중가산세제도의 부정행위에 관한 고찰

길용원 ( Yong Won Kil ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2014 法學硏究 Vol.24 No.2

The Basic Law for National Taxes which was revised as the Law No. 11124 on December 31th, 2011, a Requirement of Heavy Additional Tax was newly changed. “Unjustified Way” changed the name of the “Illegal Activity”. Heavy Additional Tax is applied the principle of no taxation without law. Because It is one type of taxation. Heavy Additional Tax needs to be determined By the clearness of the tax law. Due to the uncertainty of the concept of “concealment and disguise”, Previously there was a discussion about the meaning of it. For example, in order to impose Heavy Additional Tax on taxpayers whether ‘concealment and disguise’ of awareness. Even if the taxpayer``s passive behavior can be included in the act of “concealment and disguise” is whether. As a result, Heavy Additional Tax for abuse of the tax authority was concerned. The revised Basic Law for National Taxes on “Illegal Activity” is also unclear. Thus, the interpretation of its meaning is an important issue. Limited to the subject of “Illegal Activity”, whether the taxpayer or his family or representatives whether the problem is to be included. “Fraud and Other Illegal Activities” on the Law of Punishment on Tax Criminal and “Illegal Activity” on the Basic Law for National Taxes are discussing whether the same meaning when considering the effect of the amendment, which is thought to be synonymous. Due to “Illegal Activity” and “Fraud and Other Illegal Activities” on the same concept to grasp, The taxpayer is likely to be double punishment. Legislative improvements are needed.

조세법상의 사기 기타 부정한 행위 관련 소고(小考)

김영심 ( Young Sim Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.1

The Framework Act on National Taxes and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which are both part of our tax laws, both use the phrase fraud and other illegal activities, but fail to define the phrase. With regard to the conditions needed for the evasion of taxes under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the judicial precedent generally requires for the tax payer to actively manipulate the documents on purpose in order for the act to constitute as fraud and other illegal activities. Therefore, if fraud and other illegal activities under the Framework Act on National Taxes were to be defined identically as fraud and other illegal activities under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, then it is inevitable to run counter to the equity with regards to the national tax imposition exclusion period. This is due to the fact that national tax imposition exclusion period of 5 years could be applied even to cases of false declaration in comparison with 7 years of exclusion period for not declaring at all. Even though the word fraud is used in both civil and criminal laws, it is used broadly in civil law and narrowly in criminal law. Therefore, there is also a need to differently define and manage the phrase fraud and other illegal activities in the Framework Act on National Taxes and in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. I would like to propose that for evasion of taxes under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the concept and the range covered by fraud and other illegal activities must be more clearly and concretely defined. this is to allow for legal control in case of intentional crimes and to impose fines for negligence in case of accidental crimes. Additionally, if the phrase is differentiated as proposed, fraud and other illegal activities that set the standards for the national tax imposition exclusion period under the Framework Act on National Taxes, should be understood as a broad concept that cover the entire spectrum from the intentional crimes to accidental crimes.

