목적 : 보건복지부에서 시행되고 있는 장애인 보조기기 교부사업품목에 대한 작업치료사들의 인식도와 활용도를 조사하고 인식도 및 활용도 향상을 위한 의견을 알아보고자 한다. 연구방법 : 2018년 5월 1일부터 31일까지 부산·경남지역에서 근무하고 있는 작업치료사 132명을 대상으 로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 설문지는 일반적 특성, 보조기기 인식도, 보조기기 활용도, 보조기기 인식도 및 활용도 향상을 위한 방안으로 구성되었고, 총 68문항이다. 결과 : 설문에 참여한 작업치료사 중 96.2%가 보조기기는 장애인의 생활에 도움이 된다고 응답하였고, 도움이 되는 일상생활영역에 대해서는 운동성과 이동하기 영역이 가장 높았고 컴퓨터사용 영역이 가장 낮았다. 보조기기 품목별 인식도에서는 기울어진 숟가락과 두꺼운 손잡이와 식사 보조기기가 가장 높은 반면, 시각 신호표시기가 가장 낮았다. 보조기기 품목별 활용도에서는 욕창 예방용 방석 및 커버가 가장 높았고 시각 신호표시기와 음성유도장치가 가장 낮았다. 보조기기 활용빈도에 관한 질문에는 ‘가끔 한다’가 67.4%로 가장 높았으며, 향후 활용계획에 대해서는 ‘그렇다’라고 응답한 치료사가 77.3%로 가장 많았다. 보조기기 활용도 향상을 위해서는 43.2%가 기관의 재정적 지원, 32.6%가 보험수가 도입, 22.7%가 교육기회 제공이 필요하다고 응답하였다. 보조기기 관련 교육에 대해서는 32.6%와 65.2%가 각각 ‘매우 필요하다.’, ‘필요하다’라고 응답하였고, 교육유형으로는 38.9%가 전문 영역별 종사자 교육, 27.1%가 재활보조공학 관련 세미나가 필요하다고 하였다. 결론 : 본 연구는 추후 재활보조공학에 관한 교육 시 기초자료로 활용할 수 있을 것이다.

1. First of all, I intend to review the elements of fraud crime in Article 347 of criminal law and the meaning of ‘issuing act · issuing intention’(Ⅱ). I try to investigate the meanings of theories on why we use ‘act and intention of disposal’, which is not specified in the law, and what ‘issuing act · issuing intention’ means. In addition, I intend to analyze fraud related precedents of Supreme Court(Ⅲ). I am going to organize Supreme Court’s position of precedents from 1970s to February, 2017, and understand the tendency. Next, I will analyze majority opinions and minority opinions of the supreme court decision on fraud in February, 2017, which is the subject decision of this study(Ⅳ). I try to research from what perspectives the demonstration is done. I also consider the problems and improvement plans of the supreme court decision’s changing precedents. I will suggest an independent legislative change in the principles of safety, reliability and retroactive prohibition(Ⅴ). Lastly, I will consider the problems and improvement plans of Supreme Court sentencing’s sentences(Ⅵ). I will summarize the above contents at the conclusion(Ⅶ). 2. The supreme court decision, Supreme Court 2017. 2. 16. Decision 2016Do13362, changed the existing opinions. The following is the summary of the supreme court decision: “The disposal intention is enough if the deceived who is in the mistake recognizes what he or she is doing. It is not necessary to recognize the result of the act. The act of the deceived who sealed and signed on the disposal document can be considered as disposal act. Even though the deceived didn’t recognize the specific details or legal effects of the disposal result, or the document, he or she recognized the act of sealing and signing on the disposal document, so the disposal intention of the deceived is also acknowledged.”(the precedent that confirmed the theory of issuing intention necessity and the theory of issuing act recognition) 3. I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion. The meaning of the Supreme Court decision is that the deceived(victim) needs issuing intention, and the issuing intention contents are enough with issuing act recognition(in the expression of academic field and precedents, the theory of disposal act recognition, issuing situation recognition, damage causing recognition). “The victim and 7 others fell into an error due to the defendant’s deceiving act, so the deceived sealed and signed on the written application for registration of the right to collateral security settings needed for the defendant to loan 100 million won by mistaking for a document for furnishing of security for 30 million won, and the deceived had financial damages. Therefore, the act of the victim is also considered as disposal act in the crime of fraud.” This arranges many controversies clearly. I think the crime of fraud should be legally interpreted from the perspective of a person who performs the act. If the deceiving recognizes the issuing act of the deceived(victim), the deliberation can be acknowledged by subjective elements of a crime. 4. I think many precedents about Supreme Court’s ‘disposal intention and disposal contents of fraud’ had problems. It shouldn’t be interpreted too strictly under the term of ‘swindling signature’. Writing ‘document’ in deception or being issued with ‘seal’ and ‘authentication certificate of one’s seal’ is totally different from simple ‘document related crime’. The criminal intention at the time of act is different, and the risk of the second act of infringing the rights is very high. If too strict interpretation is done in the objective elements of a crime because the issuing act of the deceived is too concentrated, the criminal law can’t defend law and order.

