In a sex offender ecosystem, it is necessary to ensure that rape is applied only to violent breaches of at least sexual self-determination. However, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court may have too broad a range of rape cases in this case. On the contrary, The first and second trial courts seem to be wary of further rape charges. On the basis of this case, it is likely to be the type that corresponds to the sexual compel in the German criminal law. So it would be more appropriate to introduce and punish the sexual compel in legislation if consensus was formed on the need to punish people for forcing sexual behavior. That would also eliminate the need to stretch and punish rape charges. The Supreme Court calls the degree of rape and intimidation the most serious offense and threat. But, it seems that the comprehensive judgment system applies the standards of violence and intimidation of consultation. However, such a comprehensive judgment does not provide a clear standard. Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court made a different judgment from the first and second trials. However, the main reason why it is difficult to consistently punish sex crimes is because there is a big problem with the current sex criminal law system. As the wrong legal system is filled with diverse legal interpretations, the burden is entirely on citizens. Therefore, it is inevitable that there continue to be disturbance in the ecosystem of sex crimes. The preferred way to fix this mess is for lawmakers to fix the current sex crime system. And the court should try to help citizens form a proper consciousness of norms on sex crimes through a consistent and clear application of the law.

The purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains is to deprive the crime of its illegal profits and prevent it from being retained. On the other hand, under criminal law, joint crime, teacher crime, and accessories are intended to be punished for criminal acts and their degree of participation, so the two do not necessarily have to be consistent in logic. In other words, if a person is merely an accessory and receives sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she should pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. but if a person is joint principal offender and receive not sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she do not need to pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. In the result, who will pay the penalty from depends on the attainment of the purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains.

Heute haben fast alle Leute, die Internet benutzen, Internet-Link direkt oder indirekt erheben. Die Frage ist, dass man sich durch Internet-Link ab und zu unrecht webseite, z.B. Angriff auf Urheberrecht, Porno etc. nährt. Dann kommt es zuerst in Betracht, ob man, wer einen Link auf diese Webseite erstellt, die Beihilfe betrifft. Zweites ist die Frage, ob Internetdienstanbieter, wer einen Internetraum anbietet, auch die Beihilfe von Beihilfe(Kettenbeihilfe) betrifft. Aber es ist nicht einfach, dass Internetdienstanbieter den Vorsatz bei Beihilfe hat, weil es ist –nach in dubio pro reo- auch schwer, dass er Unrecht von einem bestimmten Website erkennt.

There are futures, options as derivatives in our capital-market including KOSPI200 futures and options. Unfortunately linked-manipulations between stock tradings and derivatives tradings happen too often. It is able to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock tradings using some criterias ; real purposes of tradings, rationals manners or not, the scales of profits. These acts of unfair trades are increasing in our capital market and especially the occurrences of new type of unfair trades cast attentions on same fields for example manipulations disguising hedge in option trades etc. Crimes in manipulations fields are developing without halts. In order to cope with its revolutions, we should make clear standards to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock-tradings by searching same case studies.

