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.

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. IntroductionⅡ. The Cases relating to 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 comment on the case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2008Do4762 2. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 28. 2008Do8606 3. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 23. 2010Do7412 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 9. 2010Do6924 5. Supreme Court 2010. 7. 8. 2010Do931 6. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do6403 Ⅲ. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal LawIn 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 2010. 7. 15. 2010Do1017 2. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 27. 2009Do9008 3. Supreme Court 2010. 4. 29. 2009Do14554 4. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7405 5. Supreme Court 2010. 12. 9. 2010Do9630 6. Supreme Court 2010. 8. 19. 2010Do6280 7. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do387 8. Supreme Court 2010. 5. 13. 2010Do1040 9. Supreme Court 2010. 10. 14. 2010Do8591 10. Supreme Court 2010. 9. 30. 2010Do7525

In the year of 2009, 346 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. 6 cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, 3 cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other 3 cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court and 1 case by the constitutional court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows; Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. The Cases relating to General 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. 1. Supreme Court 2009. 9. 24. 2009도5302 2. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 11. 2008도11784 3. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 25. 2009도3505 4. Constitutional Court 2009. 6. 25. 2007헌바25 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. 1. Supreme Court 2009. 5. 14. 2009도1947, 2009전도5 2. Supreme Court 2009. 3. 26. 2007도3520 3. Supreme Court 2009. 9. 10. 2009도3580 4. Supreme Court 2009. 10. 29. 2009도5704 5. Supreme Court 2009. 8. 20. 2009도3452 6. Supreme Court 2009. 4. 9. 2009도128 7. Supreme Court 2009. 6. 25. 2008도3792 8. Supreme Court 2009. 5. 14. 2007도2168 9. Supreme Court 2009. 10. 15. 2009도7421 10. Supreme Court 2009. 2. 26. 2006도3119 11. Supreme Court 2009. 7. 23. 2009도3924

As crimes generating huge sum of benefit such as organized crimes, narcotic crimes, and pornography related crimes have been increasing, criminal special act intends to make a redemption for the benefits from criminal acts by the provisions of forfeit or additional collection. Generally, forfeit based on criminal law is characterized as security measure in that it prevents from keeping unlawful benefits by depriving criminals of profit from the wrongful acts. Therefore, when suspended sentence is added to the primary sentence, suspended sentence can be imposed to the additional collection. However, it is not available if it is not added to the primary sentence. Independent appeal on the additional collection is also impossible if there is no appeal for the final judgement. On the contrary, the additional collection from Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc, Customs Act, and Act on aggravated punishment, etc. of specific economic crimes is characterized as a punishment based on the fact of crime. However, in the targeted case, it is questionable that special laws consider the additional collection as punishment. Punitive additional collection is unfavorable to the offender because it can be imposed even though there is no actual benefit from the wrongful acts. Moreover, it is not reasonable to impose not only jointed additional collection based on civil law but also punishment. It is contradictory to the responsibility principle that criminal law calls for and the way of weighing of an offense. Additional collection to a person who simply transport or keep some goods, not to the person who obtain the goods, is not appropriate to the responsibility principle of criminal law. In this respect, the scope of the additional collection needs to be narrowed and it seems to be more reasonable to use the concept of deprivation of benefits from criminal acts.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.

