Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Securities Regulations: Transformation from the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) to the STO (Security Token Offering) and the IEO (Initial Exchange Offering)

( Koji Takahashi ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2020 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.45

이 글은 미국이 증권 규제에서 규범적 관할권을 주장함에 따라 ICO (가상화폐공개)가 어떤 영향을 받았는지를 살펴보고, ICO의 대안으로 STO (암호화폐공개)와 IEO(가상화페대행공개)를 분석한다. 이 분석은 기초원칙과 같이 규범적 관할권을 뒷받침하는 원칙을 검토하는 것으로 시작한다. 그런 다음 기초원칙의 운용을 지원하는 세 가지 테스트인 시행 테스트, 효과 테스트, 거래 테스트를 검토한다. 다음으로 인터넷이 국경을 넘나드는 투자유치를 용이하게 하는데 미치는 영향을 검토한다. 인터넷이 투자유치에 이용되는 경우 효과 테스트의 해석방법에 대하여 분석한다. 최근에는 블록체인 기술이 ICO를 탄생시켰다. 블록체인 기술은 ICO의 초기 인기에 기여한 특징인 국경 없는 투자유치를 가능하게 했다. ICO는 기술적으로 국경이 없지만 법적으로는 그렇지 않다. 이 글은 요점을 설명하기 위해 앞서 언급한 세 가지 테스트를 ICO에 적용하는 방법을 검토한다. 분열된 규제 체제에 의해 국경이 없는 ICO의 특징이 약화되면서 ICO는 최근 인기를 잃었다. 이 글은 STO와 IEO를 분석하여 ICO와 어떻게 다른지, 세분화된 규제 제도에 더 잘 맞는지 여부를 확인함으로써 결론을 내린다. This article examines how the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) has been impacted by the States’ assertion of prescriptive jurisdiction in securities regulations and analyze the STO (Security Token Offering) and the IEO (Initial Exchange Offering) as alternatives to the ICO. The analysis begins with examining the principles underpinning prescriptive jurisdiction such as, in particular, the territoriality principle. It then proceeds to examine the three tests - the conduct test, the effects test and the transactional test - which support the operation of the territoriality principle. Attention is then turned to the impact of the Internet which has facilitated cross-border fundraising. An analysis is given to the way the effects test is interpreted where the Internet is used for the solicitation of investment. More recently, the blockchain technology has given birth to the ICO. It has enabled borderless fundraising, a feature which contributed to the initial popularity of the ICO. While the ICO is technologically borderless, it is legally not so. To illustrate the point, the article examines the way the aforementioned three tests are to be applied in the ICO. With its borderless feature undermined by the fragmented regulatory regimes, the ICO has lately lost popularity. The article concludes by examining the STO and the IEO to see how they differ from the ICO and fit better with the fragmented regulatory regimes.

Development of ECH system components in JAEA

Koji Takahashi,Atsushi Kasugai,Ken Kajiwara,Keishi Sakamoto 한국진공학회 2007 한국진공학회 학술발표회초록집 Vol.16 No.2

Evolution of Tidally Truncated Globular Clusters with Anisotropy

Koji Takahashi,H. M. Lee,Shogo Inagaki 한국천문학회 1996 天文學會報 Vol.21 No.-

The Reflection on the Originality of the Study of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences in Japan

Koji Takahashi 대한운동학회 2024 아시아 운동학 학술지 Vol.26 No.1

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to discuss the redefinition of the Physical Education, Health, and Sport Sciences (PEHSS) in Japan by considering its originality. METHODS The method of this study is reflective consideration in philosophy. The steps of this consideration are understanding of the study of PEHSS, analysis of its current status, extensions and inclusions of the study kinesiology/biomechanics and sport movement & behaviour that related to the PEHSS, and my opinion and proposals regarding the study of PEHSS. RESULTS First, the “Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences (JSPEHSS)” is commonly known as the “TAIIKU-GAKKAI” in Japanese. The JSPEHSS is cooperation with science and research bodies of The Science Council of Japan and belongs to the Branches of Health and Sport Sciences in the Life Sciences Section. In addition, PEHSS is included in the Health Science, especially, rehabilitation, sports, physical education, nutrition, and health science-related at the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Second, the name and the purpose of the JSPEHSS have undergone several revisions. These revisions have been influenced by the shift from “Physical Education” to “Sports” in Japanese society and culture. Third, kinesiology in Japan has established two standpoints which are biomechanics and theory of sport movement & behaviour. Coaching is included in the latter standpoint. CONCLUSIONS I propose that the alternative name for the study of PEHSS be changed to “the system of knowledge related to human body and movement practice.” The reasons for my opinion are that PEHSS is a field based on human “practice,” the object of research is the human body and movement practice/ physical activity in general, and the research method is integrated/synthetic science, including Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences.