This essay explores the theological view of the Early Church Fathers on the Septuagint. The Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX, was the first translation made of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek. Its origin of the translation is written in the Letter of Aristeas, a document that appeared in around 2C–3C B.C. The Torah was translated first, and other books of the Scripture including the Prophetic Books and Wisdom literature were included progressively. The Septuagint was the Bible used by Apostles and the early Christians. The use of the Greek Bible provided spiritual soil for the universal Christianity which successfully incorporated Jewish ideas into the teaching of Jesus in the Hellenistic settings. On the contrary, the Jewish religious leaders that would later form the Masorates rejected the value of the LXX as Canon by upholding only the Hebrew texts. In return, church fathers pointed out the intentional blurs of the Hebrew Old Testament, by claiming that, in the text, some of the passages representing the Messianic type of Jesus were altered or taken out. The essay analyses the writings of Justin the Martyr who defended the historical value of the letter of Aristeas and the supreme place of the Septuagint as Canon of the church. Irenaeus of Lyon also claimed the LXX as the Scripture of the “catholic” church. Most of the church Fathers including Clement of Alexandria supported the inspirational translation of the Septuagint, with firm faith on the legendary tradition gradually added to the Letter. While Origen was the first Christian scholar who compared the LXX with other translations including the Hebrew text then, it was Jerome who insisted canonical value of Hebrew text over the LXX. The outcome was his Latin Vulgate. Augustine, however, persistently opposed Jerome’s translation and use of the Hebrew text. The essay focuses mainly on the debates between the bishop of Hippo and the hermit of Bethlehem.

In Hinsicht auf die patristische Auslegungen über die vierte Brotbitte im Herrengebet(Mt. 6.11; Lk. 11.3) wurden uns zwei unterschiedliche Auslegungsrichtungen, nömlich spiritualisch und materialisch, überliefert. Unter “dem äglichen Brot(o ∈`π ι o α` p)” verstehen nicht nur Tertullianus, sondern auch Origenes als Christus, der “das vom Himmel herabkommende wahre Brot”(Jo. 6.32) oder “das Brot des Lebens”(Jo. 6.35) ist. In der Forderung Jesu, dass wir sein Reich und seine Gerechtigkeit beten sollen(Mt. 6.33), findet Tertullianus den Grund seiner exegetischen Richtung. Origenes, der darüber etymologisch am tiefsten erörtert, haben auch seinerseits mindestens zwei Gründe: erstens, Jesus erfordert uns, etwas Himmliches und Grösseres zu beten(Proöm. peri euches); zweitens, er leitet “∈`π ι o(täglich)” etymologisch von “∈πι την ouσιαν” aus, indem er “ouσια” als “notwendig” vesteht. Also "ό έπιουσιος 'άρτος” ist für ihn “das mit Wesen verbundene Brot”. Die biblich und etymologisch grundlegende Interpretation von Origenes wurde auf die “spiritual-erbauliche” Auslegungstendenz der folgenden Generationen ausgeübt. Im Gegenteil davon sehen darin Gregorios von Nyssa und Johannes Chrysostomos einfach materiales, reales Brot, weil Menschen, natürlich nicht Engel, unter Hunger leiden können und darum etwas zum Essen jeden Tag brauchen müssen. Aber dies Brot ist uns nicht preislos gegeben, sondern man soll es erwerben, insbesondere für Gregorios, als Lohn der fleissigen Arbeit(Gen. 3.19). Uns gibt es also der himmliche Vater, das daher das gerechtige Brot ist. Die Bedeutung der Gregorios’ Exegese ist schliesslich folgenschwer, besonders für das Thema “Reictum und Armut”. Die Unterschiedlichkeit beider Positionen könnten aus der zeitlichen Situations-veränderung zwischen dem 3. und 4. Jahundert, oder aus sozial-wirtlschaflich unterschiedlichem Hintergrund in Nordafrika und Asia Minor, oder aus der individuell theologischen Richtungen.