인터넷방송시스템 구현을 위한 FEC 기반 패킷손실 복구

박준석,정민수,고대식 한국방송공학회 1997 한국방송공학회 학술대회 Vol.1 No.1

BFP 알고리즘을 이용한 토모그락픽 영상 처리 ( Tomographic Image Processing Using BFP Algorithm )

박준석,고대식 대한전자공학회 1996 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.1996 No.7

켈젠, 규범성, 권위

박준석 한국법철학회 2011 법철학연구 Vol.14 No.2

There are two issues that have been long discussed in the history of legal theory. Firstly, there is the problem of normativity of law. It has been generally endorsed that the classical positivists were wrong when they disregarded the normative character of law and tried to build up reductivist theory concerning the concept of law. Secondly, there is the problem of obligation to obey the law. It has been often pointed out that the classical natural law theorists were wrong in concluding that the obligation to obey the law exists or derives its existence from the necessary connection between law and morality. In recent years, the first notion of normativity of law is regarded as consisting in the main themes of legal theory, while the second idea of obligation to obey the law is often rejected by many influential theorists. They claimed that the idea of the obligation to obey the law can be endorsed only if the normativity of law is conceived of as what is called justified normativity by J. Raz, and that Hans Kelsen upheld the conception of normativity of this sort, while H.L.A. Hart upheld different kind of conception of normativity, i.e. social normativity. In this paper, I will show that two issues can be seen not sharply distinguished but rather deeply engaged, even before considering which conception of the normativity of law to be maintained, and that most of all relatively successful elaborations on law can be seen as the struggles to answer, above all and in the first place, the question why the law should be obeyed. Finally, I will suggest that justification of legal standard is necessary in upholding either conception of the normativity, although in different contexts, and that the difference between the two conceptions of normativity of law, i.e. justified normativity and the social normativity might have been exaggerated. 이 글은 법철학 내지 법이론의 역사에서 줄곧 다루어져 왔던 두 가지 쟁점에 관한 이해를 목표로 하고 있다. 그 두 가지 쟁점 중 하나는 이른바 법의 규범성의 문제이다. 일반적으로 전통적인 법실증주의자들은 법의 규범적 특성을 무시하고, 특히 법의 개념에 관하여 환원주의적인 이론을 수립하고자 했다는 점에서 오류를 범하고 있는 것으로 받아들여지고 있다. 다른 하나의 쟁점은 통상 준법의무라 불리는 문제이다. 전통적인 자연법론자들은 준법의무가 존재한다거나 혹은 그 존재를 법과 도덕의 필연적인 결합 내지 연계로부터 도출할 수 있다고 결론짓고자 했다는 점에서 오류를 범하고 있다는 지적이 종종 있어 왔다. 법의 규범성 관념이 법이론의 핵심 테마들 중 하나를 이루는 것으로 간주되고 있는 점과는 달리, 근래에 들어 준법의무의 관념은 점점 많은 영향력 있는 이론가들에 의해 거부되고 있다. 준법의무의 관념을 부정하는 학자들은 대체로 준법의무란 법의 규범성 개념을 라즈가 말하는 이른바 정당화된 규범성의 관념으로 이해할 경우에만 인정될 수 있는 것으로 보고 있다. 그들은 켈젠이 바로 그러한 종류의 규범성 관념을 견지하고 있다고 지적하는 한편, 하트의 경우는 그와 다른 종류의 법의 규범성 개념, 즉 소위 사회적 규범성의 관념을 받아들이고 있다고 설명한다. 이 글에서는 법의 규범성 문제와 준법의무의 문제가 서로 다르게 취급될 수 있도록 확연히 구별되는 문제라기보다는, 특정한 종류의 규범성 관념을 구성하기 이전 단계에서조차 서로 긴밀하게 연계되어 있는 것임을 보이고, 법의 본질에 관한 정교한 설명체계들 중 비교적 성공적이라 할 수 있는 것들은 사실상 모두 다름 아닌 “법은 왜 준수되어야 하는가?”라는 질문에 대한 해답을 제시하고자 했던 시도로 간주될 수 있음을 보이고자 한다. 나아가 어떠한 종류의 규범성 관념을 받아들이는지에 상관없이 이미 법의 정당화는 필수적이며, 준법의무에 관한 논의도 결국 법의 정당화라는 큰 틀에서 바라봐야 할 대상이라고 한다면 이른바 정당화된 규범성 관념과 사회적 규범성 관념의 차이가 너무 과장되어서는 안 된다는 점 또한 보이고자 한다.

