerem Urteil des Obersten Gerichshofs(daepan 2011.3.17, 2007do482) wird die zusätzlicher Voraussetzungen gefordert nämlich wenn der Streik ohne Voraussehbarkeit blitzschnell geführt ist und dadurch jede Menge Schaden verursacht hat. Der strittige Rechtspunkt ist, ob die Verweigerung der Arbeit als Unterlassung Gewaltanwendung als aktives Tun auffassen kann. Und ob der Arbeiter gegenüber den Unternehmer die Garantenstellung hat. Und zum anderen ist streitig, wie die Entscheidungskriterien der Schnelligkeit des Streiks und die Schadenssumme zu bestimmen.

The offense of disturbance of domestic peace and security (trespass) has a not inconsiderable amount of theoretical problems that deserve a closer look. Among them is the following case, whether the enter through concealing the criminal purpose must be punished with trespassing. Previously the supreme Court of Korea affirmed on this issue with the grounds that penetrate is against the true (hypothetical) will of the injured. But the solution of supreme court is not without problems. Penetrate is entering the protected space against the will of owner or others who have the right of possession. So if the owner approves entering, there is a priori no ‘penetrate’ and therefore no trespassing. The consent of the owner is basically also effective even if it was fraudulently by mere deception. The intent of the perpetrator in the house to commit a crime (for example theft) is not critical because it is not recognizable to outsiders. This view is substantiated by a case study: Through deception of his purpose A can go into another house with consent of owner. After A’s criminal plan this first visit is only for identification of the object of the crime. He wants to commit theft at the next visit, if only there is nobody in the house. In my opinion, A can not be punished as the offense of trespass.

In this paper, I undertake the study of click fraud by Cases Analysis and Law Analysis. Click fraud is a type of fraud that occurs on the Internet search advertising in pay-per-click (PPC) when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad. PPC advertising is an arrangement in which operators of websites display links from advertisers in exchange for a charge per click. Competitors of advertisers may wish to harm a competitor who advertises in the same market by clicking on their ads. Click-fraud perpetrators essentially pile up and burn their competitors’ marketing budgets in the one place they can attack them. The perpetrators do not profit directly but force the advertiser to pay for irrelevant clicks, thus weakening or eliminating a source of competition. Using a computer to commit click fraud is a felony. According to the Act on promotion of information and communications network utilization and information protection, etc in Korea, No one shall cause a trouble to an information and communications network purposely to interfere with stable operation of the information and communications network by sending a large amount of signals or data, letting the network process an illegitimate order, etc. Also according to the criminal act, Any person who interferes with another person’s business by damaging or destroying any data processor, such as computer, or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, or inputting false information or improper order into the data processor, or making any impediment in processing any data by other way, shall also be subject to the same punishment as referred to in paragraph. In this paper, I have described the concept; ‘letting the network process an illegitimate order’ and inputting false information or improper order.

The Criminal Act has regulations of criminal punishment against illegal use of authenticated document. The one who has made out document without authority and/or false document with authority shall be punished in the use of document. But, punishment against use of document truly made by authorized person is thought to be exceptional considering benefit of document crime of “public reliability on the document.” Then, what’s the meaning of“unlawful uttering” may be of problem. Supreme Court's judicial precedent has adopted not only authority of use of document but also original usage of document to judge illegal use and has made four cases to have different legal judgment. But this study adopted authority of use of document as an only standard for unlawful uttering considering differences depending upon rights in document crimes, and interpretation of various kinds of ‘illegal use’ from point of view of the Criminal Act and related special laws. Unlawful uttering has no reason to judge depending upon original usage of the document, and extends scope of punishment at punishment against unlawful uttering of document up to other purpose of use. The loss and damage at other purpose of use is out of scope of legal benefit of unlawful uttering is thought to be inappropriate. To admit of unlawful uttering from point of view of Supreme Court's judicial precedent, expansion of scope of original usage may expand scope of the punishment to violate principle of Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege. In this case, Supreme Court's judgment that did not admit of unlawful uttering was thought to be appropriate, but Supreme Court's basic position that followed judgment standard of original usage than authority of the use should be reconsidered.

Korean supreme court in the en banc decision of 2008do942 newly set up the relationship between perjury and right to refuse to testify. Korean supreme court decided that it should be considered whether right to refuse to testify is violated by considering total circumstances even when a judge did not notify right to refuse to testify. In other words, perjury does not stand when it were an obstacle to exercise right to refuse to testify. The korean supreme court’s decision shows the unique structure of connecting right to refuse to testify with the subject requirement of crime of perjury. Many korean scholars understand the court’s decision en banc so much formally. Following their views, perjury does not stand if the mere fact of non-notification of right to refuse to testify may deny validity of an oath of witness. In contrast, just like the en banc decision of korean supreme court of 2008도942, a substantive approach raises its voice that right to refuse to testify in establishing perjury actually means prohibition of coercion of testimony. The most substantive views contents that, just like the past decisions of korean supreme court, the possibility of excuse should be taken into consideration based on the category of ‘a possibility of expectation to legal act’in case of non-notification of right to refuse to testify. In short, this paper would like to pay attention to the viewpoint that substance of right to refuse testify should be taken seriously, in relation with establishment of perjury. The real issue of the court decisions should not be on mere compliance of formal and procedural duty. The court’eye should placed on the identification of unfair circumstances that can vitiate possibility of a witness’ testimony with his or her own free will. A single factor of non-notification should not make conclusive effect. Rather, based on the factor of non-notification, perjury is not established only when substantive possibility of choice of testify was denied.