日本における法定労働時間および時間外手当を巡る法制度の変遷考

高橋孝治 ( Takahashi Koji ) 한림대학교 일본학연구소 2020 翰林日本學 Vol.0 No.36

日本では 「働き方改革を推進するための関係法律の整備に関する法律(以下 「働き方改革法」)」が2018年6月29日に国会で可決された。この働き方改革法第1条により、「残業代ゼロ法」と批判されている高度プロフェッショナル制度が導入された。高度プロフェッショナル制度は、職務の範囲が明確で少なくとも1,075万円以上の年収を有する労働者が、高度の専門的知識を必要とする等の業務に従事する場合に、年間104日の休日を確実に取得させること等の健康確保措置を講じること、本人の同意や委員会の決議等を要件として、労働時間、休日、深夜の割増賃金等の規定を適用除外とするものである。このような制度が導入されたことを契機として、日本における時間外手当および法定労働時間を巡る法制度の変遷を顧みて、日本の労働法制を検討し直すのが本稿である 本稿は、日本の労働法制は、「労働者保護」のために必ずしも資してきたわけではないことを明らかにする。それは、労働基準法制定からしばらく後に日本の国会で 「諸外国では時間外手当を40%増としている国もあるが、わが国では25%とした」という発言があり、時間外手当の法定基準が日本は他国と比べても低いということを知りながら、現在も法定時間外手当は基本的には25%以上増とされていること、さらに、裁量労働制、変形労働時間制と、さらに高度プロフェッショナル制度と日本の労働法制の中から、時間外労働に対する手当の支払いを必須ではなくす制度が導入されて現在に至っていることからも言える。そして、さらに本稿は、結論として日本の労働法制は、初期の頃から労働者保護の側面が弱かったが、一見すると労働者有利の法改正に合わせて、企業に配慮した改正も行っており、必ずしも労働者保護の法制度ではないと指摘する。 In Japan, the “Work Style Reform Act” was enacted on June 29, 2018. This Article 1 introduced a highly professional system, which is criticized as the "Zero Overtime Law". According to this system, the rules such as working hours and holidays are not applied to workers who have a clear scope of work and who have an annual income of 10.75 million yen or more that meets at least specific requirements. With the introduction of this system, this paper studies the history of the legal system of overtime allowances and legal working hours in Japan. This paper makes clear that Japanese labor law is not for "worker protection". Some time after the enactment of the Labor Standards Law, there was a statement in the Japanese Diet that "the overtime allowance was increased by 40% in foreign countries, but it was increased to 25% in Japan", and the legal standard for overtime allowance in Japan is I know that the overtime allowance is basically increased by 25% or more, and that the discretionary work system, the modified working time system, the highly professional system and the Japanese labor law system are also known. Among them, it can be said that a system has been introduced that makes payment of allowance for overtime work unnecessary. Furthermore, he concludes that Japan’s labor law system has weakened the aspect of worker protection from the early days, and at the first glance, it has been revised in consideration of companies along with the revision of the law that favors workers.