주관적 정당화요소와 위법성의 본질에 관한 고찰

이진권(Lee Jin-Kwon) 한국법학회 2010 법학연구 Vol.39 No.-

위법성의 본질에 대하여 통설적 견해는 결과반가치ㆍ행위반가치이원론이다. 이에 의하면 행위자의 행위가 결과반가치와 행위반가치 모두 인정되어야 위법하게 되며, 결과반가치든 행위반가치든 어느 하나라도 인정되지 않으면 위법하지 않게 된다. 그런데 위법성조각사유의 인정에 있어 주관적 정당화요소가 필요하느냐의 문제에 관하여는 필요설이 통설적 견해이다. 즉 객관적 정당화상황이 있다 하더라도 이를 인식하고 위법성을 조각시키는 행위를 하려는 의욕이 없다면 위법성이 조각되지 않는다고 보는 것이다. 그런데 객관적 정당화상황이 있지만 주관적 정당화요소가 없는 행위자의 행위는 위법성의 본질에 관한 통설적 견해에 따를 때 결과반가치는 인정되지 않고 행위반가치만 인정할 수 있게 되어 위법하지 않게 된다. 그런데 주관적 정당화요소가 필요한가의 논의에서는 위법하다는 입장이다. 이는 통설적 견해가 위법성의 본질이라는 시각에서는 위법하지 않다는 결론이 위법성조각사유에 주관적 정당화요소가 필요한가라는 문제의 시각에서는 위법하다는 결론을 내리고 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 고찰한 결과 위법성의 본질에 대해 통설적 견해와는 다른 새로운 인식을 할 필요가 있다고 사료되며 그것은 행위반가치만이 위법성의 본질을 이루는 요소라는 것이다. 이러한 견해를 받아들인다면 객관적 정당화상황이 있지만 주관적 정당화요소를 갖추지 않은 행위자의 행위는 위법성의 본질이라는 시각에서 행위반가치를 인정할 수 있어 위법하게 되며 주관적 정당화요소가 필요한가라는 문제의 시각에서도 주관적 정당화요소를 갖추지 않아 위법하게 되어 두 종류의 시각에서 모두 위법하게 된다. 법적 효과에서도 자연스럽게 불능미수범이 아닌 기수범이 성립한다고 볼 수 있다. 다만 우연방위와 같이 결과적으로 제3자의 피해를 방지한 결과는 양형에서 고려될 수 있으므로 객관적 정당화상황이 있는 경우와 없는 경우를 구별하여 형벌을 과할 수 있으므로 전체적으로 합리적인 죄책을 물을 수 있다고 본다. The common point of view towards the essentials of illegality consists of the evaluation of results and the evaluation of actions for criminal activities. According to such a point of view, illegality is acknowledged only when both the evaluation of results and the evaluation of actions for criminal activities are recognized. If only one of them is recognized, illegality is not acknowledged. However, regarding the exclusion causes of illegality, the subjective elements of justification are generally believed to be necessary. In other words, even if there is the state of objective justification, illegality is not denied as long as there is no desire to recognize and exclude such illegality. However, regarding people's actions which are equipped with the objective elements of justification without the subjective elements of justification, the evaluation of results for criminal activities is not recognized when following the common point of view about the essentials of illegality. In such a case, only the evaluation of actions for criminal activities is recognized. As a result, illegality is not acknowledged. However, if the necessity for the subjective elements of justification is questioned, illegality can be acknowledged. People's actions which are not considered to be illegal according to the common point of view about the essentials of illegality can be considered to be illegal according to the point of view about whether the subjective elements of justification are needed in regard to the exclusion causes of illegality. In order to solve such a problem, it is necessary to provide a new different point of view that is different for the common one about the essentials of illegality after considering the solution for such a problem. It is concluded that the evaluation of actions for criminal activities is the only element that establishes the essentials of illegality. If such a point of view is accepted, people's actions which are equipped with the objective elements of justification without the subjective elements of justification can become illegal by recognizing the evaluation of actions for criminal activities in terms of the essentials of illegality. Regarding the question for whether the subjective elements of justification are necessary or not, such people's actions can also become illegal without the subjective elements of justification. As a result, such people's actions can become illegal in both points of view mentioned above. Regarding the legal effect, it can be said that the consummated crime is considered, not the attempted deed. However, in case of the accidental self-defense, the result of ultimately preventing a damage on the third person can be considered for the application of a specific punishment. Therefore, it is possible to apply a punishment by deciding whether the objective elements of justification exist or not. As a result, it is possible to apply a reasonable consideration of the responsibility for a crime.

행정처분의 위법성과 국가배상법상의 위법성

정준현 ( Jeong Jun-hyeon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.41 No.2

In the administrative law field, when compared with civil law or criminal law, if the latter is adult, the former is the state of the child in the growing period, therefore the former shows a different growth day. In particular, the demand for administrative law is increasing rapidly in the modern society as the demand for national happiness is soaring, the history of the administrative law is short, but the development of the external legal system is like a child whose day is different as a result of that. The problem is that quantitatively and qualitatively fast - growing administrative laws can not grow properly unless they ingest the nourishment provided by civil and criminal law, which form the basis of legal theory. Recently, controversy has arisen over whether the illegality as a citation of a lawsuit in the administrative proceeding is the same as the illegality under the State compensation Act. Being possible to discuss mentioned problem from various perspectives, in this paper, it is examined illegality as grounds for cancellation in administrative litigation and illegaliy under the State Compensation Law from the viewpoint of illegaliy caused by human act. Namely, the illegalty is a unilateral assessment that the act as a cognitive activity of humane is against the legal oder. Although Tort is targeted at illegality, the former can be attributed responsibility or condemnation as a compensatory adjustment to what has come to the illegal. In this respect, the cognitive function such as intention or negligence is considered to have a dual nature that apply to both illegality and tort. The illegality of the administrative dispositon as a ground of lawsuit belongs to the objective legality as an act of the institution, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by the officer responsible for the administrative dispositon. Finally, the objective justification or legitimacy as the criterion for the illegality of administrative dispositon recognized by the case law, is on one hand a criterion for assessing the cognitive ability of officials in charge(Criteria for judging illegality) and on other hand the likelihood of expecting to act legitimately(Criteria for determining whether officials in cahrge are responsible).

