This study identified the sensory properties of samples of pizza dough at three pizza companies and three masonry oven pizzerias from Seoul, Korea and compared consumer acceptability among panels of university students. Six pizza dough samples were prepared (pan pizzas from Pizza Hut, Mr.pizza, and Dominos pizza, masonry oven baked pizzas from Appleteen, Mr.Lee’s, and Pizza factory). Consumer tests were employed involving 97 Korean consumers. Consumers evaluated overall liking (OL), liking of appearance (APPL), odor (ODL), flavor (FLL), and texture (TXTL), willing to try (WT), and willing to recommend (WR) for the samples using a nine-point hedonic scale. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that HutP, MrP, and DomP samples had significantly (p<0.05) high scores for roughness, porosity, crust color, grain size, brownness, dairy food aroma, savory taste, and yeast aroma, which had the highest OL, ODL, and FLL scores. LeeP, ATeenP, and PFacP samples had high elasticity, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness. Consumers favored the appearance characteristics and color, dairy product flavor, and savory flavor of the pan pizza and preferred cohesiveness, toughness, and stickiness of masonry oven baked pizza.

The Chinese nation created splendid culture and had a profound influence on the Korean peninsula. With the development of reform and the enlargement of influence，the research about the spread and education of the Chinese characters on the Korean peninsula became prosperous and obtained a series of achievements. This paper introduces and summarizes the achievements and insufficient about the research so as to scholar for further research.

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.

Due to the limited pendulum motion range, the conventional one-pendulum driven spherical robot has limited driving capability. Especially it can not drive parallel direction with center horizontal axis to which pendulum is attached from stationary state. To overcome the limited driving capability of one-pendulum driven spherical robot, we introduce a spherical robot, called KisBot II, with a new type of curved two-pendulum driving mechanism. A cross-shape frame of the robot is located horizontally in the center of the robot. The main axis of the frame is connected to the outer shell, and each curved pendulum is connected to the end of the other axis of the frame respectively. The main axis and pendulums can rotate 360 degrees inside the sphere orthogonally without interfering with each other, also the two pendulums can rotate identically or independent of each other. Due to this driving mechanism, KisBot II has various motion generation abilities, including a fast steering, turning capability in place and during travelling, and four directions including forward, backward, left, and right from stationary status. Experiments for several motions verify the driving efficiency of the proposed spherical robot.

The right to remain silent is a basic right of the defendant or suspect guaranteed by the constitution and criminal procedure law. It is important to notify the right to the defendant or suspect so that he can excercise the right properly and effectively. It is appropriate to exclude the statement made by the suspect if the Miranda right notice is not given to him. However, once the police officer give the Miranda warning to the suspect, the statement after the notice can be admissible by the purged taint exception rule except that the officer abuse the rule. In addition to that, even if there is a breach of notification, the real evidence should be admissible. It is because the purpose of Miranda rule is to protect the statement not the real evidence. According to newly revised Korean Criminal Procedure Code, the range of exclusion can be interpreted very widely. However, we must be careful when we apply the rule to the real case in order to seek the balance between the human rights and social safety.

The right to remain silent is a basic right of the defendant or 녀spect guaranteed by the constitution and criminal procedure law. It is important to notify the right to the defendant or suspect so that he can excercise the right properly and effectively. The timing of notification and the content of the right to remain silent are closely related. The investigator should notify the suspect or defendant of this right before conducting any questioning that could incriminate the suspect or defendant. Considering the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act which punishes the defendants and suspects who do not cooperate in identification process, they may not exert their right to remain silent during that procedure as legally guaranteed rights. Identification itself isn't a disadvantageous thing to the suspect or defendant. There are many countries which impose a penalty on the suspect or defendant who doesn't state his or her identification. In addition to that, even if there is a breach of notification, the statement should be admissible by the standing theory or for impeachment purpose. According to newly revised Korean Criminal Procedure code, notification is not required until the identification process has finished during the investigation process. And if the suspect or defendant initiates a voluntary statement, the statement should be admissible without the "Miranda" warning.

The Supreme court admits the real evidence in spite of the unlawfulness during the process of acquiring it. The reason of the theory is that truth-worthiness of the real evidence has not been changed by the fault of the investigation in gathering evidence. Considering the want of Destruction of Justice statutes, the Supreme court strikes the balance between the public interest and private protection by admitting the real evidence on all occasions. The reformed Criminal procedure law is going to introduce the exclusionary rule. The §302-2 stipulates that "The evidence which is not gathered by lawful process should be excluded." Comparing with other developed countries exclusionary rule, it is too broad. For instance, PACE act §78 (1) in England is “In any proceeding the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it." In Canada, the constitution §24 ② provides that “Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice in to disrepute." Even in the U.S., there are lots of exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Good faith theory, harmless error rule, the standing, restrictive application in Miranda rule violation. collateral use are the examples. The German's Beweisverwertungsverbote is the theory concerned about balancing the interest to protect the privacy. Thus basically it doesn't matter the manner of gathering the evidence. So it stats from quite different angle. When it comes to our exclusionary rule, we must be prudent when we apply the rules to the real case. We don't have to exclude the real evidence solely because it is not obtained according to the process of law. We should take into account the motive of the police, the seriousness of the case, the deterrence effects, the influence on the administration of justice, the value of the evidence. If the evidence is procured by private party, it should not be excluded. The criminal justice system don't have to depend on third party's action. Also there is the possibility that the third party or dependant will abuse the rule. There will be no remarkable deterrent effect, even if we remove the evidence on account of private party's illegal behavior.