1. Im folgenden wird die Rechtsprechung des koreanischen obersten Gerichts(das höchste Gericht, 27. 11. 2014, 2013do15164) kommentiert. Dabei geht es um folgenden Sachverhalt. A hat das Gesäß der jungen Frau berührt so dass er wegen des Verstoss gegen das Gesetz zum Schutz von Kindern und Jugendlichen(das sog. Jugendschutzgesetz) verurteilt wurde. Nachdem seine Brufung sowie Revisionn erfolglos war, wurde dieses Uteil endgültig festgeschrieben. Gemäß §34 Abs. 1 dieses Gesetzes soll der wegen der sexuellen Belästigugung Verurteilte aber innerhalb von 40 Tagen bei der für seinen Wohnsitz zuständigen Polizei persönliche Daten vorlegen. Dennoch hat er ohne triftigen Grund diese Auflage nicht erfüllt so dass er bei der ersten Instanz zur Urteilsbebewährung zur Geldstrafe eine Milion Won verurteilt wurde. Dagegen hat er bei der Berufungsinstanz beschworen, dass er kein Unterlagen über die Anmeldugnspflicht bei der Polizei erhlaten hat. Während die zweite Instanz das Urtiel der ersten Instanz verworfen hat, wurde diese Entscheidung wiederum beim obersten Gericht aufgehoben. 2. M.E. geht es hier eigentlich darum, wie die Anmeldepflicht, persönliche Informationen bei der Polizei vorzulegen, aufzufassen ist. Hier ist sehr hilfreich, wenn die Dikussion in Deutschland in Bezug genommen wird. Tiedemann zufolge, der die sog. Vorsatztheorie vertritt, soll die Verbotskenntnis zum Vorsatz gehören, wenn dies vernünftigerweise unerläßlich ist, um ein Unrechtsbewusstsein zu haben. Diese Überlegung beruht darauf, dass die Tatbetandsverwirklichung eine Unrechtsimpuls vermittelt und dass ein solcher Unrechtsappell nur aus der Verwirklichung unrechtstypischer Umstände erwächst. Auch Roxin behauptet die sog. weichere Schuldtheorie, nach der das Bewusstsein der Rechtswidrigkeit in weitem Umfang Vorsatzbestandteil bildet, wenn die rechtliche Missbiligung eines Verhaltens erst durch außertatbestandliche Gebote oder Verbote hervorgerufen wird, wie es häufig im Nebenstrafrecht zu beobachten ist. Denn der Sinn seines Verhaltens bleibt dem Täter eben bei seinen Fehlen verschlossen. Zum Beipiel kann allein derjenige gegen eine strafbewehrte Meldepflicht verstoßen, der diese Meldepflicht kennt. Tiedemann und Roxin sind darin einig, dass das eine intellektuelle Fehlleitung des Täters einen anderen Vorwurf verdient als seine etisch-moralische Fehlleistung. Aber anders als Tiedemann, der in diesen Fällen bereits den Vorsatz des Täters verneint, will Roxin zwar den Vorsatz stehen lassen, aber durch Annahme eines unvermeidbaren Verbotsirrtums zu einem Freispruch kommen. 3. Im Gegensatz zur herrschenden Lehre hat das oberste Gericht §16 des Koreanischen Strafgesetzes dahingehend ausgelegt, dass lediglich die positive irrige Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, als Rechtsirrtum gewertet werden soll. Dagegen soll die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden. Aber diese vom obersten Gericht vorgenommene Beschränkung des Verbotsirrtums auf die positive Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, setzt sich folgende Einwänden aus. Zuerst geht diese Auslegungspraxis auf den Grundgedanken, dass eoror iuris nocet, der in der modernen Zeit nicht gelten kann, weil niemand unzählige Nebenstrafgesetz kennt. Zweitens kann diese enge Auslegung des Rechtsirrtums auch zur Friktion mit der Schuldfähigkeit zur Folge haben. Denn die Rechtsfolge fallen unterschiedlich aus, je nach dem, nach welchem Grundsatz die Fehlvorstellung des Täters beurteilt werden soll, auch wenn die Unrechtseinsicht in beiden Fällen gleich sein soll. Drittens liegt der Haupteinwand darin dass diese Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gerade gegen das Schuldprinzip verstößt, das Strafe Schuld voraussetzt, die das Bewusstsein fordert, Unrecht zu tun. 4. M.E. gibt es zu dem betreffenden Fall drei verschiedene Lösungswege. Die erste Lösung geht davon aus, dass das Gesetz, in dem die Anmeldungspflicht des Verurteilten vorgeschrieben ist, ein Tabestandselement darstellt. Daher soll der Vorsatz des Täters verneint werden, wenn der Täter das nicht kennt. Diese Ansicht hat die zweite Instanz behauptet. Die zweite Lösung, die vom obersten Gericht vertreten wird, behauptet, dass die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden soll. Daher bleibt die Unkenntnis des Gesetezes unbeachtlich. Die dritte M.E. angemessene Lösung geht von der Schuldlehre, die den Vorsatz als Tatvorsatz und das Bewußtsein der Rechtswidrigkeit als ein vom Vorsatz getrennntes selbständige Schuldelement begreift, aus und beurteilt dann ‘den zureichenden Grund’ in §16 nach dem Kriterium der Vermeidbarkeit. Dabei geht es vor allem darum, zu überprüfen, ob der Täter einen Anlaß gehabt hätte, über eine mögliche Rechtswidrigkeit seines Verhaltens nachzudenken oder sich danach zu erkundigen. Dabei sei erwähnt, dass die Entscheidung letztlich von der konkreten Sachlage abhängt. 5. Letztlich sei hier empfohlen, über die Plausibilität der Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gründlich nachzudenken. Dabei sollen vor allem die theortischen Auseinandersetzungen über den Irrtum in Nebenstrafrecht in Deutschland in weitem Maße berücksichtigt werden. Das ist deswegen dringlich vonnoten, weil die verhängte Strafe in diesem Fall uns überhaupt nicht überzeugt. Vielmehr sollte Nachsicht am Platz sein, wenn Tatbestandsvorsatz nicht ohne wieteres den Schluß auf die Kenntnis der Rechtsdwidrigkeit nahelegt.

