V+Special_기업이 알아야할 언론보도 대응법 (II) - 인터넷과 기업의 명예훼손

장성원,Jang, Seong-Won 벤처기업협회 2009 벤처다이제스트 Vol.135 No.-

지난 호에는 부정적인 언론사 오보의 경우에 명예훼손의 판단기준은 어떠하며 피해자들에게 어떤 권리와 절차가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 요약하면 공익적이지 못한 보도(진실 여부와 상관없이), 공익적이지만 진실하지 못한 보도, 공익적이지만 언론의 주의의무(상당성)를 다하지 못한 보도는 손해배상책임을 지는 불법적 보도이며, 손해배상 정정보도 등 보도로 인한 피해 구제를 법원보다 간편하고 신속하게 받을 수 있는 기관으로 언론중재위원회(이하 중재위)가 있다는 것이다. 이번 호에는 이어서 포털 뉴스 및 근거 없는 게시글에 대해서 대응하는 방법과 최근에 나온 판례에 대해 설명하고자 한다.

방재연구 - Human Error 발생 방지 및 사전 사고 예방활동으로 안전하고 아름다운 금강을 국민들에게

장성원,박성수,Jang, Seong-Won,Park, Seong-Su 한국방재협회 2013 방재저널 Vol.15 No.2

LTE-Advanced 기반 이기종 네트워크 시스템의 간섭회피를 위한 효율적인 자원할당 기법

장성원,성현경,Jang, Sung-Won,Seong, Hyeon-Kyeong 한국융합신호처리학회 2016 융합신호처리학회 논문지 (JISPS) Vol.17 No.1

LTE-Advanced 시스템은 한정된 주파수 자원을 효율적으로 이용할 수 있도록 다수의 셀들로 구성된 셀룰러 환경에서 구축되기 때문에 인접 셀과의 간섭 회피를 고려해야 한다. 이동통신 기술의 발전에 따라 스마트폰과 태블릿 등 많은 모바일 데이터 트래픽을 유발시키는 단말이 확산되고 음성위주의 이동 통신 서비스에서 무선 멀티미디어 콘텐츠를 중심으로 하는 데이터 위주의 서비스로 전환됨에 따라 급증하는 모바일 데이터 트래픽에 의해 도심지역에서 증가되는 기지국은 막을 수 없는 현실이다. 증가되는 기지국으로 인해 송신 신호가 수신단에서 섞이는 셀간 간섭은 피할 수 없게 되었으며 이로 인해 셀간 간섭 회피 기법의 성능은 통신성능을 평가하는 중요한 지표 중 하나가 로 작용한다. 본 논문에서는 19셀의 셀룰러 시스템 모델을 바탕으로 LTE-Advanced 시스템 레벨 시뮬레이터를 통해 시뮬레이션을 수행하여 셀 경계에서의 성능 향상을 위한 새로운 Hybrid 자원 할당 기법을 제안한다. LTE-Advanced system consisting of the number of cells in the cellular environment because it is built to allow efficient use of limited frequency resources of adjacent cell interference avoidance should be considered. Transition services in accordance with the development of the mobile communication technology, wireless multimedia content from voice-centric mobile communications services and causing a lot of mobile data traffic, such as smart phones and tablet terminals spread of a data-driven surge in mobile data traffic base stations in urban areas by increasing became a reality that can not be prevented. In this paper, we propose a new Hybrid resource allocation technique for improving the performance of the cell boundary and analyzed the performance of the proposed new techniques to perform the simulation using LTE-Advanced system level simulator based on 19cell of cellular system model.

