All Articles

  • With the advancement of globalization, countries are struggling with crimes by foreigners in their own coun-tries. Republic of Korea(ROK) is no exception, and it has already reached the age of 2 million foreigners staying in ROK, and crime by foreigners is also increasing. In particular, not only conventional military and political secu-rity but also comprehensive security have attracted attention, and crimes such as drugs and international crimes by individuals or organizations have become a threat to national security. In this respect, it is the strengthening of immigration control by foreigners that can block crime for national security. There is a current Immigration Control Act with a statute to examine the identity of such foreigners. Since the current immigration control law resurrected the fingerprint seal system for foreigners abolished in 2003, there is a conflict between the criticism of unfair discrimination against foreigners and the effective method of restricting crime by foreigners staying abroad. In this article, we will review the brief description of the fingerprint and face information collection system in the present Immigration Control Act and the purpose of the legislation. Based on this, we examined why the system that was abolished in the past revived, focusing on expected benefits and considerations. Although many things can be considered in the first place, the most important thing is to prevent illegal im-migration by re-entry of persons who have committed crimes in the past or identity laundering by illegal immi-grants as well as efficient immigration examination, thereby reducing the risk of crime by foreigners It is expected. In addition, it is possible to prevent cases of settlement and further crimes by quickly identifying the identity of foreign criminals, and even if foreigners are injured, it can be solved quickly. In this case, violation of the principle of excessive prohibition and infringement of personal information self-determination right of information subject may be a problem, but the biometric information system is not suffi-cient for the purpose of legitimacy of purpose, adequacy of method, balance of legitimate interests, And that it does not infringe on the right of self-determination of personal information of information subjects.
    Keyword:Visa, Immigration Status, Immigration Act, Fingerprint and Face Information Collection System, National Security
  • Due process, discovery of substantive truth, and the timeliness and efficiency of the procedures are the values of criminal litigation are still valid principles in the age of digital information. However, the way to implement these principles according to the properties of digital evidence remains as a challenge, and the field of digital evidence requires close cooperation between legal and technical sectors. In particular, the level of production and distribution of digital technology and digital devices in Korea has maintained the highest level in the world. Nonetheless, it is a reality that if the defendant denies the crucial digital evidence obtained in accordance with the due process by a court issued by the judiciary in the trial process, the evidence is denied. As a result, most defendants do not recognize evidence as a counter-party to the state during the criminal trial for digital evidence that is directly or indirectly related to the assertion of the criminal's own crime, Discussion is needed. In addition, even in the case of a recent series of events related to national security, the general law of criminal justice is applied to digital evidence as it is, so it is necessary to examine the exceptional rules for applying the special law on serious infringement of legal interests. In addition, the criminal evidence law for the serious crimes that occur in the digital information age is also implemented professionally and covertly. Therefore, the legisla-tion that appropriately reflects the current situation and environment of digital information is necessary.
    Keyword:Digital Evidence, Admissibility, Hearsay Rule, Due Process, Criminal Evidence Rule
  • Because South and North Korea have kept the military confrontation since the Korean War seriously, it has been strongly believed that an arms race should exist between these two countries. However, because of the lack of data on North Korea has constrained empirical studies, until now, few studies have consequently dealt with the arms race between South-North Korea. An empirical analysis of the arms race between the two Koreas has significant policy implications for the security of the Korean Peninsula as a whole. Using the VAR model and updated data, this study empirically analyzed the arms race between South and North Korea, based on Richard-son’s action-reaction model. The empirical findings are as follows: while South Korea’s military expenditure changes are affected by those of North Korea, partially supporting the classical Richardson model as a result, the reverse remains unverified. In fact, this investigation indicates that North Korean military expenditures seem to adhere to the random walk process, and empirically supports the argument that North Korea has pushed for military expansion based on its strategic needs, with South Korea escalating its armament program in direct response. The fact that North Korea’s real military expenditure follows the random walk process indicates that it cannot be predicted at all. There may be some interpretations in terms of the random walk process of North Korea’s real military expenditure. First, it can be interpreted that North Korea’s military preparedness has been determined without any strategic plan. The situation at the time may affect North Korea’s decision on military preparedness. Secondly, considering that North Korea has developed nuclear and missile programs over a long period of time, it cannot be denied that North Korea has kept a long-term strategic plan for military preparedness. Then, it may be said that irrespective of the expansion of South Korea’s military preparedness, North Korea has decided its policy toward military preparedness based on internal strategic goals such as its development and enhancement of asymmetric warfare capabilities. Finally, North Korea has been reported to hide its defense expenditure in other budget categories in order not to reveal how much of its government budget is allocated for this cause. In this respect, more accurate data on North Korea’s military expenditure needs to be collected to have better insight into the arms race between South and North Korea overall. Considering those questions of accuracy surrounding North Korean military expenditure data, the follow-up studies are warranted.
    Keyword:South-North Korean Arms Race, Richardson’s Action-Reaction Model, Military Expenditure, VAR, Random Walk Process
  • What I wish to show in this paper is to inquire whether we can justify war or not by using these normative ethical systems, if possible, what the logic justifying the war is. Teleological ethics and deontological ethics are often contrasted with one another on the basis of the general type of ethical system each exemplifies. Utilitari-anism is one of the teleological ethical system, while formalism is typical of deontological ethical system. The distinction between the two kinds of system may be conveniently summarized as follows; a teleological theory holds that an action is morally right either if a person's doing it brings about good consequences, or if the action is of a kind which if everyone did it, would have good consequences. It is ultimately the goodness or badness of the consequences of action. In Deontological theory, it is right if it accords with a moral rule, wrong if it violates such a rule. Moral rules are based on an ultimate principle of duty which, in contrast to teleological ethics, does not specify an end or purpose whose furtherance makes actions right. What the ultimate principle specifies is a set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient for any rule of moral obligation to apply to a kind of action. Consequentialist pacifism is usually grounded in some sort of rule-utilitarianism. A utilitarian pacifist may argue that a rule against war or other sorts of violence will tend to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. According to the principle of proportionality, although violence is evil, if we may suffer greater other evil than the evil, the violence which eliminates relatively the previous smaller evil could be justified. A broader pro-hibition against violence other than war can extend the ‘greatest happiness’ concept to take into account the happiness of sentient beings other than humans. Deontological ethical system, as a formal ethical model, is the older of the two, with the best-recorded example of antiquity being divine command theory. This theory states that an action is good or evil depending on whether it corresponds to rules set by a deity. The most famous theory of deontological ethics is Kant's. Kant's categorical imperative is formulated as follows: “Act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. It is difficult to supply content to Kant’s imperative. Thus, it is not clear that the Kantian imperative can be used to rule out war. Indeed, Kant is a defender of a version of the just war theory, in part because he believes that states have a duty to defend their citizens. Although Kant is not himself a pacifist, one might be able to ground pacifism in Kant's alternative version of the moral law: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” All human being has the autonomy of the will explained as the concept of freedom. If men have freedom of the will then they must be obligated to obey the categorical imperative. Thus whoever has freedom of the will should take responsibility for his behavior, unless he won’t do. And as this can be universalized and applied to men with reason, anyone who violates moral law should be pun-ished to preserve the life in community. This principle of deontological ethical system is extended to the conduct of human being in war.
    Keyword:Justice, Teleology, Deontology, Principle, Proportionality