스포츠 사고와 법적 책임 - 프랑스법의 위험의 인수의 법리의 적용을 중심으로 -

정순형(Joung, Soon-Hyoung) 한국법이론실무학회 2020 법률실무연구 Vol.8 No.1

스포츠 활동은 그 본질로서 상시 사고의 발생이라는 리스크(위험)를 내재하는 행위이다. 그래서 각 경기 단체들은 안전대책을 목적으로 경기규칙의 변경을 실시하여 사고방지에 노력하여 왔다. 예를 들면, 권투 세계 타이틀 매치에서는 1980년대 15차전인 경기가 안전을 위해 12회전으로 단축되었다. 또 럭비에서는 부정한 플레이를 규정하는 경기규칙 제10조(j)에서 이전에는 오히려 럭비의 존재이유로 꼽히던 상대방을 들고 상체부터 땅에 떨어뜨리는 스피어 태클을 위험한 플레이로 규정하며 엄격한 페널티를 부과하게 되었다. 실제 2011년 럭비 월드컵 준결승, 프랑 대 웨일스 전에서 이런 종류의 태클을 한 웨일스의 선수를 일발 퇴장시킨 사례가 있었다. 그러나 스포츠 활동에 참가하는 것이 각각의 입장에서 최대한 노력했다고 해도 사고를 완전히 방지하는 것은 불가능하다. 즉, 스포츠 활동 중의 사고는 피할 수 없는 위험이라고 지적할 수 있지만, 그 위험은 단순히 스포츠 참여자가 수상한다는 것만이 아니다. 왜냐하면, 최종적으로 피해자가 입은 손해배상을 찾을 수도 있다, 그러므로 분쟁이라는 양상을 가지고 스포츠 활동 참가자 전체 예를 들면, 스포츠 활동을 관리 감독하는 자에 관련되는 위험으로 발전할 가능성이 있기 때문이다. 그러나 스포츠 활동 중 사고 건수를 염두에 두고 추측했다면, 손해의 배상을 요구하고 실제로 분쟁에 이르는 경우는 한정적이다. 왜냐하면 스포츠는 본래 공적 세계와는 구분된 사적 세계의 것으로서 그 자치에 맡겨져, 특히 스포츠 사고 등에서 법의 개입을 소극적으로 자제해온 이유 때문이다. 또 실제 분쟁으로 발전한 경우에도 가해자의 행위에 대해서 위법성이 조각될 가능성이 많아 남은 피고의 책임은 한정적으로 인정되어 왔다고 할 수 있다. 이에 대해서 요즈음 민사책임의 인정에 있어서 스포츠가 널리 대중화한 데 따른 모든 스포츠 참가자에게 일률적으로 충분한 자기 책임능력의 존재를 전제하고 기대하기는 어려워진다. 프랑스에서는 2006년에 편찬된 스포츠 법제의 기본이 되는 스포츠법 논리가 스포츠 및 신체활동은 교육·문화 국민통합 및 사회생활의 중요한 요소이다. 특히 학교생활의 실패를 막는 전쟁, 사회적 및 문화적 격차 축소, 건강유지에 공헌을 이루는 모든 사람을 대상으로 한다. 또 특히 장애자를 대상으로 한 스포츠 및 신체 활동의 진흥과 발전은 일반의 이익에 부합한다고 규정하고 스포츠 활동이 공적인 역할을 하겠다는 것을 명시한 점에서도 엿볼 수 있다. 또, 이러한 스포츠 활동의 공공성의 고조라는 요즈음의 사회적 상황은 스포츠 활동 중 사고에 관한 분쟁해결에 있어서 피해자 보상의 충실화라는 관점이 한층 고려될 가능성을 넓히게 된다. 사실, 프랑스에서의 최근의 민사소송으로 가해자의 책임이 감면될 가능성을 부여하는 위험의 인수의 법리의 적용 범위를 더 한정하겠다는 판단이 내리면서 이 판결은 피해자 구제라는 관점이 고려된 결과라고 생각할 수 있는 것이다. 더욱이 그 재판에서의 판지는 그 후 스포츠 활동 중 사고에 있어서 민사책임에 관한 스포츠 법제에도 영향을 주기에 이르렀다. 여기서 본 연구에서는 위험의 인수의 법리의 적용이라는 관점을 염두에 두면서 프랑스에서의 스포츠 활동 중 사고에 따른 민사책임에 관한 이 재판 사례에 대해서 그 상세를 검토해 보기로 하였다. A sports activity is inherently a risk inherent in the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, each competition group has been trying to prevent accidents by changing the competition rules for safety measures. For example, in the boxing world title match, the 15th game in the 1980s was reduced to 12 rounds for safety. In rugby, the rule of play governing unfair play, Article 10 (j), spear tackle falling from the upper body to the ground with opponents who were formerly considered as a reason for the existence of rugby, was imposed a strict penalty. In fact, there was a case where one Wales player with this kind of tackle was sent off in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi-finals, before Francs vs. Wales. However, it is impossible to completely prevent accidents, even if participating in sports activities is the best effort in each position. In other words, it can be pointed out that accidents during sporting activities are inevitable risks, but the risks are not simply that the sports participants win. This is because, in the end, the victim may be able to find damages, so it may be possible to develop the risks associated with the whole sports activity participant, for example, those who manage and supervise the sporting activity. However, if you have speculated about the number of accidents during a sporting activity, there are only a few cases where claims for damages and actual disputes can be made. This is because sports are indigenous to the autonomous world, distinct from the public world, and have been passively refraining from the intervention of law in sports accidents. In addition, even in the case of an actual dispute, the offender’s actions are likely to be fragmented, and the remaining defendant’s responsibility has been limited. In this regard, it is difficult to assume that there is a sufficient level of self-responsibility for all sports participants due to the widespread popularization of sports in the recognition of civil liability these days. In France, the logic of the sport law, which is the basis of the sport legislation, compiled in 2006, shows that sport and physical activity are important elements of education, culture, national integration and social life. In particular, it is aimed at anyone who contributes to the war against school failures, to narrowing the social and cultural gap, and to maintaining health. It can also be seen that the promotion and development of sports and physical activities, especially those with disabilities, is in the public interest, and that sports activities play a public role. In addition, the social situation in these days of increasing publicity of sporting activities expands the possibility of considering the improvement of victim compensation in dispute resolution of accidents during sporting activities. In fact, the decision could be considered to be a result of the view of victim relief, with the decision to further limit the application of the law of risk taking, which gives the possibility of the exemption of the offenders liability in recent civil cases in France. It is. Moreover, the cardboard at the trial subsequently influenced the sports legislation on civil liability in accidents during sporting activities. In this study, we consider the details of this case of civil liability for accidents in sporting activities in France, with the view of the application of the law of the argument of risk.