이중 E-평면구조를 이용한 협대역 대역통과 여파기의 설계 ( Design of Narrowband Bandpass Filters Using Double E-Plane Structure )

박준석,임재봉,조홍구 대한전자공학회 1992 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.1992 No.10

경호상황에서 태권도기법의 적용방법에 관한 연구

박준석,서민학 龍仁大學校 武道硏究所 2004 武道硏究所誌 Vol.15 No.1

This study shows how to apply Taekwondo as a Protectional Martial Art Generally every learning territory is divided into cultural and social science and natural science. In the same manner, the study of guarding should be broken into parts so as to make the most of guarding characteristics. I think that Protection Martial Art will develop in learning because it can motivate Taekwondo participants to study it. I will attempt to show a developing study of Taekwondo as a Protection Martial Art. A Guard is a final method in which deals with each kind of threats. The timing, the place and the way of attempt to inflict an injury is decided by the attactor. The situation of attact is also has many variables. If there isn't a Guard Martial Art or the bodyguard is irresolute, it is difficult to control the attactor. Therefore, the ultimate aim of Protection Martial Art is not only to protect a guarded person from danger through complete training, but also facing an attact and controling it effectively. In order to insure the guarded person's life from the harmer, the bodyguard has to perform his duty from a high degree of training. So training in Protection Martial Art is a necessary condition. When the bodyguard faces an attact and deals with it, he has to grasp and meet the situation - the environment, the direction and the way of attact. Also recognize the a kind of weapon, the attactor's skill and ability and so on. A high degree of guard technics and Guard Martial Art is essential to face and deal with an attact. Owing to establish Protection Martial Art systematically, this shows how to apply Taekwondo training technics to Protection Martial Art and how to deal with a situation of guarding in the event of attact by using basic technics from Taekwondo. First, by studying the system of Protection Martial Art based on Taekwondo, I developed Taekwondo training technics as a Protection Martial Art. Second, "Stance posture" should be neat and sharp. I intend to show the posture-"Parallel Stance"- which is easy to offend and defend in every direction. Moreover it is more developed than it was. Third, I show a desirable "Stance posture" as a guard's position, so that the guard can deal with the dangerous situation promptly and properly. Fourth, I try to show the way how to control an accidental occurance by using a based action and an applied action from Taekwondo as a guard technic. Therefore, I think that the system of Protection Martial Art based on Taekwondo should be studied and Taekwondo should be established as a Protectional martial art. Training Taekwondo as a Protectional martial art enables one to handle any unexpected situation by mastering its theory and basic skills. I consider that we should practice Taekwondo technics through a real model to deal with various dangerous situations.

18GHz대 디지털 마이크로파 중계장치용 협대역 대역통과 여파기의 설계 및 제작 ( Design and Fabrication of Narrowband Waveguide Bandpass Filters for 18GHz Digital Microwave Relay Systems )

박준석,윤태윤,임재봉,김철동,김덕용 대한전자공학회 1994 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.1994 No.5

무도대학 학생들의 학교생활 만족도

박준석 [용인대학교 학생생활연구소] 2004 학생생활연구 Vol.12 No.-

In 2004, we have research inclusively about feeling of satisfaction of Yong In University students, junior and senior. Here is summary of this research results. First, we take a look at university life, most of the students applied Yong In University for future career and course, 78.6% of the students showed 'Normal' or above satisfaction. Also, still agony of career for future and course came out high. Second, this school's merit is 'social reputation' and demerit is lack of career preparation guidence came out the highest. Third, a satisfaction about a major came out 82.5%, above 'Normal' satisfaction and primary factor of dissatisfaction is 'related employment, and lack of learning pratical, professional knowledge '. They feel many stress and burden in study because 'the major is not much helpful for employment, and the grade doesn't come out as they tried.' They were satisfied about a way and content of lecture and what they were expecting from professor were 'warm human relationships and varied lecture method.' Fourth, about satisfaction of school facilities, cafeteria (price, menu, taste) came out lower. Synthesizing results of this research, most of the students were satisfied in most of the university life highly , but about a major, course, employment, cafeteria, they expected improvement. Through this materials, mutual participations will be needed among university, the staff of a school, and students for many students to be adapted school life and carry on better school culture.