Von einem Jurisdiktionskonflikt i.w.S. kann an sprechen, wenn ein Täter in einem Land bereits wegen einer bestimmten Straftat abgeurteilt wurde, später aber erneut in einem anderen Land wegen derselben Straftat abgeurteilt werden soll. Grundsätzlich wird eine solche mehrfache Strafverfolgung durch den ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz verboten. Er ist jedoch im zwischenstaatlichen Rechtsverkehr nicht anerkannt. Danach ist nur eine mehrmalige Verurteilung durch koreanische Gerichte verboten. Trotzdem ist die Möglichkeit der Doppelbestrafung gegen Verdächtigen geblieben. Deshalb werde ich mit diesem Aufsatz den Reformvorschlag über das Art.7 KStGB überprüfen wie im folgendem; 1) KOGH 2013. 4. 11., 2013Do2208 Urteil; KVerfGE 2015. 5. 28., 2013Heonba129 Urteil 2) Einleitung 3) Die Geschichte des Art.7 KStGB und Ihre Diskussion über den Reformvorschlag 4) Die Stellungnahme von Lehre und Rechtsprechung über Art.7 KStGB - Lehre und Rechtsprechung in Korea und eigene Stellungnahme 5) Die verschiedene Gesetzgebungsmodelle auf die Behandlung der im Ausland vollstreckten Strafe - GB, USA, Deutschland, Japan, Österreich, China 6) Art.7 KStGB de lege ferende (1) ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz und Art.7 KStGB (2) Zum Anrechnungsprinzip als Reformvorschlag des Art. 7 KStGB

The offense of disturbance of domestic peace and security (trespass) has a not inconsiderable amount of theoretical problems that deserve a closer look. Among them is the following case, whether the enter through concealing the criminal purpose must be punished with trespassing. Previously the supreme Court of Korea affirmed on this issue with the grounds that penetrate is against the true (hypothetical) will of the injured. But the solution of supreme court is not without problems. Penetrate is entering the protected space against the will of owner or others who have the right of possession. So if the owner approves entering, there is a priori no ‘penetrate’ and therefore no trespassing. The consent of the owner is basically also effective even if it was fraudulently by mere deception. The intent of the perpetrator in the house to commit a crime (for example theft) is not critical because it is not recognizable to outsiders. This view is substantiated by a case study: Through deception of his purpose A can go into another house with consent of owner. After A’s criminal plan this first visit is only for identification of the object of the crime. He wants to commit theft at the next visit, if only there is nobody in the house. In my opinion, A can not be punished as the offense of trespass.

The calculations of price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions in our capital market, it is regarded as technicals and normatives issues. We have a burning problem which we have to make its scoring criterias. The standard of counting unfair crimes in capital market have relevance to the calculation of its unjust profits. I can't accept the decision of supreme court that declared price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions as a comprehensive crime with a consequence that its offenders may be placed on a mild punishment unduly. We should punish offenders who have committed crimes in capital market in order to protect investor's personal property consequently we should apply our current law to unfair crimes in capital market in which price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions are regarded as severals separated-crimes not as a comprehensive crime.

