To the general public, the term 'corrections' is unerstood as synonymous with punishment. In our country, it was not until 1961 that the name 'prison' was changed to the 'corrections center' and 'prison officer' to the 'correctional officer'. Corrections is the portion of the criminal justice system which should be charged with carrying out the sentences of the courts, especially specifying the contents of punishments and probation services, community services, day reporting centers, electronic monitoring programs, intensive supervision programs, jails, parole services, and half way houses. Furthermore, specific elemennts of corrections are designed to handle juvenile offenders only. The primary purpose of corrections are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Which of these purposes is emphasized and accepted is dependent of the attitute of the scholar. With the complexity of corrections, there are four correctional ideologies that influence and guide the our correctional services : punishment, control, treatment and prevention. Punishment is associated with the justice model, control is associated with the custodial model, treatment is associated with the medical model, and prevention model is associated with the reintegration model. These diverse models have been reflections of the viewpoint of social solidarity, class interest, moralizing social institution in a given age and country. Criminology that contributes to society in a variety of ways, commenting three aspects ａ) a knowledge base from which to debunk crime myths, ｂ) the advancement of policy recommendations, ｃ) evaluation research, must give root and materials of those models positively and adequately. And then a given model should not be undisputed. Criminal policy is deeply interconnected with the interdependence of corrections and criminology.

This article traced modern trends of penological ideas in terms of the origin and development for each ideas. It is followed by classifying them as three distinct types: correctional treatment, legal treatment and community-based treatment for criminals, and discussing the similarities and differences between them. Finally, it concluded with the discussion of prospective global cooperation among correctional authorities.

이 연구에서는 현재 우리 교정당국이 당면하고 있는 심각한 문제 중의 하나인 過密收容의 原因分析과 刑事司法的 對應方案을 제시하는데 그 목적을 둔다. 과밀수용의 개념과 수용실태에서는 과밀수용 개념을 정의하는 방법 중 形式的 接近方法과 實質的 接近方法에 의거하여 과밀수용의 개념을 설명하고, 수용실태를 통하여 현재 우리 교정당국이 처해 있는 과밀정도, 즉 연중 최대수용시점을 기준으로 수용자 한 명당 0.5평도 되지 않는 작은 공간에서 생활하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 과밀수용의 원인분석에서는 人口增加, 景氣變動, 刑事司法機關의 犯罪에 대한 對應方法으로 나누어 분석하였는데, 가장 직접적이고 영향을 많이 미치고 있는 것은 刑事司法機關의 犯罪에 대한 對應方法에 있음을 알 수가 있었다. 이에 과밀수용에 대한 대응방안으로는 ‘인구증가’와 ‘경기변동’은 형사사법 외적 요인으로 보다 거시적인 사회(경제)정책에 의존할 수밖에 없으므로, 여기에서는 不拘束 搜査擴大로 未決拘禁의 最小化, ‘罰金刑의 積極 活用’, ‘假釋放制度의 積極活用’, ‘短期自由刑에 대한 電子監視의 代替’, ‘民營矯導所의 活用’ 등 형사사법 내적 요인인 형사사법기관의 범죄에 대한 대응방법을 중심으로 살펴보았다.

범죄행동으로 지적된 여러 가지 변인들 중에서 유전적 소인을 제외한 다른 것들은 돈과 폭력이라는 두 변인에 포함된다. 실제로 이 두 변인을 제외한 범죄를 찾기는 어렵다. 물론 성욕이 범죄를 야기 시키는 큰 몫을 담당하고 있지만, 이것 역시 폭력을 뒤로하고 범죄행동을 보이기 어렵다. 범죄행동의 거의 대부분을 차지하는 돈과 폭력의 욕구로 인한 행동형성은 뚜렷한 차이를 갖는다. 전자는 한번시도로 그리고 후자는 여러 번 반복해서 형성된다. 또한 상당수의 범죄가 이들 두 변인의 복합적 관계에서 발생된다. 이러한 이유에서 두 변인 중 어느 하나의 통제는 범죄예방을 의미한다. 그러므로 범죄를 예방하는 길은 돈과 폭력에 대한 욕구의 형성을 이해하는 것이다. 즉, 돈이란 땀을 흘리며 어렵게 벌어야 한다는 것을 가르치고 그리고 폭력의 행사는 처음부터 막아야 한다. 이러한 가르침은 우리들이 처한 조건이 각양각색이라도 가능하기에 범죄예방에 큰 도움을 줄 것이다.