인터넷 링크행위자는 이제 정범은 물론 방조범조차 아닌 것인가? - 대법원 2012도13748 판결의 문제점과저작권 형사범죄 처벌의 논리 -

박준석 한국지식재산학회 2015 産業財産權 Vol.- No.48

In the copyright area of South Korea where many right holders often give up time and cost consuming litigations as an effect of extreme vulnerability to infringement, so far there is no en banc decision by Korean Supreme Court. Considering the purpose of this academic seminar to deal with an en banc decision itself or any related case by Korean Supreme Court, I inevitably analyzed the recent case, the position of which should be changed by a future en banc decision. It is the Korean Supreme Court panel’s decision 2012do13748 decided on Mar. 12, 2015 which ruled that aiding and abetting liability could not be imposed though the criminal defendant made a link to copyright infringing materials. By clarifying that any linking activity cannot fall on aiding and abetting or indirect infringement, this decision goes one step forward from the standpoint of existing precedents which ruled a linking is hard to be a direct infringement such as reproduction or transmission itself under the Korean copyright law. However, such a conclusion is colliding with the positive stance of the Korean Supreme Court in “Pantie Newspaper” case recognizing that a linking to porn is equal to displaying the porn and is not fitting at all with the Article 102 of the Korean Copyright Act providing the limitation of liability for online service provider, which provision is clearly based on that the service provider could be liable for its linking service under the aiding and abetting theory. Also, the conclusion is problematic because, from the perspective of policy, it is likely to unduly encourage copyright infringement rather than to uplift the freedom of the Internet and it is not matching with the other countries’ attitudes which commonly admit the possibility to impose at least the indirect or secondary liability on a linking activity. So, it shall be modified well by a future en banc decision by the Supreme Court. In addition, it should be kept in mind that Korean Courts have committed logical mistakes in many cases including this 2012do13748 decision, partly because the specific characteristic of copyright law makes it too hard and too effort-consuming to accurately analyze the combination of complex copyright divided into as many as ten individual sub-rights and much more complex fair use provisions. All copyright stakeholders should devote much more effort to address the complement of copyright legal system related to respond effectively to the infringement rather than to concentrate the above effort-consuming analysis. It is likely to be a clear shortcut by which we can expect various court cases including en banc cases in Korean copyright area. Besides, as this article shows the example by relying on Korean criminal law in trying to find an appropriate solution for the criminal case of copyright infringement, the much more important thing is to harmonize and cooperate with impeccable logic that is already taken in the adjacent laws which is also a part of the overall Korean Law, not to analyze the related trend of foreign intellectual property laws.

