Korea Criminal Act(KCA) Art. 315(Interference with Auction or Bidding) reads as follows: “A person who interferes with the impartial conduct of an auction or a bid through fraudulent means or by the threat of force or by other means, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding seven million won.” So when a person(or a bidder) unlawfully manipulates computer programs of the agency calling for bids in order to obtain information about a minimum bidding price so that he can win the contract for sure. In the present case handed down by the Suprem Court of Korea, the defendants(bidder and manipulators) are found not guilty of Fraud by Use of Computer, etc(Art. 347-2 KCA) because a directness between a data processing and a property taking. The present paper agrees with the opinion of the Court, and moreover denies the violation of Fraud(Art. 347 KCA) in that the conduct does not make pecuniary loss to the agency. A bid-rigging is punishable by the Art. 315, and a violation of the Korean Anti-monopoly law and Construction law as well.

By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.

In this article, we analyze the decision of the Supreme Court in Korea with respect to the unauthorized modification of information and the immediacy of property disposal in a computer fraud critically. In the mentioned case, the defendant was charged with unlawful behavior to change the information by installing a hacking program on electronic bidding system of an administrative office. The author evaluated the defendant‘s conduct at issue not as an unauthorized change of information, but as an input of false information or illegal command input for computer. In terms of the immediacy of property disposal, this paper contends that we can’t say that computer fraud doesn’t hold, without exception, if a person involved in the property disposal process. In order to determine whether the computer fraud is established, we have to analyze the contents of the involved individual’s action in detail.

이 연구에서는 한국교육개발원의 “학교 교육 실태 및 수준 분석 연구”의 데이터를 사용하여 교사와 학생이 인식하는 교사의 사기를 분석하였다. 초·중·고등학교의 교사와 학생을 대상으로 교사의 사기와 그 추이를 분석한 결과 교사의 인식에 비해 학생의 인식 수준이 낮았다. 교사의 인식은 대체로 상승하는 경향을 보였지만, 학생의 경우에는 초등학생을 제외한 중등학교 학생들의 인식 수준이 감소하고 있었다. 교사의 사기에 대한 교사와 학생의 인식에 영향을 미치는 변수들을 분석한 결과, 초·중·고등학교 교사의 인식에는 성별, 학력, 경력 등의 변수가 영향을 미치고 있었다. 학생의 인식에 유의한 영향을 미치는 변수는 학교급에 따라 조금 다른 양상을 보였는데, 초등학생은 성취수준, 사회경제적 배경(SES), 부모의 교육적 지원, 학교수준의 사회경제적 배경(SES)이었고 중등학생에게는 성취수준, 사회경제적 배경(SES), 부모의 교육적 지원, 월평균 교육비, 조사 시기, 대도시, 설립유형, 학교급으로 나타났다. 교사의 사기에 대한 교사와 학생 간의 인식의 차이는 교육 현장에 존재하는 두 주체간의 거리를 확인하게 하는 계기가 되었다. 그러므로 교사의 사기를 높이기 위한 조치와 함께 교사와 학생간의 인식의 격차를 좁히기 위한 노력도 필요함을 시사한다.

Der Untreuetatbestand steht seit geraumer Zeit in Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit von Fachwelt und Öffentlichkeit. Der Untreuetatbestand sichert in allen Fällen ein im Grunde einfaches gesetzgeberisches Anliegen. Das Untreuedelikt soll insofern die Untreue nur dann strafbar sein, wenn der Täter, der die Geschäfte anderer verfügt, den Vorsatz, Vermögensschaden anderer herbeizuführen. In Hinblik auf den objektiven Tatbestand hat aber der Oberste Gerichtshof trotz der ausdrücklichen Regelung der Versuchsstrafbarkeit(§359 korStGB) auch das Untreuedelikt als Gefährdungsdelikt erfassen, so dass die Versuchshandlung nicht mehr zu bestrafen ist.24)Ob eine Tat die Tateinheit oder Tatmehrheit ist, ist ein wichtiges Problem. Weil die Konkurrenzlehre ist ein Problem nach der Entstehung einer Tat, soll die Entscheidung darüber eine rechtliche Würdigung sein. Ob eine Tat die Tateinheit oder Tatmehrheit ist, und ob eine Tat die Idealkonkurrenz oder Realkonkurrenz ist, soll nach anderem Massstab beurteilt werden. Darfür gilt es den Massstab über die natürliche Lebensauffassung. § 40 des koreanischen StGB lautet “verletzt dieselbe Handlung mehrere Strafgesetze, so wird die Strafe nach dem Gesetz bestimmt, das die schwerste Strafe androht“, also das regelt die Idealkonkurrenz. Trozdem sind viele Fragen nach der Idealkonkurrenz noch zu beantworten, insbesondere gibt es grosse Unklaheiten über ihre Bedeutung, Voraussetzungen, Arten, Rechtsfolge, Klarstellungsfunktion, und Genugtuungsfunktion.In vorliegende Arbeit wird über das Konkurrenzverhältnis zwischen Untreu und Betrug behandelt. Nach dieser Arbeit soll eine Handlung des Idealkonkurrenzes im Sinne der natürlichen Lebensauffassung ausgelegt werden.