『満洲国』における公訴時効制度の考察

高橋孝治 ( Takahashi Koji ) 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2020 일본연구 Vol.34 No.0

公訴時効制度とは、犯罪の発生から一定の法定期間が経過した場合、被疑者に対して起訴ができなくなるという制度である。公訴時効制度はいうなれば、単なる時間の経過で犯罪に問うことができなくなるという制度であり、植民地などでは宗主国に対する抵抗運動を処罰できなくなるという面からその導入に否定的な側面がある。ところで、日本はかつては多くの植民地を保有していたが、「事実上の植民地」である「満洲国」と呼ばれる「国家」があった。「満洲国」は形式的には「独立国家」であったが、その実態は日本の傀儡国家であった。本稿は、この「満洲国」における公訴時効制度を研究するものである。日本法制史の立場からは、「満洲国」を始めとする植民地法制も日本法の一部と捉えて研究がされるべきであるが、これまでの日本法制史の中では植民地法制は研究の俎上に上がっていない。本稿は、この日本法制史の研究の隙間を埋めるためのものでもある。 本稿では、「満洲国」における公訴時効制度に関する条文、学説、判例などを概観し検討をする。結論としては、公訴時効制度から見た場合、「満洲国」はやはり「日本の植民地」であり、「宗主国」である日本の条文を真似たという側面が非常に強いものであったとした上で、「満洲国」では公訴時効制度は規定こそあれ、大赦などによって事実上あまり機能しておらず、学説についてもあまり検討されていなかったものの、「宗主国たる日本」の学説の先を行く学説を一部で見ることができるとする。 The prescriptive law for public prosecution is a system where a suspect cannot be prosecuted after a certain statutory period has elapsed from the occurrence of a crime. There is a negative aspect to the introduction of the prescriptive statute system because it will not be possible to punish resistance movements against the colonial power in colonies. By the way, Japan used to have many colonies, but there was a “nation” called “Manchoukuo,” which is a “virtual colony.” Although “Manchoukuo” was formally an “independent state,” the reality was that it was a puppet state in Japan. This paper studies the prescription prescription system in “Manchoukuo.” From the standpoint of the history of Japanese legal system, the colonial legal system including “Manchoukuo” should be considered as part of Japanese law for research, but in the history of Japanese legal system so far, Is not the subject of research. This article is also intended to fill in the gaps in this study of Japanese legal history. In this paper, we will review and examine the articles, theories, and precedents concerning the prescription prescription system in “Manchoukuo.” In conclusion, from the viewpoint of the prescription time limit system, “Manchoukuo” was still a “Japanese colony” and it was very strong that it mimicked the Japanese text of “sovereign country”. In the above, in Manchoukuo, the prescriptive statutes of lawsuits are not functioning effectively due to amnesty and regulations, and the theory has not been considered so much. Suppose you can see some of the theory that goes.

日本における公訴時効制度を遡及適用する法改正に対する憲法判断の検討

다카하시고지 ( Takahashi Koji ) 한림대학교 일본학연구소 2021 翰林日本學 Vol.- No.38

公訴時効制度とは、犯罪の発生から法定の一定期間が経過した場合、被疑者に対して起訴ができなくなるという制度である。日本では公訴時効制度は2010年に大きな改正が行われた。日本では、それまで全ての犯罪が公訴時効制度の対象となっていたのであるが、この改正により人を死亡させた罪であって死刑に処される可能性のある行為は公訴時効制度の対象外とされたのである。さらに、この改正法は、改正日より前に起こった犯罪で、まだ公訴時効の期間が経過していないものに ついても、適用させることとなっていた。そのため、この改正は遡及処罰の禁止に反するのではないかとの疑念があった。 しかし、2015年12月3日に、日本の最高裁判所は、この改正法は違憲ではないと判断した。本稿は、この最高裁判所判決を検討することを目的する。結論としては、日本では法律を用いて裁判所の判断によって犯罪が成立という観念が薄く、裁判所や研究者がそのことに瞬間的に気付かなかったためこのような判決が出てしまい、それは「法治」の大きな後退であると述べる。 The prosecution prescription system is a system in which a suspect cannot be prosecuted after a certain statutory period has passed since the crime occurred. In Japan, the statute of limitations system was significantly revised in 2010. In Japan, all crimes were subject to the statute of limitations, but any offense that caused the death of a person and could be sentenced to death is subject to the statute of limitations. It was taken out. In addition, the amendment was to apply to crimes committed before the amendment date, for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired. Therefore, there was suspicion that this amendment violated the prohibition of retroactive punishment. However, on December 3, 2015, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that this revised law was not unconstitutional. This paper aims to consider this Supreme Court decision. In conclusion, in Japan, there is little idea that a crime is committed by the judgment of the court using the law, and the court and researchers did not notice it momentarily, so such a judgment came out, which is “law rule”. State that it is a big setback.