빅 데이터 등 새로운 데이터에 대한 지적재산권법 차원의 보호가능성

박준석 한국지식재산학회 2019 産業財産權 Vol.- No.58

전자적 데이터가 가진 정보로서의 가치에 우리가 주목한 것은 오래 전부터이지만, 최근 새롭게 각광받고 있는 빅 데이터는 새로운 시각에서 바라볼 필요가 있다. ‘4차 산업혁명’의 핵심기술인 사물인터넷 기술로 뒷받침을 받아 빅 데이터 작성(집합)이 조만간 폭발적으로 증가할 것이고 빅 데이터 분석의 향방이 우리 일상생활에 엄청난 영향을 미치게 될 것이다. 그런 빅 데이터의 특징 내지 가치에 주목하여, 제외국은 발 빠르게 움직이고 있는데 대표적으로 유럽연합은 ‘데이터 경제’라는 모토 아래 빅 데이터 작성을 촉진하고자 물권적(배타적) 독점권을 부여할지 여부를 검토하는 이른바 ‘데이터 소유권’ 논의를 진행 중이다. 빅 데이터의 또 다른 특징은 그것이 다름 아니라 우리 일상생활에서 거의 모든 데이터를 무차별적으로 집합한 결과물이기 때문에 불가피하게 개인정보를 대거 포함하고 있다는 점이다. 그렇지만 개인정보의 생래적 보유자(개인정보주체)에 대한 기존 보호와 그런 개인정보까지 포함한 빅 데이터의 작성자(집합자)에게 새로 주어질 수 있는 권리는 그 대상이 일부 중복되더라도 충돌하지 않을 수 있다. 지적재산권법의 역사적 경험, 가령 데이터베이스를 작성한 자에게 그 데이터베이스 전체에 대해 부여되는 새로운 보호와 그 데이터베이스 개별구성부분들에 대하여 이미 주어졌던 저작권과 같은 권리보호를 서로 구별하여온 접근법과 엇비슷하게 빅 데이터 작성자에게 주어질 권리보호를 구성하면 되는 것이다. 유럽연합에서 주로 2014년경부터 본격화된 ‘데이터 경제’나 ‘데이터 소유권’ 논의의 진행추이를 살펴보면 물권적 독점권을 빅 데이터에 새로 부여하는 방식에 관해서는 대부분이 부정적 견해를 피력하고 있는 상황이다. 한편 미국의 관련 상황은 한국과 다르게 아직 불법행위로부터의 보호에 그치고 있는 개인정보 보호를 물권적 권리에 가깝게 격상하자는 논의가 비교적 활발할 뿐 개인정보가 아닌 빅 데이터 전반을 물권적 권리로 보호할 지에 관해서는 아직 활발한 논의가 관찰되지 않는다. 개인정보를 포함한 빅 데이터의 바람직한 권리보호방식을 구성하는데 있어 지적재산권 보호에서 얻어진 기존 경험을 유력하게 참고하여야 한다고 주장해온 필자의 입장에서는, 유럽연합의 위 논의가 단지 민법상의 소유권과 비교하는데 그치기보다 지적재산권 법제의 저작권·데이터베이스나 영업비밀 보호를 직접 적용하거나 응용하여 빅 데이터를 보호하는 방법을 적극 검토하기 시작했다는 점을 무척 긍정적으로 평가한다. 무형적이고 비경쟁적인 정보에 대한 보호법제라는 공통점 때문에 지적재산권 법제를 운용한 역사적 경험이 빅 데이터에 대한 새로운 권리부여를 적절히 고민하는데 아주 좋은 참고가 될 수 있다는 맥락에서, 이 글 후반부에서는 우리 지적재산권 법제를 중심으로 차례차례 가장 관련 있거나 도움이 될 만한 지적재산권 법제를 찾아보았다. 그런 과정에서 특허나 저작권에 의한 보호 혹은 저작권과 흡사한 배타적 독점권을 부여하는 데이터베이스 보호는 그런 목적에 부합하기 어렵다는 점, 영업비밀 보호법제는 빅 데이터 보유사업자가 이미 자주 원용하고 있는 방법이지만 빅 데이터를 공개하여 널리 활용되도록 촉진하겠다는 당초 목적에 반할 수 있다는 점 등을 먼저 고찰하였다. 그 다음으로, 우리 지적재산권 법제 중 부정경쟁 ... It has been long since paying attention to the value of electronic data as an information, but it is necessary to look at the big data, which has recently been attracting attention, from a new perspective. Big data creation(aggregation) will increase explosively in the near future with the backbone of the Internet of Things technology which is the core technology toward the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ and the direction of the analysis will have a great influence on our everyday life. Paying attention to the characteristic and value of such big data, foreign countries are rapidly responding and especially the European Union, in the motto of ‘Data Economy’, is progressing its discussions about the so-called ‘data ownership’ which examines whether or not to give property(exclusive) rights to promote the more creation of big data. Another feature of big data is that it contains large amounts of personal information inevitably because it is the very indiscriminate collection of almost all the data in our daily life. However, the right to be newly granted to the creator (aggregator) of the big data which includes the personal