대학 성폭력 책임에서 징계와 형사의 이중 구조와 절차적 특수성

장성원 ( Jang Seong Won ) 한국경찰법학회 2021 경찰법연구 Vol.19 No.1

The responsibility for sexual violence at universities is planned to be both disciplinary and criminal responsibility. The treatment of sexual violence issues at universities is confused both in procedural and substantive terms over the two tracks of disciplinary and judicial. In this case, in terms of the relationship between the two responsibilities, it is necessary to confirm their own identity and universality. The liability for sexual violence stipulated in the criminal law is deeply involved not only in criminal proceedings, but also in disciplinary responsibility within universities. It is directly introduced or referred to in university regulations and affects interpretation. This structural characteristic of disciplinary responsibility stems from the fact that both the inherent reasons for disciplinary responsibility itself and the external reasons such as criminal law are defined as grounds for disciplinary action. Criminal law itself is dualistic in that it acts as a basis for sanctions against sexual violence at universities and at the same time is used for disciplinary responsibility. The tendency to expand criminal responsibility is reflected with time difference even though it is a disciplinary responsibility for dealing with sexual violence at universities. A particularly important question is whether disciplinary proceedings should be subordinated to criminal proceedings when the two proceedings are carried out at the same time regardless of their predecessor. Basically, the two procedures are mutually independent. Therefore, methods and procedures for investigating facts, selection of facts, and judgments based on them should all have their own unique values and be respected. Therefore, even if the two procedures are carried out simultaneously on a single case, the determination of the facts and the judgment based on them may differ from each other. However, depending on the way the two proceedings proceed, they influence each other, contrast the substance of each responsibility, and bring about repercussions.

경영판단행위에 대한 배임죄의 적용 -중소기업사례를 중심으로-

장성원 ( Seong Won Jang ) 한국법정책학회 2013 법과 정책연구 Vol.13 No.3

Directors of corporations face liability risks from the inappropriate investment. Directors who breach their duties to the corporation may be liable if the corporation suffers a loss that can be directly attributed to their commissions or omissions. Liability of directors in this regard may arise as a result of their failure. The business judgment rule is an assumption that in making a business decision, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company. The business judgment rule is a U.S. case law, derived concept in corporations` law. Given that the directors cannot ensure corporate success, the business judgment rule specifies that the court will not review the business decisions of directors who performed their duties in good faith, with the care and in the reasonable belief that their actions are in the corporation`s best interest. The business judgment rule performs a function favor of the directors, freeing from possible liability for decisions that result in harm to the corporation. Although several decisions have held that the rule is available to directors, commentators are divided as to whether the business judgment rule is available to director. The Korean Supreme Court accepted partially the business judgment rule in Breach of Trust cases. Some commentators have stated the opposite. As the Supreme Court has said, in the inherently risky environment of business, the directors need to be free to take legal liability affecting their judgment if the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company. As part of directors` duties, which includes both a fiduciary duty, and a duty of reasonable care, directors have a duty not to waste corporate assets. The court held that directors of a corporation have an obligation to apply property towards the rational objects of the corporation. This duty includes not undertaking an unauthorized business purpose. The consequence of a breach of such a duty is that the transaction is voidable by the company. The duties and liabilities of directors are governed by statute. Failure to properly perform these duties may render a director criminally liable to pay damages. Also the consistent decision in the area of small businesses emphasizes the fiduciary responsibility of directors of corporations. Any loss of assets due to the malfeasance or failure to act of the directors could make the directors liable for possibly breach of trust. The case also includes the business judgment rule which states that if a director has applied reasonable care, has a basis for believing that the decision made was in the best interest of the company, the director will not be held liable for a breach of duty. This is only if a director did not act in bad faith or for improper purpose. Under the Criminal Law, the business judgment rule is not yet the offspring of the fundamental principle, that the business and affairs of a corporation are managed by directors. In addition, its notable facet is that some directors` decisions lie outside the business judgment rule. Furthermore, courts may apply the more stringent test, requiring a director when acting as a director in good faith and for a proper purpose, in the best interests of the company, with the degree of care. Consequently, one of the points of review that has entered the business judgment rule was the prohibition against duty of loyalty violation. The law imposes fiduciary culpabilities to ensure that authority is exercised responsibly. Directors in a business should act in good faith, in the best interests of the corporation. By implementing reasonable and rational decision, directors reduce the risk of liabilities for breach of trust.

구성요건착오와 금지착오의 구별

장성원(Jang, Seong-Won) 한국형사법학회 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.2