불법 행동이나 잠재적 불법 행동에 대한 연구에서 기밀 유지에 대한 법적,윤리적 고려

최은경 ( Eun Kyung Choi ),김도균 ( Do Kyun Kim ),김옥주 ( Ock Joo Kim ) 한국의료윤리학회 2008 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.11 No.2

Confidentiality has been regarded as one of the most important ethical principles for research on human subjects. Protecting research subjects` confidentiality derives from the principle of respect for persons. As it is essential to maintain trust between researchers and subjects, research on human subjects cannot be conducted without protecting confidentiality, although it is not always easy to do so. Research that involves recording and observing illegal activities, including illegal drug studies, demands an especially high degree of confidentiality. Breach of research confidentiality can result in criminal or civil liability for the subjects in such research. When the researchers are subpoenaed, they are forced to provide information on their subjects. Most countries have no legal framework to protect both subjects and researchers from breaches of confidentiality. This paper discusses the ethical and legal considerations regarding the confidentiality of research on illegal activities. After examining domestic and international cases in which confidentiality and court orders were in conflict, the authors examine relevant policies and legal frameworks, including the Certificate of Confidentiality issued by the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH). The authors argue that legal assurance to protect confidentiality should be provided to research subjects and researchers, especially considering the recent increase in research on illegal activities in Korea.