安倍晋三⋅元内閣総理大臣銃撃事件から見る日台関係の考察

高橋孝治 ( Koji Takahashi ) 한림대학교 일본학연구소 2022 翰林日本學 Vol.- No.41

日本で内閣総理大臣を務めた安倍晋三が2022年7月9日に銃撃され死亡した。これに対して世界中から多くの意見が発された。その中でも台湾(中華民国)は特に強い哀悼を示している。しかし、その哀悼も、台湾の新聞報道などを見てみると、純粋な哀悼というよりかは台湾の安全保障にとって大きな損失があるためという側面が大きいように見える。本稿はこの点を素材にして、安倍晋三銃撃および死亡事件から日台関係を見直すものである。 そして、台湾での安倍晋三の評価は、かつて「台湾有事は日本有事」と発言したことに対して高い評価が集まっている。これは、2015年に憲法違反だと指摘を受けながらも、安倍晋三主導で制定された安保法の集団的自衛権行使の要件について述べているものと思われる。ここから台湾の報道や台湾の政治家は、台湾有事が発生した場合には日本が台湾防衛に協力する道筋を作ったために安倍晋三を高く評価しているのではないかと本稿は指摘する。 しかし、安保法はあくまで日本の存立が危機に陥ったり、日本に重要な影響が生じない限り他国の武力行使には介入できないようになっている。そして、あくまで安保法ではこのような要件を課しており、さらに違憲無効と判断される可能性も高く残されている。そして、台湾では安保法制定時には「日本の立憲主義は崩壊した」などと批判的な報道が多くあったにもかかわらず、安倍晋三銃撃および死亡事件発生時には、安倍晋三は批判に屈しなかったと好意的に報道していることも指摘する。 本稿の結論としては、台湾は日本国憲法上できない可能性のある集団的自衛権による日本の台湾防衛に対する協力を安倍晋三の「台湾有事は日本有事」との言葉から期待しており、日台関係は互いの「勘違い」の上に成り立っている側面があると述べる。 Shinzo Abe, who served as Prime Minister in Japan, was shot dead on July 9, 2022. There were many opinions about this from all over the world. Among them, Taiwan (Republic of China) expresses particularly strong condolences. However, judging from Taiwanese newspaper reports, it seems that the condolences are not pure condolences, but rather amajor loss to Taiwan's security. Based on this point, this article reviews Japan-Taiwan relations from the shooting and death of Shinzo Abe. And looking at Shinzo Abe's evaluation in Taiwan, he once said that an emergency in Taiwan is an emergency in Japan. This seems to be a reference to the requirements for the exercise of the right to collective self-defense under the Security Law, which was enacted under Shinzo Abe's leadership, despite being accused of being unconstitutional in 2015. This paper points out that Taiwanese media and politicians highly value Shinzo Abe for creating a path for Japan to cooperate with Taiwan's defense in the event of a Taiwanese emergency. The conclusion of this paper is that even if Taiwan is made possible by the Security Law, cooperation with Japan's defense of Taiwan through the right of collective self-defense, which is highly likely to be unconstitutional and invalid under the Japanese Constitution, is Shinzo Abe's ``Emergency in Taiwan is an emergency in Japan.'' He has high expectations from his words, and says that there are aspects of Japan-Taiwan relations that are built on mutual misunderstandings.