Zur Abgrenzung von Tatbestands- und Verbotsirrtum existieren viele Meinungen. Nach heute verbreiteter Einschätzung hat sich auch dennoch keine überzeugende und vollständige Abgrenzung von Tatbestands- und Verbotsirrtum durchgesetzt. Das Gesetz hat auch keinen Grund, eine Abgrenzung von Tatbestands- und Verbotsirrtum zu versuchen. Zweifelhaft kann sein, wann der Irrtum über das Tatbestandsmerkmal oder das Verbot zu beurteilen ist. Die wichtigsten lassen sich in zwei Gruppen einteilen. Die eine Gruppe unterscheidet danach, ob sich der Irrtum auf Tatsachen oder Rechtsfragen bezielt, stellt also auf das Designat der Fehlvorstellung ab. Dies gilt auch für Versuche, die ursprüngliche Unterscheidung des deutsches Reichsgerichtes zwischen vorsatzirrelevanten innerstrafrechtlichen Rechtsirrtümern einerseits, vorsatzausschließenden Irrtümern im Tatsächlichen so wie entsprechend zu behandelnden außerstrafrechtlichen Rechtsirrtümern andererseits, wieder nutzbar zu machen. Es ist irrelevant, ob die Tatsache oder Rechtsfrage dem Tatbestand oder dem Verbotensein angehört. Die andere unterscheidet danach, ob die Fehlvorstellung hinsichtlich des Tatbestandes oder des Verbotenseins besteht, also systemorientiert nach dem Bezugspunkt des Irrtums innerhalb des Verbrechensaufbaus. Überwiegend wird in Anlehnung an die gesetzliche Regelung entsprechend der Verbrechenssystematik danach unterscheiden, ob sich die Fehlvorstellung des Handelnden letztlich auf den Tatbestand oder das Verbot bezieht. Für sie ist nicht entscheidend, ob sich der Irrtum auf Tatsachen oder Rechtsfragen bezieht. Nach h.M. liegt ein Tatbestandsirrtum vor, wenn der Handelnde über den Lebenssachverhalt irrt, ein Verbotsirrtum dagegen, wenn er die Umstände zwar richtig sieht, aber den Inhalt des Tatbestandes verkennt. Ein Tatbestandsirrtum liegt vor, wenn der Täter eines der Merkmale nicht kennt, auf die sich der Vorsatz nach dem betreffenden Tatbestand erstrecken muss. Aber ein Verbotsirrtum liegt, wenn dem Täter infolge seines Bewertungsfehlers das Unrechtsbewusstsein insgesamt fehlt, das heißt bezogen auf artgleiche Tatbestände in der gesamten Rechtsordnung. Ein Verbotsirrtum ist der Irrtum über das Verbotensein. Da der Handelnde die Strafgesetze nicht kennt, kann der Verbotsirrtum nicht als Irrtum über das formelle Strafgesetz definiert werden. Die Unkenntnis einer Tatbestandsmerkmale (§ 13, § 15 Ⅰ kStGB) wäre, dann ein Irrtum über den Rechtssatz. Insgesamt will § 13 also sagen, wer einen der Tatbestandsmerkmale nicht kennt, die den Straftatbestand erfüllen, handelt ohne Vorsatz. Diese Umstände den Merkmalen des Tatbestandes unterzuordnen ist ein juristischer Vorgang gleichsam nach § 13, § 16. Zum Vorsatz gehört die Kenntnis der Umstände, die zum gesetzlichen Tatbestand gehören, da andernfalls ein Vorsatz nach § 13 und § 15 Abs. Ⅰ ausgeschlossen wäre. Fehlt die Bedeutungskenntnis, so kann das Strafrecht auch nicht die Funktion erfüllen, den potentiellen Täter zu einem gesetzestreuen Verhalten zu bewegen. Auch kann ein Irrtum durchaus zu einem Verbotsirrtum (§ 16) führen, weil ein solcher nicht nur dann vorliegt, wenn der Täter das Verbot überhaupt nicht kennt, einen nicht existierenden Rechtfertigungsgrund für sich in Anspruch nimmt, sondern auch dann gegeben sein kann, wenn ihm aus anderen Gründen das Bewusstsein fehlt, Unrecht zu tun. § 13, § 15 Ⅰ ist zu § 16 für den Grundfall des Tatbestandsirrtums eine lex specialis. Denn auch der Tatbestandsirrtum bewirkt, dass dem Täter die Einsicht fehlt, Unrecht zu tun. Wenn im Normalfall § 13, § 15 Ⅰ ein Unterfall des § 16 ist, dann sind auch alle Theorien zur Abgrenzung von Tatbestands- und Verbotsirrtum Theorien zum Inhalt des Vorsatzes. Dann eine vollständige und brauchbare Doluslehre macht die Irrtumslehre &