These acts of unfair trades are increasing in our capital market and especially the occurrences of new type of unfair trades cast attentions on same fields for example manipulations disguising hedge in Knock-out option trade etc. Elements of some crimes in which unfair trades result are composed of requirements objective and subjective, in that case the latter is more important than the former.We could prove it the satisfaction of objective elements by comparing the share price produced by manipulations with original price. But it is very difficulty that we prove the satisfaction of subjective elements because it is inward intentions.When intending on manipulations, the intention is represented by inducing transactions. Inducing transactions is usually so unrevealed that unless a criminal confesses his intentions, we should prove it by assembling indirect evidences and total circumstances.Crimes in manipulations fields are developing without halts. In order to cope with its revolutions, we should make flexible applications of inducing meaning and establish concrete legal basis focused on specific features according to trading shares in each stage. Further more it is necessary to abolish one of several subjective requirement that is inducing through a future revision of law.

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 relation with ‘affairs’ that become protecting objects of the affairs disturbance crime, there are pro and cons discussions about whether public affairs are included in the affairs in the crime centering on relations with ‘public affairs’ at the resisting arrest crime by chances of the harmonization judge in Supreme Court at 2009, but it is in situation of hardly finding out related discussions on ‘protecting values’ of the affairs actually. So, contrary features of judgment about existence of preventing values on the same affairs in practices become to be contacted frequently from lower and higher courts. Based on such awareness of issues, this study tries to look into attitudes of existing theories and judicial precedents on affairs’ protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime first, and then analyze them. And the study accentuates urgency of standard setting-up on affairs’ protecting values with bases of existing discussions, and investigates relations between public affairs and protecting values in the resisting arrest crime and legal nature of affairs disturbance crime for making a presupposition of discussions. After that, this study will review matters that have not to be corresponded to criminality which is prohibited by laws and objected to criminal penalties as affair requirements of becoming protecting objects from the affairs disturbance crime, have not antisocial nature to the extent of not being accepted at all from social norms, and shall take protecting values by the criminal law in relation with object judgments. Above discussions aim at minimizing illegitimacy that affects influences to judgments by contributing to systematic establishment of jurisprudence on affairs which become protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime.

O.S.P. shall be criminally liable for offenses committed in cyber space on condition that it could be aware of its occurrences nevertheless nothing is taken expected elimination measures technically by itself. In principle, a professional person who manages its cyber space may suffer punishment and then a company that hires him suffer punishment as prescribed by penalty against employer and employee. O.S.P. could receive a criminal penalty for a crime omission as in the following conditions, first, it has found offenses committed in its cyber space or has not found it because of gross negligence, carelessness by O.S.P., second, O.S.P. have a technical skill and system for expected prevention or elimination a crime happened in cyber space but it didn’t do anything. A willful negligence by O.S.P. may be sufficient for criminal responsibility. The judgement as aforementioned cast a long shadow to us because it has set up the condition of O.S.P.’s criminal penalty in other words, possibilities of awareness, technical prevention, expectation for elimination illegal situation in cyber space etc. It is significant that O.S.P. could supervise and control its cyber space as a dangerous factor connected to offenses. However it feels lack of logical reasoning such like that. Now, we should fully discuss the matter that the building measures of prevention adverse effect by cyber space. The responsibility of O.S.P. should be imposed stringently than ever because offenses in cyber space could be occurred under unsuspected, usual time as a result damage may be very serious, mortal to a personal victim.

The article §329 of Criminal Act of Korea lay down like this; 'A person who steals another's property shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won'. Larceny is one of the most common occurred crime and make out a most basic theory of property offences. The purpose of this study is to analysis the object of larceny. 2010. 2. 25. the Supreme Court of Korea made judgement that a free newspaper could be the object of larceny, while the Supreme Court did not gave a decision concrete reason. Also to relate with value of property as the object of larceny, there is not provision in the criminal law. So value of property as the object of larceny entrusts a interpretation with full argument. The property as 'a thing of value' should be divided active value, passive value, financial value, subjective value and exchange value etc. The most contentious issue of these is interpretation of passive value and subjective value. But there has been no judical precedent for this kind of case especially subjective value as of yet. In my judgement, if any thing has only subjective value, it is not property.The contents of this study is as follows; Ⅰ. A progress report of judgementⅡ. Raise a questionⅢ. The relation of property and value Ⅳ. Review of judgement

