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.

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.”

In the year of 2010, 286 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. Four cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, two cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other two cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows; I. Introduction II. The Cases relating to the General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. The Review is constituted as follows : (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 14. 2010Do5605 2. Supreme Court 2011. 1. 13. 2010Do9927 3. Supreme Court 2011. 9. 29. 2008Do9109 III. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every review is constituted as follows : (1)The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2011. 6. 9. 선고 2010Do10677 2. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 14. 2011Do300 3. Supreme Court 2011. 10. 13. 2009Do13751 4. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 14. 2011Do3180 5. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 28. 2010Do15350 6. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 28. 2009Do14928

The Supreme Court held that a physical therapist's performance of Oriental physical therapy without supervision of doctor or dental doctor was unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Services Law, and the Oriental medicine doctor who had directed the physical therapist with such act was charged as an accomplice. However, under the current Medical Services Law, which differentiates between Western and Oriental medical practices, the Oriental physical therapy performed by the physical therapist was outside the duty of physical therapists; thus it should have been recognized as unlicensed medical practice under that respect. The current case led to confusion as to the boundaries of licensed medical practices, because the Supreme Court had failed to make clear determination on the medical practice performed by the physical therapist. With advancement of science and technology, the boundaries of medical practice among medical doctors, dental doctors, and Oriental medicine doctors, as well as the boundaries of medical practice and non-medical practice have blurred. Previous Supreme Court cases had interpreted medical practice broadly, which include illness treatment, prevention as well as activities harmful to public health. As such broad interpretation can hinder specialization and effectiveness, those areas with low or no public heath threats should be limited to medical practitioners with specialized knowledge and skills. Moreover, the areas that overlap among the medical practitioners should be determined as to whether they are within the boundaries of licensed areas in accordance with the purpose of the Medical Services Law, which is the advancement of citizens’ health.

The punishment laws and regulations should be strictly interpreted and applied according to phrases based on ‘Nullum crimen sine lege’ principles, and they should not be interpreted excessively in disadvantage of the defendant nor be interpreted analogically, and requirements and/or conditions of attachment of electronic device should be also interpreted in same way. The prosecutors were permitted to ask the court order of attachment of electronic device in accordance with the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders when a criminal was admitted to have habit by committing sex violence crime two times or more(including guilty judgment). Majority opinions accepted 'guilty judgment' only: When the court judged whether or not the one who was given request for oder to attachment of electronic device committed sex violence crime two times or more, it should not consider previous record of protective disposition in accordance with the Juvenile Act. On the other hand, minority opinions said that the regulation should be applied at guilty judgment only, so that previous record of protective disposition against sexual violence in accordance with the Juvenile Act should be applied to sex violence crime two times or more. Majority opinion followed not only the Juvenile Act but also protective disposition to be advantageous to the one who was given request for oder to attachment of electronic device: But, ‘committing crime’ was limited to ‘guilty judgment’ except for behavior of corresponding case not to be good from point of view of interpretation of the Criminal Act. Majority opinion said that the one who committed sex violence crime should be punished in accordance with the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders depending upon two cases to be unfair, that is to say, guilty judgment in accordance with general criminal procedures and protective disposition in accordance with the Juvenile Act. Judicial precedents of lower court differed to require legislative supplementation.

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.

In this article, I have investigated the major property criminal cases(i.e. embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud and theft cases) sentenced in the Supreme Court since 2000, and have analyzed the n otable importance and the implications of the judgement. I have tried to examine closely, how the Supreme Court has come to apply the judicial interpretation especially in academia to discuss issues or newly emerging types of crimes as the socio-economic situations change. In summary, it could be evaluated that the Supreme Court has emphasized on the principle of “nulla poena sine lege” to protect people from the punishment without law and the arbitrary exercise of state police power, and has made an effort to make the criminal law function at its best to defend liberty and legal benefit in property rights, in response to social and economic changes.

Looking at the 2000s, the Supreme Court has no detailed research on legal issues, leave the judgment of the past and the trend seems to quote. For example, errors of law in the judgment of a legitimate reason, joint principal offender the functional activity of the dominant theory of criminal law theory, Studies of accumulated information, we accept them gradually is moving in the direction. But the Supreme Court include the specific criteria are difficult to understand the concept and are using them. Nevertheless, the fact that by missing arguments for the inclusion of judgment comes to the conclusion lacks a logical basis for a problem that is leaving. The concept of morals and social standards for the presentation of an abstract interpretation and judgment, collusion joint principal offender beliefs about the uncritical criticism of scholars for the future through careful research accumulated in Criminal Justice Studies, by accepting the theory and practice of will have to endeavor to harmonize. Thinking and knowledge learned in courses to apply it in practice will need to prevent useless. Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies is celebrating its 20th anniversary, criticism of the theory and practice through the mutual development to be able to look forward to continue to evolve.

Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies that had scientific seminar for the first time on February 22, 1992 had 20th anniversary. On June 1, 1993, Pakyoungsa published No.1 of Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies that included 14 theses released one year since February 1992. Since then, Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies was published continuously, and it was likely to publish volume 20 in June 2012. The annotations that were published by Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies were written by 146 authors to include 404. The Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies selected either judicial precedents in dispute or judicial precedents from anther point of view to investigate from point of view of criticism and to be likely to develop continuously. Collection of Korean Journal of Criminal Case Studies that increased number of volume was likely to have model of journal of criminal case studies, for instance, wide scope of judicial precedents, variety of authors and annotation methods to have literary values.