소아의 유양돌기 검사 시 변형된 Stenvers method의 유용성 평가

장성원(Seong-Won Jang),이양섭(Yang-Sub Lee),우봉철(Bong-Cheol Woo),정순필(Soon-Phil Jung),한성식(Seong-sik Han) 대한영상의학기술학회 2014 대한영상의학기술학회 논문지 Vol.2014 No.1

목 적 : 소아의 유양돌기 검사에서 소아 두개골 크기에 적합한 입사 각도를 고려한 변형된 Stenvers method의 유용성을 평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법 : 5세 기준의 소아 팬텀을 대상으로 초점과 영상간 거리는 100cm으로 고정 후 바로 누운 자세에서 각도기를 이용하여 팬텀 머리의 정중선을 촬영면 반대쪽으로 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, 30° 로 회전시켰고 안와하이공선을 촬영대에 수직이 되도록 하였다. 중심 X선은 다리 쪽으로 0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, 20°로 촬영 하였고, 진단적 가치가 있는 것으로 판단되는 영상 9개를 선별하여 평가하였다. 영상평가는 PACS의 영상을 통해서 5년차 이상의 숙련된 방사선사 10명이 리커트척도를 이용 하여 ‘Excellent’ 5점, ‘Good’ 4점, ‘Fair’ 3점, ‘Poor’ 2점, ‘Very poor’ 1점으로 육안적 평가를 실시 하였다. Kruskal-wallis test와 Mann-Whitney를 이용하여 통계적 유의성을 분석하였다. 결 과 : 응답자의 평균 점수는 머리의 정중선 20°, 다리쪽 입사각 5°에서 4.3점으로 가장 높게 평가 되었다. Kruskal-wallis test 순위검정 결과, 20°/5°와 20°/10°에서 각각 86.65와 75.15로 높게 나타났다. Mann-Whitney를 통한 사후검정 결과 20°/5° 와 20°/10°는 통계적으로 유의하였다(p<0.05). 결 론 : 기존의 소아를 대상으로 한 Stenvers method는 임상적인 경험을 통해 구전으로 제시된 주관 적인 검사 방법이었지만 본 연구에서 제시한 변형된 Stenvers method는 객관적이고 표준화된 촬영법으로서 임상적용 시 매우 유용한 검사법이라고 사료된다. Purpose : Pediatric mastoid X-ray exam of the shortcomings of the existing Stenvers method patient discomfort and postural instability and in consideration of the incidence angle to fit pediatric skull modified to evaluate the usefulness of Stenvers method. Materials and Methods : 5 years old pediatric phantom targets based on the source to image distance(SID) is fixed at 100cm in supine position immediately after the phantom using a protractor, The opposite side of the mid line at 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, 30° by rotating and Infraorbitalmeatal line was positioned horizontal with detector. X-ray of the leg toward the center at 0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, 20° to the diagnostic value of imaging after exposure, nine images were selected. Image evaluation, using a Likert scale by 5 years or more trained 10 radiologist  ‘Excellent’ 5point, ‘Good’ 4point, ‘Fair’ 3point, ‘Poor’ 2point, ‘Very poor’ 1point, Significance was analyzed by Kruskal-wallis test and Mann-Whitney. Result : The highest average of the response score was 4.3 at MSP 20° and feet to the side of the angle of incidence 5°. Results rank test of Kruskal-wallis test was 86.65 at 20°/5° was the highest, 20°/10° at 75.15 was second score. The second analysis. Mann-Whitney test results after 20°/5° and 20°/5° and each of the other targets  showed a statistically significant difference(p<0.05). Conclusion : Presented in this study, a modified Stenvers Method is not presented as an subjective but objective standard radiography to radiologists and  suggested that the clinical application of the judgment could be very useful.

