This paper presents how guilt statements can affect luxury Fairtrade chocolate products. Specifically, the study will examine how willingness to pay more can affect Fairtrade through guilt advertising. Fairtrade is a labelling certification aimed at helping farmers in marginalised countries (Méndez et al., 2010). Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) explained that ‘informative statements’ can help evoke guilt and these statements are used on the packaging to investigate consumers’ perceptions of ad credibility, inferences of manipulative intent, guilt arousal, attitudes towards the ad, purchase intention and willingness to pay more for Fairtrade chocolate products. A combination of statements and logos were used as stimuli. The results of this study has shown that guilt statements may be too intense and may have caused inferences of manipulative intent in a Fairtrade context, resulting in lower purchase intention and willingness to pay more. This study is the first study to explore how guilt statements and logos influence consumers’ purchases for Fairtrade products. This study has managerial applications in developing marketing strategies to promote Fairtrade products and other charitable co-branding schemes.

본 연구는 최근 3년간의 항만 및 어항개발사업에 따른 해역이용협의서 91건을 분석하여 그 작성실태(평가항목별 조사현황과 영향예측 등)를 파악하고, 문제점을 개선하기 위한 방안을 요약 · 제시하였다. 9개 평가항목 중에서 해양화학, 해양퇴적물 및 해양생태계 부분에서는 현장조사 비율이 높았으나(70 % 이상), 조사자료를 활용한 영향예측은 미흡하였다. 반면, 해양물리의 경우는 현황조사 비율은 낮았지만(조석 7.7 %, 조류 24.2 %), 영향예측 수행비율은 높아 예측결과를 뒷받침할 만한 근거와 검증 측면에서 문제점이 있었다. 즉, 조사와 예측에 대한 평가가 연관성이 낮아 신뢰성이 떨어지고 있었다. 항만 및 어항개발사업에 있어 영향예측과 밀접하게 관련되어 있는 주요 외력(조석, 조류 및 파랑 등) 및 중점평가사항에 대한 체계적인 진단이 필요하나, 현재는 사업유형을 고려하지 않는 일반적인 평가방법과 자료인용이 이루어지고 있는데, 향후 사업규모와 지역특성 등을 고려한 중점평가항목과 구체적 평가사항(조사시기, 정점선정)을 사전에 스코핑해 줄 수 있는 제도적 장치가 필요할 것이다. 또한, 현장조사자료의 신뢰성 강화를 위해 해양화학 및 해양퇴적물의 분석에 관한 정도관리체계의 적용이 강화되어야 할 것이다.

The research is to evaluate the statistical difference between K-GAAP(Generally Accepted Account Principles) in 2008 year and K-IFRS(International Financial Reporting Standards) in 2012 year. H Motor Company, S Electronics and L Electronics are the three representative firms adopting K-GAAP and K-IFRS in Korea. The x2 homogeneous test are used to identify the reduction of the number of account items of four financial statements such as Statement of Financial Position(SFP), Statement of Comprehensive Income(SCI), Statement of Cash Flow(SCF), and Statement of Change in Equity(SCE) between K-GAAP and K-IFRS.

본 논문에서는 국내 162개 지반에 대한 전단파속도 주상도, 기반암 깊이 및 지반의 동적변형특성을 획득하여 등가선형해석을 수행한 후 미국 서부해안지역의 지반 특성과 비교 검토하였다. 검토 결과 국내의 일반적인 특성을 가지는 지반과 미국 서부해안지역의 지반은 기반암 깊이와 고유주기가 매우 다름을 확인하였다. 지진응답 해석 결과 단주기 증폭계수 F_a의 경우 1997 UBC 기준의 값보다 크게 산정되었고, 장주기 증폭계수 F_v는 작게 나타나 국내 지반특성에 적합한 증폭계수는 현재 국내 내진설계기준 값과는 매우 다른 경향을 보였다. 따라서, 증폭계수를 재산정하고 설계응답스펙트럼을 개선해야 할 필요성을 확인하였다. 본 논문에서는 현재 이용되고 있는 내진설계기준과 국내 지반특성과의 차이점 파악에 중점을 두었고, 개선방법에 대한 내용은 동반논문(II 지반분류 개선방법, III 설계응답스펙트럼 개선방법)에서 심도있게 논의하였다.

This study aims to find out whether political parties apply financial reports under PSAK (Statement of Financial Accounting Standards) No. 45. The Stewardship Theory provides the analytical framework. The objects in this study were 16 Yogyakarta City Political Parties in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, with the total number of 64 respondents. The application for processing data in this study used SPSS 22 version. Based on the results of analyzing data, H1, which had a sig (2-tailed) value of 0.026 <0.05, then H0, stating that there was an influence of the statement of financial position on the implementation of PSAK, was rejected. H2 had a sig (2-tailed) value of 0.116> 0.05, so that H0, stating that there was no significant effect of the activity report on the implementation of PSAK, was accepted. H3 had a sig (2-tailed) value of 0.027 <0.05, meaning that it rejected H0, which stated that there was a significant effect of the cash flow statement on the implementation of PSAK. Furthermore, H4 had a sig (2-tailed) value of 0.744> 0.05, indicating that H0 was accepted, stating that there was a significant effect of notes to the financial statements on the implementation of PSAK.

