This study (1) explored spatio-temporal population distribution patterns in Jeonju by using emerging hot spot analysis and (2) identified the influential factors to determine the spatio-temporal patterns by using multinomial logit model. The major findings are as follows. First, the results of emerging hot spot analysis indicated that the 100*100m grid in the urban area of Jeonju was found to have a category of hot spots, whereas most of the cold spot series was concentrated in the outskirts of the city. Also, new towns such as Jeonju Eco City, Jeonbuk Innovation City, and Hyocheon District were persistent or intensifying hot spots, Third, the results of multinomial logit model revealed that the factors influencing deterrmining the spatio-temporal patterns were accessibility to schools, hospitals, parks, and walfare services. This study offered a deeper understanding of urbanization and regional changes in Jeonju, and important information for urban planning.

Exposure to the indoor air pollutants could be associated with the risk of developing atopic dermatitis, including allergic symptoms and exacerbations. A total of Fifty homes who had a past or current symptoms of atopic dermatitis were enrolled in the study. To rate the levels of environmental factor, we measured concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, Heavy metals XRF (X-Ray Fluorescene), Bacteria (CFU/m3), mold (CFU/m3) in dust of the children’s houses. The prevalence of atopic dermatitis in children is increasing especially in Urban areas. Exposure to levels of indoor environmental factor and air pollutants has been related to atopic dermatitis development. The house dust were higher for the results of atopy, asthma patients analyzed fungi and bacteria, resulting XRF measurements Cr (chromium), As (arsenic), Br (bromine), Cd (cadmium), Hg (mercury), Pb (lead) etc. this has a significant relationship. Recent studies have shown that indoor air pollutants control is beneficial in reducing atopic dermatitis prevalence and development. Urban areas children are exposed to kinds of indoor environmental factor and air pollutants that may lead to atopic dermatitis development.

On November 15, 2007 the Korean Supreme Court made a landmark decision to exclude illegally obtained physical evidence. In 2007 the National Assembly revised the Criminal Procedure Code to stipulate Article 308-2 for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, which is effective as of January 1, 2008. Since then, the Supreme Court has made a series of decisions whether to exclude the derivative evidence by applying the “fruit of poisonous tree” doctrine. This Article critically reviews four Supreme Court decisions regarding the “fruit of poisonous tree” doctrine. The issue of the first case is whether to exclude the succeeding blood test obtained upon the defendant’s request besides the breath analyzer test after illegal “voluntary accompaniment.” The issue of the second case is whether to exclude the following urine test obtained upon a judicial warrant in addition to the urine test obtained by illegal arrest. The issue of the third is whether to include physical evidence obtained by the following search of defendant’s home and his confession in police station even if police officer obtained the defendant’s personal information by the violation of the Act for Real Name Financial Transaction and Confidentiality. The issue of the fourth case is whether to exclude physical evidence obtained in the defendant’s home besides his incriminatory statements obtained without giving the Miranda warnings.

The defendant in this case withdrew 50,000 Won from a cash dispenser by using a cash card given by the card owner, who asked the defendant to withdraw 20,000 Won. The defendant gave 20,000 Won to the card owner, but took 30,000 Won for himself. The prosecutor accused the defendant of committing "fraud by using a computer" in Article 347-1 of the Penal Code, but the trial court held him not guilty in that the object of "fraud by using a computer" was limited to "property interest" different from "property." Appealing to the higher court, the prosecutor accused the defendant of committing "theft" in Article 329 of the Penal Code. However, the appeal court held him not guilty in that a cash dispenser was supposed to give cash to a cash card user if provided with a correct password; the bank, the occupier of the cash dispenser, could not be considered to have an intention of giving cash to a card user after reviewing the scope of the entrust between the card owner and the card user; therefore, the defendant did not withdraw cash against the intention of the bank. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court held the defendant committed "fraud by using a computer" in Article 347-1 of the Penal Code, providing when the defendant withdrew 50,000 Won, he did not commit "theft" while he acquired "property interest," which is 20,000 Won. This article reviews legal dogmatic issues of this case. First, it compares this new decision by the Supreme Court with its previous decisions where it held the defendant committed "theft" in that he withdrew cash from a cash dispenser by using a cash card without any entrust from the card owner. Second, it analyzes two important aspects of the case: whether the defendant in this case withdrew cash against the intention of the bank or not; why 20,000 Won in this case should be interpreted as "property interest," not "property."

The Korean Constitution and the Korean Criminal Procedure Code provide the emergency arrest exception for the warrant requirements. The investigative authorities can arrest suspects without an arrest warrant issued by a judge if there is "probable cause" to believe that a suspect has committed a felony and if there is concern to believe that the suspect may destroy evidence or attempt to escape. In the case of an emergency arrest, the Criminal Procedure Code does not require that an arrest warrant be filed within 48 hours but it only requires that a detention be filed, therefore, the warrantless arrest without any judicial control is legitimatized for at least 48 hours. As a result, the investigative authorities tend not to pursue the arrest on the warrant, but depend on the emergency arrest because it is free of any warrant requirement and gives them much time to interrogate the suspect without any judicial control. In addition, the investigative authorities have developed two kinds of convenient systems to avoid the warrant requirement. The first is "voluntary accompaniment," which is the Korean version of the U.S. Terry stop system. The second is "investigation of relevant persons" who voluntarily appear before the authorities following the authorities' request to come to the police station although they are not a suspect. Since these two systems are not officially a compulsory measure, the constitutional restrictions for an arrest warrant do not attach. In particular, the authorities often proceed these two systems first, try to acquire informations from citizens, then arrest citizens if they are not cooperative. This Article is to review two Korean Supreme Court decisions to deter these two investigative authorities' tactics. The Decisions of July, 6, 2006 provides strict requirements of permissible "emergency arrest" of the "relevant persons" who voluntarily appear before the authorities. The Decisions of September, 8, 2006 stablished that if the individuals who are asked to voluntarily accompany the officer to the police station are not given the "freedom to leave" at any time, as a practical matter, the "voluntary accompaniment" is an illegal arrest.