성매매 보호법익의 실체 - 헌재 2016. 3. 31. 선고 2013헌가2 -

張星源 ( Jang Seong Won ) 법조협회 2018 최신판례분석 Vol.67 No.6

성매매를 불법으로 규정하고 광범위하게 단속함에도 성매매 처벌의 위하효나 예방효는 검증되지 못한 채 불신의 대상으로 남아 있다. 특히 다른 불법과 결합되지 않고 개인간 자유의사에 따라 합의로 이뤄지는 성매매에 대하여는 그 처벌 정당성에 의문이 증폭되고 있다. 이 와중에 2016년 헌법재판소 결정으로 성매매는 범죄로서 정체성을 다시 확인받고 그 생명을 연장하게 되었다. 그런데 헌법재판소가 성매매 보호법익으로 내세우는 사회적 도덕률, 건전한 풍속, 사회제도적 구조라는 것은 추상적이고 확증이 곤란한 개념이다. 범죄로서 가벌성을 지탱해주는 보호법익으로 기능하는가에는 회의적인 시선을 거두기 어렵다. 성매매의 보호법익이 추상적인 수준에서 모호하고 불확실하게 설정되어 있다는 점에서 성매매처벌의 정당성을 확인하고 범죄로서 정체성을 따져봐야 할 필요는 여전하다. 특정 행위에 대한 범죄화를 고려할 때에는 위험의 원인과 내용을 구체적으로 분석하여 그것이 침해하려는 이익이 무엇인지, 위태롭게 하는 권리는 어떤 것인지 확정하여야 한다. 성매매를 벌하는 이유가 건전한 성풍속을 해한다거나 성윤리에 반할 위험이 있다는 추상적이며 특정되지 않는 불명확한 법익을 대상으로 한다는 비판을 직시하여야 한다. 건전한 성풍속과 성도덕에 가려진 진짜 법익이 무엇인지 들여다보아야 한다. 성매매로 보호하고자 하는 법익의 실체가 다른 행동과 생각에 대한 거부감이나 혐오라든가, 근거가 박약한 생물학적 건강상 이유라든가, 이제는 극복된 성차별적 사고의 파편이라든가, 노동과 직업에 대한 편견에 사로잡힌 잔재는 아닌지 되돌아보아야 한다. 이를 통해 “개개인의 행위가 비록 도덕률에 반하더라도 본질적으로 개인의 사생활에 속하고 사회적 유해성이 없거나 법익에 대한 명백한 침해가 없는 경우에는 국가권력이 개입해서는 안 된다”는 명징한 논리가 관철되어야 한다. On March 31, 2016 the Korean Constitutional Court ruled that the punishment clause in the Act on the Punishment of Prostitution is legislated to protect moral and customary, grant human dignity of sex workers. This article looks into the meaning and contents of the Constitutional Court’s decision toward prostitution, and reviews the perspective of the prohibitionist in light of the legal interest. I examine that the decision is not consistent with the void for vagueness of a provision which punishes a person for voluntary prostitution between adults. The criminalization of prostitution violates the principle of definiteness and infringes the rights of sexual self-determination. This paper argue that the infringement of human rights caused by criminal punishment on the consented sex trade is unreasonable and inadequate in respect of marginal benefits. In the end, the desirable legal treatment of voluntary prostitution is decriminalization of prostitution.

명예훼손과 표현의 자유 잊혀질 권리와 명예훼손 -명예훼손의 구제책으로서 잊혀질 권리에 대한 조명-

장성원 ( Seong Won Jang ) 한국형사정책학회 2013 刑事政策 Vol.25 No.3

In digital information era, we use cyberspace to bidirectionally exchange information via the internet and access to vast quantities of data. While the digital age takes over, new criminal offenses like cyber and online defamation have also emerged. Cyber defamation infringes on its victims and spreads with rapid speed over a wide range of diffusion. It can appear to anyone connected to the internet, and the spread tends to continue. Nowadays the situation of libel on cyberspace is very serious and concern. Defamation is now covered by several laws in Korea, criminal law, civil law, and special law under the ‘Personal Data Protection Act’ and the ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection etc.’(The Information and Communications Network Act). Especially, cyber defamation is addressed in Chapter 33 of the Criminal Law and in Article 70 of the Information and Communications Network Act. But it is nearly impossible to regulate all these kinds of cyber libel criminally. Recently, the new right, ‘right to be forgotten’, is produced from the debates and legislations. The right to be forgotten can be defined as the right for an individual to delete personal information on the cyberspace. However this right of erasing on the web in order to be forgotten comes into conflict with freedom of expression. It needs to regulate the concerns in the depth consideration of freedom of speech, matters of harmony and the responsibility of operators and internet users. So it is necessary to answer for the question of confliction of these two rights in the cyberspace, by limiting the extent and scope of each of them. Based on this understanding, the paper explored the possibility of applying the right to be forgotten as a remedy for damages caused by defamation on the net. Therefore, to control cyber defamation in proper conditions, we must recognize the characteristics of the right to be forgotten using the fair comparison of interests. To achieve these, the study gives an overview of the special concepts and attributes of the right to be forgotten regarding the defamation. Then it analyzes related legal basis of the right to be forgotten in the EU as well as domestic criminal and special act to point out the problems and discuss countermeasures of cyber libel to be applied.