The original ruling took into consideration the fact that the accused was a Chaebol owner and applied the concurrent offence punishment provisions and the discretionary sentence reduction system to lower the inferior limit of the penalty, and passed a suspended sentence. In order to divert public criticism, the original ruling also ordered a huge payment as a social contribution fund as a means of a community service order according to article 62-2 of the penal code. But the Supreme Court construed the concept of a community service order in a restrictive manner as ‘work or manual labor that can be imposed by the hour up to 500 hours.' As a result of this construction the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the original judgment that ordered the payment of a social contribution fund as a community service order. The original court maintained the suspended sentence by imposing a 300 hour community service instead of the original social contribution fund payment. Consequently the fairness of the examination of the offence was greatly impaired by lowering the inferior limit of the penalty to 3 years in a case in which the accused was proven guilty of 11 separate offences including one of which the penalty is stipulated as ‘life sentence or imprisonment for more than 5 years.' This ruling disclosed the problematic issues of the concurrent offence punishment provisions and the discretionary sentence reduction system that grant judges excessive discretion on weighing penalties. It is also legislatively meaningful that the case raised issues on introducing new forms of ‘suspended sentence conditional orders' such as fund payment orders or damage recovery orders.

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."

Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (“PTEA”) stipulates that any person who evades tax obligations through fraud of other wrongful conduct shall be punished under the PTEA. So far, most of discussions surrounding Article 9(1) of the PTEA were focused on the meaning of “fraud” or “wrongful conduct.” In the case at hand, the focus was on the meaning of “tax evasion.” There has been much controversy and debate over this issue. The debate centers on the issue of whether a person who has properly reported the tax base and therefore cannot be said to have interfered with the tax authorities’ ability to impose and determine tax liabilities, but instead has hindered the collection of the tax, can be punished under the PTEA. In the recent Supreme Court Decision 2005 Do 9546 delivered February 15, 2007 the court ruled that even if there was no interference of the imposition or determination of tax, if there was interference of collection of tax, then the conduct should also be punished. The author of this paper fully agrees with the Supreme Court's decision for the following reasons: First, the legislative purpose of the PTEA is to secure the state’s tax revenues as well as realize the spirit of fairness and justice in tax collection. Moreover, although anyone can report tax returns properly, if that person deliberately attempts to avoid the collection of tax, that conduct cannot go unpunished. Tax returns, in the end, serve the purpose of facilitating tax collection. Second, on a practical level, hindrance of the imposition /determination of tax and the hindrance of collection are both unlawful behavior that bring on the same result, and therefore should be treated alike. In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court decision is significant in that it clarifies the interpretation of “tax evasion” as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the PTEA. More importantly, this interpretation is in accordance with the principle of the legal principle of Nullum crimen sine lege.

선박의 대형화 및 해상사업의 기업화 등에 따라 해상운송에 있어 화물의 하역, 보관 등의 전문적인 부분을 담당하고 있는 항만하역업자, 항만터미널운영자, 창고업자 등 독립계약자의 역할은 점점 증대되어 가고 있는 추세이다. 하지만 국제해상운송은 해상운송인과 화주를 중심으로 체결한 운송계약을 중심으로 이루어져 왔으므로, 영국 보통법상의 직접계약관계의 원칙에 의해 계약당사자가 아닌 자는 계약상의 이익을 원용할 수 없다는 입장을 유지하여 왔다. 이에 대해 이를 완화하고자 하는 다양한 방안이 적용되고 있으며, '히말라야약관'도 그러한 방안중의 하나이다. 본 논문은 최근 대법원판결을 통해 우리나라 법원의 히말라야약관의 유효성 인정에 대한 내용을 재검토하고 독립계약자, 특히 항만터미널운영자의 운송계약상 제3자의 권리인정에 관한 문제에 대한 각국의 경향에 대해 살펴본다.

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.

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.