The Public preservation measure is a Kind of legal sanctions other than criminal punishments, which is to be imposed on a person who should be protected, because of his (her) future risk on the ground of his(her) behaviors open to the public, for the main purpose of giving medical treatment or educating or reinstating. Therefore in the view of a possibility of risk according to the responsibility, generally a criminal punishment has been understood as a treasure of peace preservation. That is to say that a criminal punishment is a retributive justice to a crime based on the responsibility, on the other hand the public preservation measure is a legal sanction for the social protection as well as his(her) correction and education related with social danger. A sharp line between the two legal viewpoints mentioned has been drawn. Accordingly as mentioned above judging from this point of view of distinction between a criminal punishment and the public preservation measure, the responsibility system is to be linked with a criminal punishment, but is not to be linked with the public preservation measure. For all that recently a view that the public preservation measure is able to be imposed even to the matter of responsibility has been on the rise. So the purpose of this study consists in the matter of the theory that the enforcement of preservation measure even to the responsibility is possible or not. In other words, it's a question that whether the responsibility system and the public preservation measure can be linked, if possible, how is it coming along with each other and if not possible, for what reason is it? On such problems a study has been pursued from the point of view of the criminal policy.

The Customs Act provides for a general rule all goods entering Korea shall be subject to customs duties as set in the customs tariff schedules as other fees and taxes determined except those excluded by virtue of the Customs Act or intentional agreements. Importation begins from the time carrying vessel or aircraft enters Korea territorial jurisdiction with the intention to unload the same until the time the goods are released or withdrawn from the customhouse upon payment of the appropriate duties. Imported articles may be categorized into prohibited importations, dutiable importations and conditionally free importation. Some other articles are qualifiedly prohibited, meaning they can enter the country after compliance with certain conditions. If there is any conduct violating these act, criminal sanctions may be imposed for the prevention and suppression of smuggling and other frauds, and the enforcement of tariff and customs act. As a result importers who intentionally violates Korea Customs Act may be subject to criminal prosecution. Many major provisions of customs act have imposed severe sanctions for customs crimes in comparison with other crimes due to general rule of criminal law. There is a great deal of activity in Pusan area relating to smuggling of narcotics and prohibited drugs, obscene articles and weapons. On one side, criminals who seek to profit by narcotics or drug threaten public health and human environment, On other side, weapon smuggling is a significant threat to our national security. However the studies on customs crime and customs act have not been viewed. Thus this Article overviews especially the customs crime and criminal sanction focused on domestic customs act.

Although recently vigorous studies on environmental crime have contribute criminal respects to be advanced in our country, most of them are focused on German discussions about the theory of environmental crime or environmental criminal law. As each countries in criminal legislation for environmental protection have some distinctive characteristics not found in others, the study which is more helpful to regulate environmental crime can be extend to other country in the view of comparative law. Thus this Article overviews especially the environmental criminal enforcement program involving civil and administrative enforcement in the United States. Notwithstanding that enforcement is an evolving phenomenon that only recently appeared on the scene, there is widespread public support for it. Once viewed as mere economic or regulatory offence lacking an element of moral delict, environmental crimes now provoke moral outrage and prompt demands for severe sanction and strict enforcement. Many major provisions of modem environmental acts that imposed criminal liability have been added or significantly restructured during the last decade. Notable among them are the imposition of the felony penalties for federal environmental crimes and the enactment of the endangerment crime in federal environmental law. This Article approaches the characteristics of environmental criminal enforcement form introducing major federal environmental acts. It develops the result that, considering the difference that exist between Korea and United States in environmental criminal law, our proper environmental regulatory framework can be constituted.

In the year of 2017, 110 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) are registered on the internet homepage of the Court. 5 criminal law cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. In this paper, above 5 cases and other several cases are reviewed which seem to be comparatively important to the author. All the reviews are constituted as follows: 1. The Fact of the Case, 2. The Summary of Decision and 3. The Note. The contents of this paper is as follows; Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. The Cases of the Grand Panel of the Korean Supreme Court In this chapter, 5 cases of the Grand Panel are reviewed. The subjects of the cases are mainly related with the principle of ‘nulla poena sine lege’. For example, the prohibition of analogical interpretation and the prohibition of wide delegation of the punishment to the lower regulation are commented. Ⅲ. The Cases relating to General Part of Criminal Law In this chapter, 3 cases are reviewed. The subjects of the cases are the temporal effect of the punishment, Verbotsirrtum and the number concerned with the crime of forcible obstruction of business. Ⅳ. The Cases relating to Special Part of Criminal Law 6 Cases are reviewed in this Chapter. The subjects are the calculation of punishment, the concept of injury in sexual violence crimes and etc.

It often happens that after someone purchases a specific part in one parcel of land, a shared equity registration is made according to the area ratio of the specific part in the whole land, and this legal relation is called co-ownership of divided ownership. This is substantially sole ownership of the relevant party on the inside and takes the form of “co-ownership registration” on the outside, but Korean precedents solve this problem by the so-called co-title trust principle by citing the legal principle of title trust. Therefore, in the relation of co-ownership of divided ownership, each co-owner can dispose of his or her specific division part independently and freely transfer the corresponding shared equity registration. However, if a land is divided into independent parcels by specific division parts owned separately, our precedents consider that the shared equity registration of the co-owner name transferred to each remaining parcel other than the parcel corresponding to each specific division part can no longer be regarded as a registration to represent a parcel corresponding to a particular division part of the co-owner, and only the co-title trust relation between the co-owners will survive. Thus, each co-owner is in the position of a person keeping the shared equity in relation to the other co-owners with respect to the shared equity of his or her name transferred over each remaining parcel, and if he or she disposes of it, an embezzlement is established. But it is doubtful whether a shared equity can be regarded as a property of embezzlement in the “person who keeps other’s property” among constitutional elements of embezzlement. Shared equity, which is a quantitative part held by a co-owner, is an idea that can govern things, and it is problematic to regard it as a property. Therefore, even though Korean precedents acknowledge embezzlement in this case, it is reasonable to regard it as a breach of trust rather than embezzlement.

The purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains is to deprive the crime of its illegal profits and prevent it from being retained. On the other hand, under criminal law, joint crime, teacher crime, and accessories are intended to be punished for criminal acts and their degree of participation, so the two do not necessarily have to be consistent in logic. In other words, if a person is merely an accessory and receives sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she should pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. but if a person is joint principal offender and receive not sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she do not need to pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. In the result, who will pay the penalty from depends on the attainment of the purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains.

The Supreme Court of Korea has adopted a methodology of rigorous grammatical interpretation in order to satisfy the Constitutional requirement of law-binding in judgement of criminal case. However, the principle of law-binding does not mean the so-called ‘legal state.’ For this reason, the national justice system of the law recognizes the supplements of the judiciary. This article observes criminal judgement that the Supreme Court of Korea is suspected of going beyond just a supplementary role to ‘judicial justice’. As a result of analyzing the criminal judgment, the Supreme Court found that the following folly is used in using deductive syllogism. First, Producing of non-existent premise. Second, Arbitrary manipulating or processing of a premise. Third, excessive normative interpretation of a premise. Fourth, Formulating of general clause. Therefore, this article emphasizes the task of criminal law discipline which should prevent the judicial branch from walking the way of judicial jurisdiction by critically examining the various act of manipulation of Supreme Court which is carried out in the name of providing the legal basis for the preconceived conclusion in the deduction process.

In the year of 2015, 219 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) are registered on the internet homepage of the Court. 3 criminal law cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. In this paper, these three cases and several cases are reviewed which seem to be comparatively important. In addition, are reviewed some cases by Korean Constitutional Court which review the constitutionality of some criminal provisions such as violence with weapon or dangerous thing. All the reviews are constituted as follows : 1. The Fact of the Case, 2. The Summary of Decision and 3. The Note. The contents of this paper is as follows; I. Introduction II. The Judgements of the Grand Panel of the Korean Supreme Court In this chapter, 3 cases of the Grand Panel of the KSC are reviewed. III. The Decisions of the Korean Constitutional Court In this chapter, 3 cases on the constitutionality of the criminal provisions are reviewed. The subject of the cases are the violence crime with a weapon or a dangerous thing, sex offender registration and the medicine treatment of sex offenders. IV. Several Judgements of The Korean Supreme Court In this chapter, 3 cases are reviewed. The subjects of the cases are such as the breach of trust, the concept of the drug, the concept of the public service man and etc.

Three Supreme Court’s rulings are reviewed in this paper. They are all about the similar cases. Someone asked the other person to withdraw a specific sum of money from his account, but the latter(the delegated person) withdrew an excess and took it. What sort of crime should be assigned to him? The ruling A presents the view of fraud by electronic instrument. It says that defendant took illegal gain through inputting unauthorized data into ATM. Another judgement, the ruling B, sets forth the different view. It declares the breach of trust, saying that defendant violated his duty. The final judgement, the ruling C, also deals with the case alike. However it supports the decision of the lower court to give defendant the embezzlement verdict. To sum up, there are contradicted rulings on the same case! What solution could be made to handle such confusion. It is the task of this paper. The conclusion is the crime of embezzlement, it means that the ruling C is appropriate. This paper presents its grounds and arguments and hopes for readjusting The Supreme Court’s ruling forward.

In the year of 2014, 194 criminal cases decided by the Korean Supreme Court(KSC) are registered on the internet homepage of the Court. 2 cases of which are decided by the Grand Panel. In this paper, these two cases and 12 cases are reviewed which, I think, are comparatively imporant. 3 cases are concerning the general provisions of Korean Criminal Law. The other 7 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. The contents of this paper is as follows; I. Introduction II. The Grnad Panel of the KSC’s Judgements In this chapter, 2cases of the Grand Panel in KSC are reviewed. III. The KSC’s Judgements concerning the General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, 3 cases are selected and reviewed. The related subjects of the cases are such as the periodical application scope of the criminal law and the criminal responsibility of the doctors. IV. The KSC’s Judgements concerning the Particular Provisons of Criminal Law In this chapter, 7 cases are selected and reviewed. The related subjects of the cases are such as the crime of comtempt, the subjective element of the theft, the legislative and dogmatic problems of the robbery that results in injury, the problem of the quasi-robbery and etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.