연구논문 : 반전된 착오의 구분과 체계적 지위

장성원 ( Seong Won Jang ) 한국형사정책학회 2014 刑事政策 Vol.26 No.1

반전된 착오란 범죄의 성립이나 처벌에 소극적으로 착오한 경우와 달리 이를 적극적으로 오신한 경우를 가리킨다. 형법에서는 불능(미수)범과 환각범이 여기에 대응하는 것으로 이해된다. 반전된 착오 서로간의 관계에 대하여, 특히 양자를 분별하는 기준이라든가 범죄론상 체계적 지위에 대하여는 상대적으로 논의가 충분하지 못한 형편이다. 반전된 착오의 개념에서는 반전원리를 고려하면서 어떤 차원에서 반전된 착오가 존재할 수 있는지가 확인되어야 한다. 반전된 착오를 구분하여 체계상 정서하는 데에는 통상적인 착오구별론이 불가피하게 전제되겠지만 소극적 착오에서의 논의가 반전된 착오에서는 어떤 방식으로 변형되고 접목될 수 있는지가 특유의 기준과 더불어 추가로 검토되어야 한다. 반전원리를 매개로 모색된 구별논의는 각 착오의 구성요건과 위법성, 책임단계로의 체계적 정서를 통해 사례검토에 동원되어 구체적인 적실성을 따져보게 된다. 반전된 착오의 구분은 통상의 소극적 착오의 구별을 전제로 하여 구성요건적 착오와 금지착오로 구별하게 된다. 반전된 구성요건착오는 구성요건에 관련하여 행위사정이나 행위상황과 같은 사실영역에서 적극적으로 오인한 것인 반면, 규범의 존재여부나 허용여부에 대하여 적극적으로 오신한 것은 반전된 금지착오가 된다. 양면성을 띤 중간지대의 착오에는 구성요건쪽을 우선 검토하여 귀속시켜야 한다. 구성요건관련성의 판단은 구성요건적 고의에서 요구되는 사실에 대한 의미의 인식 내용에 따라 달라지겠지만, 일반적인 인식수준으로는 평행평가에 의지하게 된다. 구성요건 표지의 속성과 의미 인식의 내용에 관하여, 구성요건적 사실 자체에 대한 인식을 요구하는 것은 반전된 구성요건착오에 해당되고, 그 인식에서 유형적으로 법질서 전체에 대한 평가를 요구하는 것은 반전된 금지착오에 관련되게 된다. The mistake is subjective notion that is not in accord with the objective facts and includes not only negative mistake but positive mistake. These are so-called “reversal mistake” relate to positive mistake. In reversal mistake is also divided into mistake of fact (Tatbestandsirrtum) and mistake of law (Verbotsirrtum). There are case where the doer is subjectively mistaken in the existence of the objective circumstances of configuration requirement (Tatbestand), although such circumstances did not exist in fact. Reversal mistake of law is recognized when an actor commits a crime with the positive awareness of his act`s illegality. To admit reversal mistake of law, the doer must have subjectively knowledge of the circumstances of “Tatbestand”. Korean Criminal Code contains provision about reversal mistake of fact (impossible attempt), but no provision about reversal mistake of law (hallucinatory crime). Under article 27 of the Korean Criminal Code, when a person commits a crime misunderstanding that his act constitutes a crime under existing acts, there is impossible attempt. The hallucinatory crime is a case to misrecognize his conduct to be come under a kind of prohibited norm not even being existence. Notwithstanding the provisions and judicial precedents, there are controversial theories about the proper criterion of determining reversal mistake. There are similarities between error facti and error iuris related to reversal mistake. A criterion of distinguishing reversal mistake is whether the mistake related to “Tatbestand” or not. The distinction of reversal mistake was studied in this paper, with its focus on the theories of criteria and in connection with the decisions of the Korean Supreme Court. We examined reversal mistake of fact and reversal mistake of law have different structures. This paper suggests a reasonable way of the exertion to settle and clarify the reversal mistake, and that of the investigation to found concrete bases for the distinction after analyzing the competing opinions.