법인의 조세포탈로 인한 소득처분의 부과제척기간에 관한 연구

김홍철 ( Kim Hong-chul ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2011 조세와 법 Vol.4 No.1

부과제척기간은 납세자의 법적안정을 위해 조세법률관계를 신속하게 확정하기 위한 것으로, 국세기본법 제26조의2는 일반적으로 5년의 부과제척기간을 적용하나 조세포탈의 경우에는 10년의 부과제척기간을 적용하고 있다. 그러나 현행 세법상 부과제척기간에 대한 규정의 해석 및 집행에 있어 부과제척기간을 지나치게 확장하고 있고, 특히 사기나 그 밖의 부정한 행위로 인한 조세포탈이 무엇인지에 대한 명확한 규정이 없어 분쟁이 자주 발생하고 있다. 국세기본법상 조세포탈은 1) 납세의무자가 2) 사기나 그 밖의 부정한 행위로 3) 조세포탈의 결과가 발생하였고 4) 사기나 그 밖의 부정한 행위와 조세포탈 사이에 인과관계가 존재하고 5) 조세포탈의 의도가 있어야 한다. 특히, 조세포탈에서 가장 중요한 요소인 사기나 그 밖의 부정한 행위는 과세관청의 조사의 곤란성, 납세윤리의 위배정도에 따라 판단하여야 한다. 국세기본법상의 사기 기타 부정행위는 법인이나 개인에게 법문언상 차별하여 규정하지 않고 있으므로 조세법의 엄격해석의 원칙상 원칙적으로 동일하게 적용되어야 할 것이다. 그런데 법인의 대표자 등이 사기 기타 부정한 행위로 법인의 소득을 포탈하였고 이로 말미암아 대표자 등에게 소득처분을 하게 된 경우 과연 대표자 등에 대한 소득세에 대하여도 사기 기타 부정한 행위로 보아 10년의 장기제척기간을 적용하여야 하는지 문제된다. 과세관청은 대표자의 사기 기타 부정한 행위로 법인세를 포탈한 경우 대표자 등에게 상여처분된 소득에 대하여도 10년의 부과제척기간을 적용하고 있다. 그러나 개정전 조세범처벌법에서 소득처분에 대하여 조세포탈로 보지 않고 있으며, 대표자가 법인세의 포탈행위로 말미암아 자신에게 상여처분된 소득세에 대한 국가의 조세채권 즉, 부과권을 침해한 사실이 없고, 이로 인하여 조세포탈의 결과가 발생하였다고 할 수도 없으며, 위 사기 기타 부정한 행위와 상여처분된 소득세와 인과관계도 없고, 판례가 인정하듯이 조세포탈의 의도가 있었다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서 대표자 등이 법인세를 포탈하기 위한 사기 기타 부정한 행위를 하여 이로 인하여 자신에게 상여처분된 소득세에 대하여는 5년의 부과제척기간을 적용하여야 하고 10년의 부과제척기간을 적용할 수 없으므로, 이에 대하여 10년의 부과제척기간을 적용하는 과세관청의 태도는 타당하지 않다. The Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes generally imposes taxes during exclusion period of 5 years, but on tax evasion during 10 years. But the Article 26-2 don't define the meaning of the tax evasion and the studies and precedents on what the tax evasion mean is not much. The tax evasion of The Framework Act on National Taxes requires 1) the liability to pay taxes 2) the fraud and other illegal activities 3) the result of tax evasion 4) the causality between the fraud and other illegal activities and the result of tax evasion 5) intention of the fraud and other illegal activities. Especially, the fraud and other illegal activities should be decided by synthetic judgement of tax authorities' difficulties of investigation and invasion of ethics on obligaton of tax payment. This study is on national tax imposition exclusion period of the income appropriation provisions under corporation tax law. The tax authorities impose the income appropriaton provisions under corporation tax law during exclusion period of 10 years. But because income appropriation provisions under corporation tax is not taxes evasion, income appropriation provisions under corporation tax should be imposed during exclusion period of 5 years.