日本領関東州における公訴時効制度の考察

다카하시고지 ( Takahashi Koji ) 한국외국어대학교 일본연구소 2021 日本硏究 Vol.- No.89

공소 시효 제도는 범죄의 발생에서 일정한 법정 기간이 경과 한 경우 피의자에 대한 형사 기소 할 수 없게 되는 제도이다. 본고는 식민지의 공소 시효 제도의 동향을 탐구하기 위해, 이전에 존재했던 일본의 식민지 중 관동 주에서 공소 시효 제도를 검토하는 것이다. 구체적으로는 일본 령 관동 주의 법체계 공소 시효 제도의 조문 적용 상황 등에 대해서 검토한다. 결론적으로 일본 령 관동 주, 지금까지 관동 주는 제정 러시아의 지배 등을 거쳐 일본의 식민지로 전락에도 불구하고, 지금까지의 제정 러시아가 적용하고 법 등에 대해 아무것도 고려 없이 일본 법을 적용하고 있는 부분이 있었다는 것을 밝히고, 이 점은 일본 령 조선 등과 다른 점이라고 말한다. 이 점에서 한마디로 일본의 식민지라고해도 지역에 따라 취급이 매우 다르다 가능성이 있다고 지적 할 수 있다. The prosecution prescription system is a system in which criminal proceedings cannot be prosecuted against a suspect after a certain statutory period has passed since the crime occurred. This paper examines the statute of limitations in the Kanto region, which was one of the Japanese colonies that once existed, in order to explore the trends in the statute of limitations in the colonies. Specifically, we will examine the legal system in the Japanese territory of Kwantung Leasing, the provisions of the statute of limitations system, and the status of application. In conclusion, the Japanese territory of Kwantung Leasing, even though Kwantung Leasing became a Japanese colony after the rule of Imperial Russia, nothing about the laws that Imperial Russia had applied until then. Without considering it, he clarified that there was a part where Japanese law was applied, and stated that this point is different from Japanese territory Korea. From this point, it can be pointed out that the treatment of Japanese colonies may differ considerably depending on the location.

日台与党政策意見交流会の法的問題の検討

高橋孝治 ( Takahashi Koji ) 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2022 일본연구 Vol.38 No.0

日本の自由民主党国会議員と台湾(中華民国)の民主進歩党立法院委員が、2021年8月27日に「外交·防衛政策意見交流会」を、同年12月24日に「外交·経済政策意見交流会」を開催し、ウェブ上で意見交換を行った(これらを「意見交流会」とよぶ)。これは、日本と台湾には国交がないため、「政府」としての意見交換が難しいため「与党」間での対談を行ったとしている。しかし、これらには以下のような精査しなければならない諸問題がある。「政府」ではなく「与党」である以上、これらの会議ではどのようなことが話し合われたのかが非公開となっていること。そこに「政府」に対する越権行為的発言はなく、非「政府」の立場としての議論が貫徹されていたのかということ。本稿では、これらの諸問題を特に法的側面から検討し、特に「政府」としての発言があったと評価しうる安全保障やキリバスに関する話題を検討する。 意見交流会で話題となった内容には、安全保障、台湾のCPTPP加盟、半導体産業での連携、日本がキリバスに大使館を設置してキリバス政府と台湾の関係の強化を促進する予定があることなどがあったという。その結論としては、これら意見交流会の話題から、結局「政党」間の対談とは詭弁であり、やはり「政府」としての対談だったのではないだろうかと思われる発言が特に日本側からあったと指摘する。そして、このような意見交流会を今後も行うのであれば、日本の「政府」や「与党」も台湾に対する認識を変える必要があると述べる。 Members of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan and the Legislative Yuan of the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan held an online Foreign and Defense Policy Opinion Exchange Meeting on August 27, 2021, and an online Foreign and Economic Policy Opinion Exchange on December 24, 2021. This is because Japan and Taiwan do not have diplomatic relations, and it is difficult for them to exchange perspectives on the governmental level, so the discussions were held between the ruling parties in each country. However, this has led to several problems, which must be scrutinized, as follows. As long as the ruling parties rather than the governments are involved, what is discussed at these meetings is not open to the public. In addition, there were no remarks that intruded upon the authority of either government, and discussions based only on non-governmental positions were thoroughly engaged in. This paper examines these issues, especially from a legal perspective, and in particular examines topics related to security and Kiribati, which can be evaluated as reflecting the perspective of the government. Topics discussed at the opinion exchange meeting included security, Taiwan's accession to the CPTPP, cooperation in the semiconductor industry, and Japan's plans to establish an embassy in Kiribati to promote stronger ties between the Kiribati government and Taiwan. In conclusion, based on the topics of these opinion exchange meetings, there were remarks, especially from the Japanese side, that made it appear that the dialogue between political parties ultimately consisted of sophistry, and that the meetings were indeed a dialogue between the governments. He also said that if such meetings are to be held in the future, both the Japanese government and ruling party need to change their perception of Taiwan.