Background: The PyeongChang 2018 Winter Paralympic Games (WPG) being one of the most successful Paralympic Games (PG) in modern athletic world history, hosted the largest number of elite athletes representing 49 National Paralympic Committees (NPCs). Objects: The present investigation highlighted the demographic and clinical characteristics of injured athletes and non-athletes and the physiotherapy services provided during the PyeongChang 2018 WPG. Methods: Prospective descriptive epidemiology study, in which the study group comprised of 201 participants (51 athletes and 150 non-athletes) who were admitted to and utilized the polyclinic physiotherapy service of 2018 PyeongChang WPG in Physiotherapy Department of Paralympic Village from March 1, 2018 to March 20, 2018. Results: Qualitative frequency analysis of injury type demonstrated highest number of chronic injuries (51%, n = 100) in athletes and non-athletes. Anatomical injury site analysis revealed that the spine and shoulder areas were affected with equal frequency for athletes (54.9%, n = 14), whereas for non-athletes, the frequencies of spine and shoulder area injuries were 36.7% (n = 55) and 26% (n = 39), respectively. The Pyeongchang WPG showed a high rate of athletes visiting the physiotherapy service during the pre-competition period (33.3%, n = 50), which may have led to smaller incidence rate of traumatic injury. The physiotherapy treatment service analysis demonstrated that manual therapy (35.4%, n = 230) was most commonly utilized, followed by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation/interference current therapy (TENS/ICT), therapeutic massage and therapeutic exercise. Conclusion: We established the importance of prophylactic and preventive physiotherapy services to reduce the risk of sports injuries during WPG.

이 연구는 국내 대학 엘리트 축구선수를 대상으로 스포츠 손상과 관련된 선행 연구를 토대로 스포츠 손상 경험과 부위를 살펴보고 그에 따른 효과적인 재활프로그램의 방향성을 제시하고자 실시되었다. 이 연구에 참고자료로 이용된 6편의 연구는 한국학술정보서비스(KISS), 학술연구정보서비스(RISS), 학술데이터베이스서비스(Dbpia)에서 검색어 "대학축구선수 & 손상", "축구 & 스포츠손상"이라는 검색어를 통해 검색된 연구 중 2000년부터 2021년까지 발표된 연구를 중심으로 전문가가 연구에 적합한 연구만 선별하여 연구를 진행하였다. 이 연구에서 분석한 대학축구선수의 손상 경험은 144명의 축구선수 중 120명(83%)으로 나타났고, 손상 횟수는 손상 경험이 있는 선수에게 있어 2.58회로 나타났다. 또한, 각 연구에서 보고된 손상 부위는 하지에 주로 나타나는 경향을 보였는데, 도진학 연구에서는 80.6%, 김은국 등 연구에서는 61.8%, 김태규 등 연구에서는 90%, 김한범과 권순용 연구에서는 86.6% 등으로 나타났다. 결론적으로 대학축구 선수에게 있어서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 훈련 부상을 줄이는 것에 중점을 두어야 하며, 개인적인 측면에서 손상에 대한 의학적이고 과학적인 재활프로그램이 진행되어야 한다. 또한, 적절한 트레이닝 규칙을 시행하고 경기 중에서는 페어플레이에 집중하는 것과 같은 예방적 개입을 분석개발하여 경기 관련 부상 발생을 줄이는 것이 무엇보다 중요할 것으로 사료된다.

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.