편린(片鱗)인가, 흔적(痕迹)인가? -호주의 위법한 불사조 행위 규제에 대한 연구-

서인원 한국사법학회 2023 비교사법 Vol.30 No.1

What should be done if a company in question(‘OldCo’) whose sustainability has faded away transfers its assets to another company (‘NewCo’) without reasonable consideration in order to avoid debt repayment? Since 1974, when the Seoul High Court first authorized the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine rooted in the case laws in common law jurisdictions, dominant theories and judicial precedents in Korea have divided the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine into the nominal type and the abusive type, with the classifying of the above unlawful act as the abusive type. In addition, the Korean Judiciary allows OldCo’s creditors to initiate legal proceedings against both OldCo and NewCo, both of which are involved in the unlawful act. This approach has been deemed fair and equitable for the best interests of creditors in Korea for a long time by dominant theories and judicial precedents. This normative approach was heavily influenced by Japanese theories and judicial precedents and had nothing to do with the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine in common law jurisdictions, which allows exceptions to the company’s separate legal existence and limited liability. As in Japan, dominant theories and judicial precedents in Korea prioritize procedural clarity, consistency, and formality; hence, the company’s creditors carry the burden of proof for the necessity of piercing the corporate veil, notwithstanding the uncertain features of this doctrine. In addition, creditors, who are unlikely to be aware of NewCo’s existence at the beginning of the action, must practically initiate and manage separate legal proceedings against OldCo and NewCo ex post facto. Contrary to the Korean approach, Australia, one of the Commonwealth countries, has evaluated that this social concern is not “fragments of the piercing corporate veil doctrine” but rather “traces of risk contagion to the stakeholders” and has enacted new legislation to deal with illegal phoenix activity. This paper describes in detail the related debates in Australia, which have evolved with great care, from perception to implementation of new regulation in two stages: the legislation phase, and the codification phase. This study concludes that Korea should create multifaceted legislation that enables the company’s creditors to protect their rights successfully and prevents a recurrence of the aforementioned unlawful act.

비관측경제(NOE)의 원인 식별과 국민계정의 완결성 제고

이상호,하남영 충남대학교 경영경제연구소 2024 경영경제연구 Vol.46 No.3

국민계정 통계가 모든 생산활동을 포괄적으로 반영하고 있는지를 의미하는 완결성(exhaustiveness)은 국민계정 통계의 품질 평가를 위한 핵심 요소로 통계의 정확성 및 신뢰성과도 밀접한 관련이 있다. 그러나 기초데이터 수집 한계 등에 따른 비관측경제(non-obsereved economy: NOE)의 존재로 국민계정 통계가 모든 생산활동을 완전히 포착하지 못하는 것이 현실이다. 본 연구에서는 학계의 연구와 국제통계기구에서 논의되어온 비관측경제(NOE)의 측정 방법론을 정리하고, 국민계정 편제와 관련된 NOE 측정 사례로 Eurostat의 ‘완결성 표형식 접근법’ (Tabular Approach to Exhaustiveness, TAE)을 소개하였다. 아울러, NOE 측정 측면에서 최근 우리나라 경제총조사(Economic Census)의 행정데이터활용도 제고에 관한 내용을 고찰하였다. 국민계정 통계 추계에 행정데이터 기반 경제총조사를 활용하는 경우 통계적 비관측 축소를 중심으로 한 NOE의 측정 정도 개선이 기대되며, 이에 따라 산출액과 부가가치의 증가(베이스업)가 예상되었다. 다만, 2020년 기준 경제총조사에서 추가된 사업체들의 특성을 살펴본 결과, 주로 규모가 영세한 기업이 추가 포착되었으며 이들의 부가가치율은 기존 사업체에 비해 낮은 수준인 것으로 추정되었다. Exhaustiveness, which means that national accounts statistics comprehensively reflect all production activities, is a key element in the quality assessment of national accounts statistics and is closely related to the accuracy and reliability of the statistics. However, due to the existence of the non-observed economy (NOE), caused by limitations in the collection of basic data, it is a reality that national accounts statistics do not fully capture all production activities. This study summarized the methodologies for measuring the NOE that have been discussed in academic research and by international statistical organizations, and introduced Eurostat's Tabular Approach to Exhaustiveness (TAE) as a case study related to the measurement of the NOE in the compilation of national accounts. In addition, the recent enhancement in the utilization of administrative data in Korea's Economic Census was examined from the perspective of measuring the NOE. When an administrative data-based economic census is used in the estimation of national account statistics, it is expected to improve the measurement of the NOE, primarily by reducing statistical non-observation. Consequently, an increase (a base-up) in output and value-added is anticipated. However, upon examining the characteristics of the newly captured establishments in the 2020 Economic Census, it was found that mainly small-scale enterprises were additionally identified, and their value-added ratio was estimated to be lower than that of existing establishments.