informations and the already given protection to the inherent holder of such personal information (the data subject) may not conflict even if some of the objects overlap. It is only necessary to configure, apart from the right already given to data subject, the right to be given to big data creators in a deliberate manner similar to the historical experiences of intellectual property law, for example, the experience to differentiate the new protection as a whole database for the person who gathered the whole database from the already given protection to each individual parts of the database. In the European Union, the discussions on Data Economy or Data Ownership, which started in earnest from around 2014, tend to converge toward a roughly negative view on whether to give a new exclusive monopoly right to big data. On the other hand, the related situation of the United States has not shown any meaningful discussion on whether to protect the whole big data, not the personal information, with property right while there has been relatively vivid discussions on whether to elevate the protection for personal information, which is just against illegal activities unlike in the Korea, to the level of semi-property right. From the standpoint of the author who has argued that we should strongly refer to the already existing experiences based on intellectual property protection in constructing a most desirable right protection system for big data including personal information, It is evaluated very positively that the above discussions by the European Union was not just remaining within comparison with the ownership right in the civil law and started to sincerely consider how to directly apply or refer the rules of copyright, database and trade secret protection to new protection system for big data. In the perspective that the historical experiences of the intellectual property law regime is a very good reference to properly designing new protection to big data because the new protection is also dealing with another information which character is intangible and non-rivalrous,, in the latter part of this article, the author tried to find out one by one what would be the most related or helpful intellectual property law among the whole intellectual property laws in Korea. At first, In such finding process, this article analyzed that the protection system of patent or copyright and sui-generis database protection system is difficult to match with our purpose while trade secret protection is the very method that many big data business holders already frequently rely on, but it may be against the initial purpose of promoting big data to be widely used. Next, since the Unfair Competition Prevention Act among the whole intellectual property laws has a unique characteristic that it gives only passive protect...