In case of injury during a sports game, to punish the offender without exception might lead to withering of sports activities, whereas to get the offender exempted on the mere ground that injury occurred in the course of a sports game might cause plummeting of either legal stability or law-abiding spirit. So, it is vital to draw a bright line between criminal liability and moral obligation with regard to injury during a sports game. Scholars suggest the theory of victim's consent, the theory of tolerated danger, the theory of social reasonableness or the theory of non-legal issue as sources of justification to limit criminal liability. Each theory has its own merits and demerits. In order to punish the offender who inflicted injury by negligence during a sports game, general requirements of 'infliction of injury by negligence' occurrence of injury, ― causal relationship between offender's act and injury, breach of objective duty of care, etc.― should be met. Objective duty of care can be derived from statutes, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or court decisions. In a sports game however, rules of the game may be the most important source of objective duty of care. As rules of the game enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sports game, player's act against these rules can be treated breach of objective duty of care. It is excessive to deem all of the acts against rules of the game, including minor ones, breach of objective duty of care in light of the way a sports game is played as well as autonomy enjoyed in the sports field. Unless injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of the game beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found to breach objective duty of care. Rules of the game differ from type to type. In so-called type of rivalry sports games, rules of the game, while allowing the player or the team to make physical attack on the opponent to some extent, focus on diminishing or eliminating the possibility of injury. In so-called type of individual sports games, rules of the game prohibit dangerous act and call the attention of the players to avoid injury. To sum up, breach of rules may be treated more harshly and less flexibly in type of individual sports games than in type of rivalry sports games. The judgment under review in this paper has something to do with golf game, which belongs to type of individual sports games. The judgment thinks highly of rules of the game as source of objective duty of care. It also denies criminal liability in case of injury resulting from minor breach of rules of the game, which would reasonably be expected. On the face of it, the judgment seems to adopt the theory of social reasonableness. However, considering the courts usually dub social rule social reasonableness, the view taken by the judgment might be different from the theory of social reasonableness advocated by the scholars. The theory of social reasonableness relates to negation of applicability of criminal statute, whereas the view taken by the judgment might relate to negation of illegality. In such type of individual sports games as golf, the players enjoy game without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper to adopt the theory of victim's consent as source of justification to limit criminal liability in golf game. The judgment, in similar context, seems to have dismissed defense of 'victim's consent' raised by the accused. Even in case that the offender is held liable for infliction of injury by negligence with regard to injury during a sports game, the possibility to get relief is still open. If the offender reaches an agreement with the victim, he or she is able to avoid criminal punishment according to Art. 266 Para. 2 of the Penal Code.

In the year of 2008, 404 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. 4 cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, one of which was on the criminal procedure and the other 3 were on the criminal law. The cases which are reviewed in this paper is as follows; First, the cases by the counsel of all the judges of the supreme court. Among these are Supreme Court 2008. 6. 19. 2006 Do 4876. Supreme Court 2008. 4. 17. 2004 Do 4899, Supreme Court 2008. 4. 17. 2003 Do 758. Second, the cases relationg to the general principles of criminal law. Among theses are Supreme Court 2008. 3. 27. 2008 Do 89, Supreme Court 2008. 11. 27. 2008 Do 7311, Supreme Court 2008. 10. 23. 2005 Do 10101, Supreme Court 2008. 11. 13. 2008 Do 7143, Supreme Court 2008. 9. 11. 2006 Do 8376, Supreme Court 2008. 3. 27. 2007 Do 7874, Supreme Court 2008. 4. 11. 2007 Do 8373, Third, the cases relating to the individual crime provisions. Among these are Supreme Court 2008. 7. 10. 2008 Do 2422, Supreme Court 2008. 3. 27. 2008 Do 917, Supreme Court 2008. 10. 23. 2008 Do 6080, Supreme Court 2008. 4. 24. 2006 Do 9089, Supreme Court 2008. 12. 24. 2008 Do 9169, Supreme Court 2008. 10. 23. 2008 Do 5200, Supreme Court 2008. 3. 13. 2006 Do 3558.