SNS에서 스푸핑의 범죄행위 성립 논쟁

이상훈 사단법인 한국법이론실무학회 2024 법률실무연구 Vol.12 No.2

스푸핑(spoofing)은 네트워크에서 데이터 위조나 변조를 통해 다른 사용자를 속여 정보를 탈취하는 해킹기법의 하나로, 사이버 범죄자가 신뢰할만한 누군가의 신분으로 위장해서 남을 속이는 행위이다. 스푸핑에는 이메일 스푸핑, IP 스푸핑, DNS 스푸핑, GPS 스푸핑, 웹사이트 스푸핑, 스푸핑 통화 등 다양한 형태가 있다. 신뢰할 수 있는 소스가 됨으로써 공격자는 대상에 접근하여 시스템과 장치에 액세스한다. 궁극적인 목적은 정보를 훔치고, 돈을 요구하고, 악성코드 및 기타 유해한 소프트웨어를 장치에 설치하는 것이다. 스푸핑 공격이 성공하면 개인정보와 회사정보 도난, 향후 공격에 사용되는 자격증명 수집, 악성코드 확산, 네트워크 액세스 권한 부정 취득, 액세스 제어 회피 등 심각한 피해가 발생할 우려가 있다. 기업의 경우 스푸핑 공격이 랜섬웨어 공격, 데이터 손상 및 비용이 많이 드는 데이터 유출로 이어질 수 있다. 스푸핑 공격에는 여러 가지 유형이 있지만, 보다 직접적인 것은 이메일, 웹사이트 및 전화를 사용한다. 보다 복잡하고 기술적인 공격은 IP 주소, 주소확인 프로토콜(ARP) 및 DNS(Domain Name System) 서버를 사용한다. 그렇다면 SNS에서의 스푸핑 행위는 범죄가 되는가? 대답은 스푸핑 행위 자체가 죄가 되는 것은 아니라고 할 수 있다. 현재 스푸핑 행위를 규제하는 구체적인 법률이 존재하지 않기 때문이다. 하지만 스푸핑 계정을 사용하여 불법행위를 하는 과정에서 명예훼손이나 사기죄 등의 범죄를 저지르게 될 수 있으므로 스푸핑 범죄로 인한 피해를 입은 경우, 계정 뒤에 있는 사람을 식별하고 민사와 형사의 책임을 묻는 것이 중요하다. 이 연구에서는 SNS에서 스푸핑 범죄의 실례, 법적 책임의 범위, 피해 대처 방법 등을 간략하게 검토하기로 한다. Spoofing is a way for cybercriminals to become known or trusted sources. There are various forms of spoofing, including email spoofing, IP spoofing, DNS spoofing, GPS spoofing, website spoofing, and spoofing calls. By becoming a trusted source, attackers gain access to their targets and gain access to their systems and devices. The ultimate goal is to steal information, demand money, and install malware and other harmful software on your device. If a spoofing attack is successful, there is a risk of serious damage, including theft of personal and company information, collection of credentials used in future attacks, spread of malware, illegal acquisition of network access rights, and evasion of access control. For businesses, spoofing attacks can lead to ransomware attacks, data corruption, and costly data breaches. There are several types of spoofing attacks, but the more direct ones use email, websites, and phones. More complex and technical attacks use IP addresses, Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), and Domain Name System (DNS) servers. So, is spoofing on SNS a crime? The answer is that the act of spoofing itself is not a crime. This is because there are currently no specific laws regulating spoofing activities. However, it is important to note that if you use a spoofing account to commit illegal activities, you may violate laws such as defamation or fraud. If you are a victim of a spoofing crime, it is important to identify the person behind the account and hold them civilly and criminally liable. In this study, we will briefly review examples of spoofing crimes on SNS, scope of legal responsibility, and ways to deal with damage.