The relevancy of the seized evidence to the charged crime is a very important issue in that it is connected with the exclusionary rule and there is some risk the evidence could be excluded in trial. Therefore it should be interpreted with sufficient consideration with the various situation in which the investigation is carried, diverse kinds of evidences which are gathered for investigating and prosecuting crime. This relevancy means the evidential value for investigation and prosecution, and the evidential value includes not only the direct but also the indirect and the circumstantial. In this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient consideration with the various elements of the relevancy, especially the indirect, supplementary, circumstantial value of evidence. Forethemore, it is inappropriate in this case the court of appeal used the issue of relevancy as a tool to restrict the legally obtained evidence relevant to a certain crime from using evidence for other’s crime and the Supreme Court accepted the result. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the issue of relevancy from that of the extent of the utilization of the legally seized evidence should be made actively and lead to the appropriate interpretation.

Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.

On November 15, 2007 the Korean Supreme Court made a landmark decision to exclude illegally obtained physical evidence. In 2007 the National Assembly revised the Criminal Procedure Code to stipulate Article 308-2 for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, which is effective as of January 1, 2008. Since then, the Supreme Court has made a series of decisions whether to exclude the derivative evidence by applying the “fruit of poisonous tree” doctrine. This Article critically reviews four Supreme Court decisions regarding the “fruit of poisonous tree” doctrine. The issue of the first case is whether to exclude the succeeding blood test obtained upon the defendant’s request besides the breath analyzer test after illegal “voluntary accompaniment.” The issue of the second case is whether to exclude the following urine test obtained upon a judicial warrant in addition to the urine test obtained by illegal arrest. The issue of the third is whether to include physical evidence obtained by the following search of defendant’s home and his confession in police station even if police officer obtained the defendant’s personal information by the violation of the Act for Real Name Financial Transaction and Confidentiality. The issue of the fourth case is whether to exclude physical evidence obtained in the defendant’s home besides his incriminatory statements obtained without giving the Miranda warnings.

In these days, transnational illicit trafficking cases in narcotic drugs like methamphetamine, marijuana as well as smuggling cases of buying illicit drugs directly from a foreign seller on the internet are increasing sharply. Customs inspection and controlled delivery are recognized to be one of the most effective tools to combat transnational drugs trafficking cases by an international mail. The 2013do7728 ruling of the Supreme Court of Korea has a meaning that it is the first ruling about the legal character of Customs inspection of an international mail and the legality of controlled delivery. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that customs inspection of an international mail without a search and seizure warrant is legal because considering the purpose of Customs Act and the procedures provided in the Act, notifications and instructions of Korea customs service, customs inspection is not a legal disposition in the criminal procedure but an administrative investigation. Controlled delivery enables the law enforcement agencies to specifically identity, arrest and prosecute not only the carriers and couriers but also the principals, organizers and financiers of such illicit activities. Under the controlled delivery system, the delivery of an international mail such as narcotic drugs is monitored closely by law enforcement officers in order to identify as many members of a trafficking network as possible and to arrest them at a point where legal proof is most readily available. And the Court decided that controlled delivery is not a seizure as a legal disposition of taking possession of a property and after the delivery, the seizure of narcotic drugs by the investigative authority with a consent of the accused is also legal.

The Supreme Court ruled that using the high-speed processing services by the internal scalper does not correspond to the “illegal means, plans or artifice.” It decided that receiving the price from the inside scalper for providing the high-speed system connected to securities company’s internal system did not consist illegal act. The decision result from considering the current situation of high-speed services by inside scalper and the structure of the ELW market. But it is difficult to say that the structure is fair while a number of general investors is receiving damage, the inside scalper in a specific relationship with the securities company that benefits from the program based on the knowledge of LP’s order algorithm based on the experience during his work for the securities company and superior speed. In particular, it is insufficiently dealt with the facts about whether the inside scalper’s existence or reality of a high speed services was known or unknown to the general investigator, whether there was thorough analysis of the profits and losses by the system under the overall structure, and whether in the process faithful duty was kept or the principle of good faith compliance was implemented to the general investors by the securities firms. It is also needed to discuss that if only the behavior of the internal scalper could be object for the criminal penalties, this can really bring about shock to Korea Stock market, rather than discussing general DMA or external scalper’s high-speed trading (HFT: High frequency trading), on the circumstances that the court make the policy determination that this kinds of act should be resolved by providing the administrative regulations rather than to be criminally punished. In addition, it is also required to determine that securities company is in violation of the obligations to keep fiduciary duty to general trader or at least good faith attention duty to the client in accordance with civil law article 681, and whether or not such damage or loss caused as a result of violation of those duties consists of the criminal breach of trust in the business.