Recently in Korea it is passionately disputed regarding criminal investigation system whether Article 139 of Korean Criminal Code is constitutional or not. Article 139 of Korean Criminal Code says as follows : Article 139(Obstruction of Official Duties for Vindication of Human Rights) A person who, performing police duties or assisting in such duties, interferes with the execution of duties of a public prosecutor concerning the vindication of human rights or who does not follow his instructions concerning the vindication of human rights, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years. Korean Constitutional Court ruled the provisions of the latter part of the preceding article is not against the Constitution. One of judges, Justice Gonghyun Lee, argued that this clause is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." In this review firstly is examined how this article was legislated in 1953 and what problem and criticism has been raised. Then is reviewed whether the provisions of the latter part of the preceding article is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." The Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Korean Constitution prohibited punishing “unless it is so authorized by an Act or without due process of law." This clause requires that criminal statutes should be drafted in a clear and understandable fashion. In this review it is concluded that the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 fails to meet this clarity standard and is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." Lastly, is discussed whether the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for unnecessary." The Article 37, paragraph (1) of the Korean Constitution required criminal statutes to restrict freedoms and rights of citizens ‘only when necessary.' A punishment should not be more severe than is necessary when punishing someone for a crime. In this review it is concluded that the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 fails to meet this proportionality standard and is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for unnecessary."

Criminal Act Article 37 defines the concurrent crimes. The preceding paragraph of Article 37 states coincidence concurrent crimes which is defined as ‘several crimes for which judgement has not become final.' The post concurrent crimes is defined as ‘A crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement' in the latter part of Article 37. The reason for regulating the post concurrent crimes(the latter part of the Article 37, Article 39) besides coincidence concurrent crimes(the preceding part of the Article 37, Article 38) is that the crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement is sentenced as coincident concurrent crime by definition. Therefore, the event which is not noticed to the court cannot be the reason of giving advantage or (especially) disadvantage to the criminal suspect. Amended by Act No. 7623, July, 29, 2005, Criminal Act Article 39 (1) is stated as follows.' In the event there is a crime which has not been adjudicated among the concurrent crime, a sentence shall be imposed on the said crime taking account of equity with the case where the said crime is adjudicated concurrently with a crime which has been finally adjudicated. In this case the said punishment may be mitigated or exempted.' According to the amendment, it is possible to reduce the disadvantage when the criminal suspect is sentenced as post concurrent crime than sentenced as coincidence concurrent crime. The current decision(2006Do8376) represents the first meaningful Supreme Court decision of amended Article 39 (1). The decision includes ambiguous statement such as “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the court may use the discretion in regard to reasonable determination of punishment by applying the previous statement. Therefore, the decision is not subject to restriction of severe application of Article 38 but also the mitigation or the exemption of punishment is considered as the court's genuine discretion. If the criminal suspect who commits a crime for which judgement to punishment has become final(b) and the crimes committed before the said final judgement(a) sentenced as coincident concurrent crime, the decision is not rational and it cannot meet the liability of the regulation. The current article critically examines the interpretation of Supreme Court statement of “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the further conclusion.

The merit of interactive flow of information, convenient popularization of information and massive information share through the internet is a quick and simple obtainment of the required information for everyone and anyone. Due to such characteristic, the probability of copyright violation through internet is increasing. However who is to take the blame as civil liability or criminal responsibility? Recently, The Supreme Court has judged civil procedures and Criminal cases about infringement of Copyright. Especially regarding Soribada service, whether the users who download the share files on P2P basis and the service providers are subject to the liability of copyright infringement. Soribada received a verdict of guilty as to aid and abet violation of the Copyright Act. The Criminal points at issue of Soribada service occasion are as follows. First, whether the service users have infringed the right to reproduce or distribution rights of the record producers. Second, who commits a crime have to cherish intention or at least wilful negligence. And intention of reproducing or distributing violated Copyright Act, includes who is the principal offender. but Soribada program providers don't have intention of the principal offender directly or indirectly. Third, crime commited by ommission demands commission duty and responsible persons are supposed to undertake their obligation. If not, ommission is criminal 'ACT'. but is Soribada program provider legally responsible persons? or What is his duty essentially? Thus, this paper reviews the criminal issues on the copyright violation of the P2P program provider, focusing Sribada occasion. In conclusion, The Supreme Court a judicial precedent 2005do872 regards it as appropriate to be given a decision of not guilty.