라이선스 관련 지적재산권 이슈들 - 우리 판례의 관련 동향을 중심으로 -

박준석 한국지식재산학회 2017 産業財産權 Vol.- No.54

지적재산권 라이선스 관련한 우리 판결들이 최근 몇 년 사이에 급증하고 있다. 이 글에서는, 그런 판례의 관련 동향을 중심으로, 라이선스에 관해서 거론되는 다양한 지적재산권 이슈들을 전체적으로 고찰해보았다. 이 글 Ⅱ장 설명과 같이, 지적재산권 라이선스와 지적재산권 물품의 판매는 구별하기가 아주 어렵다. 원래 ‘판매’에 해당할 약정임에도 소진원칙을 피하려는 지적재산권자가 ‘라이선스’처럼 최대한 법적형식을 치장하고자 집요한 노력을 기울이고 있기 때문이다. 위 구별의 기준으로 아직까지는 미국 하급심 판결인 Vernor 기준이 유력하다. 하지만, 최근 Impression 판결에서 제시된 연방대법원의 견해에 비추어 지적재산권자에게 비교적 유리하였던 Vernor 기준이 변경될 가능성이 있다고 본다. 나아가 설령 ‘판매’가 아닌 ‘라이선스’로 판별되더라도 라이선시(licensee)의 위약에 대항해 저작권 등 지적재산권침해책임까지 추궁하려면 당해 위약이 일정 요건을 충족하는 것이어야 한다. 미국 판례의 입장에 따르면 이른바 조건(condition) 위반에 해당하여야 한다. 반면 한국에서 유력설은 저작권 라이선스의 경우 위약이 저작재산권의 독점영역에서 생겨야 한다는 입장이다. 하지만, 이 견해는 위약 자체가 아니라 ‘허락 없는 이용행위’가 저작권침해책임 유무를 좌우하는 핵심임을 간과하고 있어 옳지 않다. 사견으로는 단순 계약상 책임뿐만 아니라 저작권침해책임까지 인정하려면 당해 위약이 ‘중요한’ 위약이어야 한다고 본다. 이 글 Ⅲ장에서는 지적재산권 제도 전반의 운용에 있어 라이선스가 수행하는 의미 있는 몇몇 역할들을 각각 살펴보았다. 지적재산권 법제의 부족함을 보완하는 역할, 상표불사용취소 조문 등 특정 법조문 운영과 관련해서는 라이선스를 부여함으로써 권리자가 직접 지적재산권을 활용하는 것과 동일한 법적효과를 달성할 수 있도록 해주는 역할, 이미 범해버린 침해행위를 사후에 양성화하여 계속 이용을 보장해주는 수단으로서의 역할 등 3가지 특수한 역할이 그것들이다. 나아가, Ⅳ장에서는 먼저 실무에서 이루어지는 라이선스의 내용을 유형별로 분류하였다. 그 다음 라이선스 약정에서 절대 없어서는 안 되는 핵심조항에 해당하는 권리부여조항과 로열티지급 조항 등을 살펴보았다. 특히 로열티지급 조항 관련하여서는, 최근 판례들의 동향을 중심으로, 지적재산권 활용과 무관한 매출액도 로열티 산정에 포함시키고 있어 생길 수 있는 논란, 특허무효화가 있을 경우 이미 지급한 로열티를 반환할 지를 둘러싼 논란 등을 상세히 분석하였다. 끝으로 핵심조항이 아닌 기타 조항들에 속하지만 각별한 관심을 받고 있는 이른바 부쟁(不爭) 조항 및 역분석 등 권리침해금지조항에 관해서도 역시 관련 판례를 원용하고 그 판결들의 특색을 분석하면서 고찰하였는데, 그 중 부쟁조항의 효력을 검토함에 있어서는 기존 논의와 다른 각도에서 특히 상표부정사용취소 관련 대법원 판결까지 포함시켜 그간 판례의 흐름을 진단해보았다. The cases by Korean courts on the intellectual property license has increased rapidly over the last few years. With a wider perspective, this article analyzes the various intellectual property issues discussed about licensing, mainly on related trends of such cases. As described in chapter II, it is very difficult to distinguish between licensing of intellectual property and sales of intellectual property products. This is because the intellectual property owner who are trying to avoid the exhaustion principle even for the contract which originally corresponds to “sale” is making relentless efforts to imitate it‘s legal formality like “license” as possible as he can. The Vernor criteria provided by the United States lower court decision, is still the strong standard for such distinction. However, the Vernor criteria which is relatively favorable for intellectual property owners may be changed in view of the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the recent Impression case. furthermore, even if the agreement is determined as “license” rather than “sale”, the license violation by a licensee must fulfil certain requirements in order to make the licensee liable even for infringement of intellectual property such as copyrights. According to the case law of the United States, such requirement would be a violation of the so-called condition. Meanwhile, in Korea, the influential opinion on the above requirements is taking the position that in the case of a copyright license, the license violation must happen within the monopoly area of ​​copyright. But the opinion seemingly overlooks that not the license violation itself, but the “the use of copyright materials without authorization” is the core which decides whether or not copyright infringement responsibility should be given. In the author’s opinion, license violation should reach the level of importance to make a licensee liable for not only breach of license contract but also copyright infringement. In chapter III of this article, some meaningful roles that the license itself plays in the overall operation of the intellectual property system have respectively reviewed. Those 3 specific roles are the role of a complementing tool for any deficiency of intellectual property legislation; the role to make a right holder to achieve the same legal effect as using the intellectual property right by himself through granting a license, at least with respect to the management of specific provisions such as the cancellation for trade mark non-use and etc.; the role as a means of ensuring continued use by legalizing infringing activities which have already been done. Furthermore, the chapter of this article IV classifies at first the contents of licenses in practice. Next, this article looked at the Grant of Rights clause and the Royalty Payment clause, which are indispensable in any license agreement. In particular, regarding Royalty Payment clause, this article tracks the details of the very controversy that has been arisen from the problematic inclusion of the revenue not related to the use of intellectual property in the calculation of royalties, and of the controversy over whether or not to return the royalties already paid in the event of patent invalidation. Finally, by also referring to the relevant precedents and analyzing the specific features of the precedents, it reviews so-called No Challenge clause and No Infringement clause such as a ban on any illegitimate reverse engineering which have received special attention even though those clauses are not the indispensable in a license and moreover it try to analyze the whole trend of the related cases by Korean courts on the validity of No Challenge clause with a different approach from prior discussions especially by newly including the Korean Supreme Court’s decision related to cancellation of trademark for irregular use.