컨테이너 선사들은 세계경제의 불황과 고유가가 지속되고 있는 상황에서 선박운영비용을 낮추기 위한 다각적인 노력들을 전개하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서, Grand Alliance는 극동 북미서안 서비스인 CCX와 극동 북미동안 서비스인 NCE에 서비스별 선박추가 투입대신에 Dedicated Feeder 투입을 하기로 결정하였다. 즉, 기간항로의 선박이 북중국항만에 기항하지 않고 환적항인 부산항에서 Feeder선을 통하여 환적 운송하게 된다. 본 연구에서는 전용피더 서비스 도입을 통한 환적의 경제성 효과를 확인하기 위하여 Grand Alliance 컨테이너 서비스의 실제 운영 자료에 대해 분석하였다. 이와 같은 전략을 통해 Grand Alliance의 'NCE, 'CCX'항로는 기간항로에 투입되는 선박의 감속운항이 가능하게 되어 선박 운영비의 절감 효과를 보이고 있다.

에폭시 수지는 접착성, 물리적 강도, 전기적특성이 우수하여 전기적 절연재료로 널리 사용하고 있다. 그러나 설치장소 및 운전 상태를 고려한 장기수명 및 신뢰도 향상을 위해 전기적, 열적 특성변화의 열화연구가 절실히 요구된다. 본 연구에서는 부스닥트용 에폭시분체도료의 가속열화를 통해 다양한 상용 에폭시 절연재료의 전기적, 기계적 특성을 비교 분석하였으며, 특히 Class F 급과 Class B급의 에폭시 절연재료의 성능을 상호 비교 하였다. 이에 Class F급 2종 중 1종의 시편155도 이상의 온도에서 절연성능이 보장되었으며, 기계적 밴딩 테스트의 경우 Class B급의 경우가 우수한 성능을 확보하였다.

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.

As our Statute of Criminal Procedure compels the appellant to file statement of reason for appeal, the court is to hand down ruling of rejection without reviewing the merits of the case when the appellant fails to file statement of reason for appeal. However despite the appellant's negligence to file that statement, the court is obliged to review the case as far as the case involves the issues to be investigated ex officio. The case at issue not merely shows that it does not suffice for the prosecutor to just claim 'error in fact', 'error in legal principles' or 'the intent to modify the indictment' without elaborating on grounds for appeal when filing statement of reason for appeal, but also informs that the court cannot hand down ruling of rejection without reviewing the merits of the case once the appellant has filed statement of reason for appeal, which does not meet the requirement. While the Statute of Criminal Procedure remains silent concerning the scope and limit of ex officio investigation, the Supreme Court defines the issues to be investigated ex officio as issues the court is obliged to investigate regardless of the parties' claims, such as misapplication or misunderstanding of statutes. As the Court's definition is too vague, it serves too little. It will be useful to categorize the issues to be investigated ex officio. The Court seems to be indifferent in drawing a clear line between the issue to be investigated ex officio pursuant to Art. 361-4 Para. 1 and the issue to be examined ex officio pursuant to Art. 364 Para. 2. However it is desirable to distinguish the former from the latter since each has its own ground, conditions or legal effect.