In 2007, 511 criminal cases of the korean supreme court are registered on the homepage of that court. 4 cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, one of which was on the crimial procedure and the others were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed several cases including two criminal cases by the supreme court counsel of all judge memberst and 1 case by the consititutional court. I. Cases by the counsel of all the judges of the supreme court. 1. Supreme Court 2007. 9. 28. 2007 Do 606. These cases are on the distinction of the completion from the attempt of the crime of threat 2. Supreme Court 2004. 4. 19. 2005 Do 7288. This case is on the amount of profit by property crimes. 3. Constitutional Court 2007. 11. 29. 2005 Heonga 10 This case is on the unconstitionality of the provision that punishes the employer because of the crime by the employee. II. Individual Cases In this paper, following cases are reviewed. 1. Supreme Court 2007. 8. 23. 2007 Do 4818. 2. Supreme Court 2007. 2. 8. Do 2006도7900 3. Supreme Court 2007. 12. 14. Do 2005도872 4. Supreme Court 2007. 2. 8. Do 2006도6196 5. Supreme Court 2007. 6. 29. Do 2005도3832 6. Supreme Court 2007. 1. 25. Do 2006도5979 7. Supreme Court 2007. 3. 15. Do 2006도9453 8. Supreme Court 2007. 5. 10. Do 2007도1375 9. Supreme Court 2007. 9. 20. Do 2007도5507 10. Supreme Court 2007. 3. 15. Do 2006도2704 11. Supreme Court 2007. 10. 12. Do 2005도7112 12. Supreme Court 2007. 3. 29. 2006 Do 9182

Till now we have inquired into problems about application of the Criminal Code Article 310 centering around the Supreme Court's case. To apply Article 310 to the case, the action of article 307① is to be true and a thing about only public interest. As the truth is a objective structure factor of article 307①, it is an acknowledge object of Intent, therefore if one believe non-true factor as true factor, he falls into an error of factor, So his action conforms not to article 307② but rticle 307①. And the aim of public interest is an subjective factor for justification of article 310, but the aim of maligning an innocent person is an subjective factor for justification of article 309. So the former is factor for decision of unlawfulness, the latter is a factor for decision of structure. After all without the former, the unlawfulness of the action is still recognized, without the latter the structure of the action is cut.

In our society, in which a great variety of risk business transaction are carried, the parties concerned require often untypical mortgage to the contraries to make such transaction easy and effective. According to this requirement, the contraries, members of corporation, should offer assets of their companies as an mortgage arbitrarily. Members, who dare to carry out risk transaction for excessively profitable business, are very likely to commit breach of corporational trust. Accordingly it comes to be very important issue, to what extent criminal law should intervene in attitude of counter partner involved in those cases. If members conducting affairs of business commit jointly breach of trust, they can be punished as accomplice each all, but it is disputable, whether counter partner without status as members can be punished as an accomplice under the same condition, namely the Act Control('Tatherrschaft' in german). Under the precondition of answering this question affirmatively, it becomes an issue to put meaning of the Act Control into shape. Related to what the Act Control means, its constituents, mainly division of execution as an objective condition, mutual connection of intention, should be analysed on after another. If counter partner without status as members can not be punished as accomplice because of lacking the necessary condition, another problem becomes to be posed, whether his conduct leave no room for being punished especially as assistance. Because he assists the principal, member of company, in a way of daily deal activity('alltaegliches Verhalten' in german), he can be probably not punished as assistance of trust breach. The decision concerned(supreme court 2005.10.8. adjudged 2005do4915 sentence) declared 'not guilty' because of lack of illegality based on social adequateness. Despite of proper conclusion, I doubt whether the restriction of the extent of assistance should be made at the second level of illegality, because the first level of elements of constitung the case("Tatbestandsmaessigkeit" in german) can restrict the extent of assistance, by means of normative restriction or objective imputation.