http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : Unlawful Uttering of Private Document (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
황태정(Hwang Tae-Jeong) 한국형사법학회 2007 刑事法硏究 Vol.19 No.4
A few years ago, The Supreme Court of Korea gave a decision upon the use of KT card(deferred payment telephone card issued by Korea Telecom), denying unlawful use of facilities for convenience(§348-2) and admitting unlawful uttering of private document(§236). I think that the argument of the decision is not appropriate in two points of view.<BR> First of all, It is not rational to admit unlawful uttering of private document. When we use KT card in public telephone, only magnetic stripe of the card is uttered. Criminal Act of Korea has a provisions to punish falsification or alteration of electromagnetic records(§227-2, §232-2), uttering falsified or altered electromagnetic records(§229, §234) and unlawful uttering of official or private document(§230, §236). But the Act does not have a provision to punish unlawful uttering of electromagnetic records.<BR> Secondly, unlawful uttering of KT card should be valued not only from social point of view but individual point of view. It is very important value to protect individual property as well as to protect social reliance on document. In this case, the accused uttered other person"s KT card without paying price, acquired benefits to property and caused loss to telecomunication service provider or the owner of KT card. For that reason, I think it is needed to admit unlawful use of facilities for convenience in this case.
-
노수환(Roh, Soo-Hwan) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.4
Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea sentenced not guilty upon the use of the sending image-file, denying document-conception. Because it is stipulated in the Criminal Act of Korea(§ 234) that any person who utters any 'document', drawing or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, etc., made by the crime as prescribed in Articles 231 through 233, shall be punished by the same penalty as prescribed for the respective crime. By the way, the reason is why the use of the sending image-file don't come under 'document'. So, I think that the argument of the decision is appropriate in two points of view. First, It is not rational to admit unlawful uttering of document, because the use of the sending image-file don't include to unlawful 'uttering' of document. Secondly, the vacuum of the legislation can't be replaced with interpretation of the law. But, according to TiTle 18, chapter 25-474(b) in America, it is stipulated that the term "analog, digital, or electronic image" includes any analog, digital, or electronic method used for the making, execution, acquisition, scanning, capturing, recording, retrieval, transmission, os reproduction of any obligation or security, unless such use is authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. Anyway, I think that we should study a document-conception whether to include the use of the sending image-file in this case.
KCI
스콜라연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
