Recently in Korea it is passionately disputed regarding criminal investigation system whether Article 139 of Korean Criminal Code is constitutional or not. Article 139 of Korean Criminal Code says as follows : Article 139(Obstruction of Official Duties for Vindication of Human Rights) A person who, performing police duties or assisting in such duties, interferes with the execution of duties of a public prosecutor concerning the vindication of human rights or who does not follow his instructions concerning the vindication of human rights, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years. Korean Constitutional Court ruled the provisions of the latter part of the preceding article is not against the Constitution. One of judges, Justice Gonghyun Lee, argued that this clause is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." In this review firstly is examined how this article was legislated in 1953 and what problem and criticism has been raised. Then is reviewed whether the provisions of the latter part of the preceding article is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." The Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Korean Constitution prohibited punishing “unless it is so authorized by an Act or without due process of law." This clause requires that criminal statutes should be drafted in a clear and understandable fashion. In this review it is concluded that the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 fails to meet this clarity standard and is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for vagueness." Lastly, is discussed whether the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for unnecessary." The Article 37, paragraph (1) of the Korean Constitution required criminal statutes to restrict freedoms and rights of citizens ‘only when necessary.' A punishment should not be more severe than is necessary when punishing someone for a crime. In this review it is concluded that the provisions of the latter part of Article 139 fails to meet this proportionality standard and is unconstitutional on the grounds of “void for unnecessary."

Criminal Act Article 37 defines the concurrent crimes. The preceding paragraph of Article 37 states coincidence concurrent crimes which is defined as ‘several crimes for which judgement has not become final.' The post concurrent crimes is defined as ‘A crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement' in the latter part of Article 37. The reason for regulating the post concurrent crimes(the latter part of the Article 37, Article 39) besides coincidence concurrent crimes(the preceding part of the Article 37, Article 38) is that the crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement is sentenced as coincident concurrent crime by definition. Therefore, the event which is not noticed to the court cannot be the reason of giving advantage or (especially) disadvantage to the criminal suspect. Amended by Act No. 7623, July, 29, 2005, Criminal Act Article 39 (1) is stated as follows.' In the event there is a crime which has not been adjudicated among the concurrent crime, a sentence shall be imposed on the said crime taking account of equity with the case where the said crime is adjudicated concurrently with a crime which has been finally adjudicated. In this case the said punishment may be mitigated or exempted.' According to the amendment, it is possible to reduce the disadvantage when the criminal suspect is sentenced as post concurrent crime than sentenced as coincidence concurrent crime. The current decision(2006Do8376) represents the first meaningful Supreme Court decision of amended Article 39 (1). The decision includes ambiguous statement such as “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the court may use the discretion in regard to reasonable determination of punishment by applying the previous statement. Therefore, the decision is not subject to restriction of severe application of Article 38 but also the mitigation or the exemption of punishment is considered as the court's genuine discretion. If the criminal suspect who commits a crime for which judgement to punishment has become final(b) and the crimes committed before the said final judgement(a) sentenced as coincident concurrent crime, the decision is not rational and it cannot meet the liability of the regulation. The current article critically examines the interpretation of Supreme Court statement of “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the further conclusion.

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.

Till now we have inquired into problems about application of the Criminal Code Article 310 centering around the Supreme Court's case. To apply Article 310 to the case, the action of article 307① is to be true and a thing about only public interest. As the truth is a objective structure factor of article 307①, it is an acknowledge object of Intent, therefore if one believe non-true factor as true factor, he falls into an error of factor, So his action conforms not to article 307② but rticle 307①. And the aim of public interest is an subjective factor for justification of article 310, but the aim of maligning an innocent person is an subjective factor for justification of article 309. So the former is factor for decision of unlawfulness, the latter is a factor for decision of structure. After all without the former, the unlawfulness of the action is still recognized, without the latter the structure of the action is cut.

This paper reports on an analysis of English research article introductions written by English native speaking authors and Korean authors, using Swales` (1990) Create A Research Space (CARS) model. Data analysis leads to a modified version of the CARS model. The results of the analysis based on the revised one reveal that the NS and the NNS authors employ slightly but certainly different rhetorical strategies in writing research article introductions, which has pedagogical implications. Compared to the NS authors, the Korean authors are seen to employ the strategies of "claiming centrality" and "continuing tradition" slightly more often. The Korean authors justify their research by stating "a problem in the real world" more often and summarize principal findings less often.

KISTI는 학회업무 및 학술정보 관리를 학회가 어려움 없이 처리하도록 지원하고자, 학회 학술정보 유통체제 전 과정을 온라인 화하고 쉽게 관리할 수 있도록 한 KITTI­ACOMS (KISTI-Article COntribution Management System: KISTI-학회논문투고관리시스템)을 개발하여 2001년부터 학회에 무상으로 보급하여 왔다. 최근 KISTI-ACOMS를 이용하고자 하는 학회의 요청이 더욱 확대되고 있어, KISTI는 많은 학회의 특성들을 의견수렴 하여, KISTI-ACOMS의 표준화를 목표로 보완해 나가고 있다. 본 연구논문의 구성은 다음과 같다. 1. KISTI-ACOMS 개요 설명. 2. KISTI-ACOMS를 기반으로 구축한 한국작물학회의 학회 논문투고관리시스템의 모듈별 기능 및 사용자 접근 권한에 따른 논문투고 심사 단계별 처리 방법 기술. 3. 향후 시스템에 필요한 기능 및 명세를 기술함으로써 한국작물학회 뿐만 아니라 KISTI-ACOMS를 기반으로 한 개선 된 온라인논문투고관리시스템을 제시.