본 논문은 학교폭력을 경험한 청소년이 학교폭력을 어떻게 바라보고 있는지를 밝히기 위해 학교폭력을 경험한 청소년 6명을 대상으로 2019년 6월부터 2023년 7월까지 심층인터뷰 방법을 통하여 자료수집을 했다. 이 자료를 바탕으로 현상학적 방법으로 분석했다. 분석결과 청소년의 학교폭력 경험은 4개의 상위범 주인 ‘구별짓기를 강요하는 학교’, ‘폭력의 트라이앵글’, ‘돌림노래 같은 가해자와 피해자’, ‘공동체 내에서 존중 획득하기’로 나타났다. 또한 각 상위범주에 따라 10개의 하위범주가 도출되었다. 이런 연구결과를 바 탕으로 청소년의 학교폭력에 대한 함의 및 제언을 제안했다.

Recent News patrons of incidents can be called sinkhole that occurred one after another (Sink Hole). Due to this anytime, anywhere I do not know how the land is turned off worry and anxiety is the reason why you can never be dismissed as exaggerated. As we have seen today through the video, the vehicle was traveling on a road or pedestrian who was walking down the street they look out of the basement of a sudden they still come to mind vividly. Here, examples and corresponding measures to prevent the sinkhole off the ground, including the causes and impact on society because of this that occurred, and policy measures and abroad are evaluated with respect to what it is.

This article is a critical review on a case, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1017 delivered on 2010. 7. 15. In the present case, the intimidated person neither felt fear nor was the subject of the harm threatened. Defendant threatened a person with a notice of harm that he would harm the legal interest of a corporation operated by the intimidated person. Supreme Court held that although the object of intimidation was not the subject of harm threatened, the behavior of defendant constitutes a crime of intimidation on the ground that a corporation can be a subject of harm threatened. Article 283 (1) of Criminal Law stipulates that the meaning of intimidation is “to threat a person” but it remains silent in the meaning and types of legal interest. This is why the concept of intimidation remains in the arena of interpretation. In order to interpret the meaning and the content of intimidation reasonably, it is essential to conduct comparative research on constituent elements of the crime of intimidation, as conducted in this study with provisions of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan. In the case of Korean Criminal law, not surprisingly, a third party including family members of intimidated person can be a subject of harm notified as there is no provision applicable to a situation in which the object of intimidation is not a subject of harm threatened. However, the object of intimidation should be in ‘close relationship’ with the subject of harm threatened. Especially, for a corporation to be an subject of harm threatened, the content of intimidation should be interpreted narrowly, when considering the legislative examples of countries aforementioned which confine the scope of subject of harm threatened. It is thought to be unreasonable to expand the scope of punishment on the crime of intimidation by interpreting the provision to provide no limitation on the content of harm notified. In the present case, intimidated person did not feel fear because the subject of harm threatened was not himself, but his corporation. Even from the standpoint that crime of intimidation is a crime of danger, it is unreasonable to disregard the statement of the victim made in court in judging harmfulness of the notice. Moreover, considering the content of the notice which contained a threat that defendant would accuse the corporation of its illegal practice to the supervising department, Court should have been more cautious in its holdings on the consummation of the crime of intimidation.