This study seeks to determine the effect of the application of accounting information system (AIS), internal control system, and human resource (HR) competency on the quality of local government financial statements (FS). This study uses agency theory and compliance theory. Agency theory is used to explain that there is a link between the society as the principal and the government as the agent. Compliance theory is a theory, which states that every agency is obliged to comply with regulations because the law-drafting authority has the right to dictate behavior. The population in this study were employees of the financial division of local government organizations in one of the districts in Central Java, Indonesia. The total samples in this study was 106 respondents. The data used are primary data taken from distributing questionnaires to respondents. The method of analysis used to test the hypothesis was multiple linear regression analysis. The results of hypothesis testing indicate that HR competency has an effect on the quality of FS; however, the application of AIS and internal control system has no effect on the quality of FS. The implication of this research underlines the importance of HR competency to improve the quality of local government FS.

The research aims to investigate the impact levels of determinants on the conversion of financial statements from Vietnamese accounting standards (VAS) to International financial reporting standards (IFRS) in the multinational firms in Vietnam. The method of data collection was done through the survey and subjects are accountants in Multinational Firms doing business in Hanoi and ten neighboring provinces. After checking the information on the votes, there are 170 questionnaires with full information for data entry and analysis. We use Cronbach’s Alpha, EFA analysis and run regression model to investigate the impact levels of each independent variable on dependent variable of the conversion of VAS financial statements to IFRS. The results show that five determinants including Economic, Politics, Law, Culture, and Conditions for implementation have positive relationships with the conversion of VAS financial statements to IFRS. In particular, Economic determinant is the most strongest. Based on the findings, some recommendations are given for improving the conversion of VAS financial statements to IFRS of multinational firms doing business in the context of Vietnam. The results are considered a useful reference for firms when making financial statements to transparently change the financial statement information and improve the quality of financial statement information.

NFPs support a sustainable society and they rely on contributions from donors. Donor behavior is a kind of consumer behavior that influences fundraising by NFPs. In order to make fundraising functional under a principal-agent relationship, NFPs must construct trust through proper provision of accounting information. For donors, financial statements are main source of accounting information. Edelman revealed that the level of trust in Japan’s NFPs is the lowest in East Asia, because of a lack of transparency and accountability. Some researchers had investigated donor behavior as a kind of consumer behavior and had provided supportive results that accounting information influences donor behaviors, before this research was conducted. This research investigates this background by conducting questionnaire-based survey. Main questions of this questionnaire were created according to criteria that BBB are using for NFPs in the U.S. The results of this survey revealed the lack of reliability of basic accounting information in Japan and that education in higher educational institutions can improve this situation. This survey also revealed that a rating agency like BBB, which evaluates accounting information of NFPs, could improve trust on NFPs. The implications of this study can apply to the other countries and regions where trust in NFPs is insufficient.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea gives very important opinion for the evidence law in general, ① Lowering of the probative power of the statesment in the protocol of investigative agent in the light of the weakness of the written record ② Unrecognizing the proof value of the statements where the cross-examination lacks. First, With indicating the inaccuracy of the record in the light of statements in fact, lowering of the probative power of the statesments in the protocol of investigative agent in general is inappropriate. In order to complement such a weakness, the law provide the strict provisions for the protocol drawing up. Furthermore, this kind of view falls into difficulty in answer to the question, “Can be the lowering problems all solved, if we, for the complement of such weakness, record the total statements or record them in tapes or video tapes?” This problem is not for statement in the protocol, but for the probative power of the out of court statement. Probative power is the thing which should be judged in each case individually with considering total situation with relation to the situation in which the statements were made, contents of the statements and comparison with other evidences. By the way, the problem of confrontation has important meaning from the new tendency which views the problem in other way than hearsay approach. But the method of the Court leads to the confusion with the meaning or the standard because of the termonology which the Court has used, that is , substantial proof value and inadmissible. Recently, the problem of confrontation is understood as a procedural right of the defendant in the criminal procedure and there is an American approach and a European Union approach. In my opinion, Considering our constitutional provision and criminal procedure, the European Union solution is proper. The admissiblity of the statements made in the situation in which the defendant cannot confront the speaker should be judged be the standard of the fairness of the process, that is, the question, “Would it harm the fairness of the process in the whole to admit the statements?” By the judgement, it would give an important ground to see the resposibility of the investigative agent for the nonconfrontation situation. But the responsibility of the investigative agent should not be an absolute ground for the inadmissibility of the statements, but would be the ground for prudent judgement of the probative power considering whether the substantial parts of the statements could be confirmed by other materials, when the statements are the only one important evidence to support the charge. Furthermore, Because the time of the confrontation is not limited to the trial, it would be useful to evaluate the provision in our criminal procedure for the interrogation with confrontation by the public attorney and investigative officer and to use it as a meaningful tool for guaranteeing the chance of confrontation of the defendant.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.

Recently, many people live or travel abroad by various reasons. In this global era, we cannot only require the witness to come to homeland for testifying in court. It is necessary to provide a new method to take a reliable evidence which can solve the case with the witness staying abroad. In this case, the Prosecutor's Office try to give a new method by requesting the Consul in Japan to hear the witness and record the statements. According to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Consul can hear the people of the Consul's nation. German Consular Relations Law provides that the admissibility of out of court statements recorded by Consul is regulated according to the institution which makes the request. Therefore, if the request comes from court, the statements recorded by the Consul according to the request are treated as statements recorded by Judge. From this point of view, the Prosecutor's Office insisted that the out of court statements recorded by Consul in Japanese be treated as the out of court statements recorded by Judge in deciding the guarantee of trustworthiness. But the Court construed that the statements recorded by Consul as the statements recorded by private person. Worse than this, the Court denies the guarantee of trustworthiness as the condition for the admissibility for the evidence. But this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in this case, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded by Consul should have been admitted.

The hearsay rule was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Law by the Act No. 705, Sep. 1, 1961 in Korea. Any document which contains statements in place of the statements made at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt except as provided by a few articles of the Criminal Procedure Law(§310-2). The investigation report which contains statements of witnesses prepared by the public prosecutors or by the judicial police officers may be introduced into evidence if the genuineness thereof is established by the person who made original statements at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial(§312 (1), §313 (1)). If the witnesses are unable to be present or to testify at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial because of death, sickness, residing abroad or other reasons, the recorded statements of witnesses are not excluded by the hearsay rule(§314). And the probative value of evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judges(§308). Recently the innovative reformation of trial has been the hottest issue and the Criminal Procedure Law is amended by the Act No. Apr. 30, 2007. During that turmoil the Supreme Court ruled that even though the admissibility of recorded statements of witnesses is accepted on the basis of agreement between adversarial parties(§318), the credibility of those statements is extremely restricted in the case the confrontation right of the defendant is limited. The witness-investigation report may have probative values when the recorded statements are so accurate that they are self-evident or if other evidences collaborate the reliability of the recorded statements.

On the evidence for the impeachment, in literature, four problems are in discussion. At first, whether a hearsay evidence is admissible for impeachment, although it is not admissible in view of the hearsay rule. Second, whether the oral evidence of the defendant in trial is impeachable, and whehter the defendant's pre-trial statements protocol of the police is admissible for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. At last, whether the authentification is required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. For first problem, though a hearsay evidence is not admissible according to the hearsay rule, it is admissible for impeachment. The hearsay rule is operated only where pre-trial statement is produced for asserting the truth of the statement. Because impeachment is not asserting the truth of the pre-trial statement, but swaying the crediblity of the oral evidence in trial, hearsay rule is not operated when the evidence is produced for impeachment. For second problem, the oral evidence of the defendant in trial can be impeached for the appropriate way of truth-finding. In practice, the prior inconsistent statement of the defendant can be often used for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. § 312 ② of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. Because of the provision, some say that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible for impeachment when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. But the Court admits the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol although the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment, and it is with me on that. For the last problem, the majority in literature and the Court are with the opinion that the authentification is not required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. In this point I cannot agree with the Court. The requirement of the authentification is essential for producing all the evidences. It is a different rule from the hearsay rule. In my opinion, It could be said that the majority and the Court confuse the difference. It should be said that a hearsay written statement cannot be used for impeachment when it is not authentifcated.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.

본 연구의 목적은 언어적인 진술로 구성된 내부적 주의초점 피드백과 외부적 주의초점 피드백의 차별적인 학습효과를 검증하는 것이었다. 사용된 과제는 볼링 투구과제였으며, 연구 대상자는 남자 중학생 30명 이었다. 이들은 내부적 주의초점 피드백 집단, 외부적 주의초점 집단, 그리고 통제집단에 각각 10명씩 무선 배정되었다. 연구대상자들은 연습단계 이틀 동안 6게임 마지막 날 파지검사로서 2게임, 총 8게임을 수행하였다. 종속변인으로서 볼링점수와 동작점수가 기록되었다. 실험설계에 따라 반복측정에 의한 삼원 변량분석과 이원변량분석을 실시하였으며, 그 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 볼링점수의 분석에서 외부적 주의초점 피드백 집단은 통제집단보다 우수한 연습효과를 나타냈다. 둘째, 볼링점수의 분석에서 외부적 주의초점 피드백 집단은 내부적 주의초점 피드백 집단과 통제집단보다 우수한 학습효과를 나타냈다. 셋째, 동작점수의 분석에서 내부적, 외부적 주의초점 피드백 집단은 통제집단보다 우수한 연습 및 학습효과를 나타냈다. 결론적으로 볼링점수의 분석결과들은 언어적 진술로 구성된 외부적 주의초점 피드백의 상대적 우수성을 나타내는 것이다.