Earticle

Cet article étudie les registres discursifs employés par un juge danois au cours d’une audience doublée de la médiation d’un interprète, et se focalise sur les différentes formes d’interpellation. S’appuyant sur les acquis de précédentes études quantitatives axées sur la variation stylistique des registres discursifs des juges, et sur une analyse qualitative des transcriptions du compte-rendu d’audience, l’objectif est de déterminer les facteurs à même d’inciter les juges à passer de formes de discours direct prescriptives à des formes d’interpellation indirectes. La section discursive analysée ici est appréhendée à la fois comme texte et comme instantiation d’une interaction sociale, suivant le cadre participatif – participative framework – développé par Goffman. Au travers de cette approche dialogique, l’article fait ressortir les différents modes d’allocution et d’écoute adoptés par les interlocuteurs, et plus particulièrement les différents rapports qu’établit le juge, en cours d’audience, à la parole des autres. Au travers de l’étude des rôles de locuteur et d’auditeur des interlocuteurs, l’article tente ainsi à démontrer que le cadre participatif s’applique avec succès aux études discursives. L’étude fait intervenir plusieurs techniques d’analyse descriptive, et combine des données issues de transcriptions, d’enquêtes, d’observations et d’interviews.

The aim of this article is to take stock of the situation concerning training of court interpreters, particularly in what is known as the « civil law » countries in Europe as opposed to those with the « common law » system. It reviews existing organisational formats and proposes the two types of teaching that seem best-suited to meet the urgent requirements of the courts. One is in the framework of continuing education; the other a university course leading to a bachelor degree. The author recommends a principle of pedagogical progression taking into consideration the difficulties linked to less spoken languages and stresses the importance of teaching all the traditional interpreting techniques, including specific cognitive content, but at the same time focusing especially on ethical and human rights aspects in the interpreting strategies taught.

Although the official language of the court in South Korea is Korean, the international chamber of the Patent Court of Korea is an exception. In that court, a hearing may be conducted in English while simultaneous interpreting is provided for the Korean gallery. This paper examines difficulties associated with highly technical interpreting at a patent hearing based on the analysis of simultaneous interpreting for a test hearing and interpreters’ views with respect to the practical aspects of interpreting provision. The findings indicate that in addition to the technical aspect of patent technology, various source text factors, including English as Lingua Franca (ELF)-related factors, recitation of text, and limited access to visual information, created extremely arduous working conditions for the interpreters and negatively influenced the interpreters’ performance and job satisfaction. The results strongly suggest that the court and the legal counsel should work in close cooperation with interpreters to ensure quality interpreting at the International Chamber.

Court interpreting is a special domain within the realm of legal interpreting. The existing literature has examined court interpreting mainly through discourse analytic studies and surveys of key stake holders, such as interpreters and legal professionals, but little research has focused on interpreters engaged in the occupation of court interpreting. In this paper, the term, court interpreter, refers to interpreters engaged in court proceedings, regardless of their professional training and qualifications. This paper seeks to highlight the human aspects of court interpreting based on one-one-one interviews with fifteen interpreters who have been working at criminal courts and administrative courts in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province. The findings reveal the personal profiles of court interpreters, how they started court interpreting, what motivates them to continue court interpreting, how they perceive court interpreting, including its positive and negative aspects, their role as interpreters, and their court interpreting experiences. The main reasons for their interpreting at courts are intrinsic, mainly a sense of satisfaction derived from serving the society at large, and partly financial remuneration. While they find court interpreting rewarding, stimulating, and interesting, they also find it challenging and frustrating because of the lack of understanding and cooperation from court officials including judges. Drawing on the interview data, this paper offers some suggestions to improve the court practices of engaging interpreters in the legal procedure.

A Court Interpreters must have the ability of the foreign language and the knowledge for the judicial office. However, a Japanese Court Interpreters does not have a still special qualification system now. If the interpreters applicant registers with the court of law of each place by oneself, and it takes the authorization of the judge, it is a recognized system. There is not the system checking the language study ability of the Court Interpreters, and the linguistic reducation is not performed. Recently, the Wireless Interpreter system of the simultaneous interpreter form is done to advance the trial for the foreigner smoothly in Japan. The Wireless Interpreter system not only shortens the trial time but also lightens the interpreter's load. The time that this system obtained can be turned to questioning to the witness and the question to the defendant. And, the trial can be enhanced more. However, there are actually a lot of problems there. When such a system is accepted in South Korea, it is necessary to devise it more. Moreover, it seems that the Court Interpreter load increases in Japan by ‘A citizen judge system’ that has been executed since 2009, too. It is necessary to do various devices to be a better Court Interpreter in preparation for this system.

The due process of law is a principle that should be applied universally, regardless of race and cultural background, to protect human rights. In order to protect the defendant's right in the criminal procedures, provision of court interpreting service is essential and it plays a critical role in the administration of justice. As to the role of court interpreters, the U.S. courts held that the interpreter is an agent of the defendant acting as a language conduit. In order for a court interpreter to discharge his duty and the statements delivered through interpreters to be admitted as evidence in legal proceedings, there should be a system to ensure quality of professional interpreters who are capable of serving as an impartial linguistic conduit between the defendants and the judiciary in legal forums. Although the need for court interpreters has begun to be recognized in Korea, no formal certification or training program has been established. If a defendant who cannot understand Korean is not provided with effective court interpreting service in a criminal procedure, the principle of due process of law cannot be achieved. This article sets out to examine certain legal concepts relating to the role of court interpreters and also highlights the need for an institutionalized training and certifying program for court interpreters.

In this paper the royal court institution for interpreting of Joseon dynasty, Sayeogwon, and the interpreting officials, Yeoggwan during the first half of Joseon Dynasty, will be introduced. The translated historical documents such as Tongmungwanji (Handbook for Interpreting officials), Gyunggukdaejeon (complete code of law) and Joseonwangjo Sillok (Annals of the Joseon Dynasty) are the main sources of this paper. Furhermore other studies on Korean history and language have been used as references. Sayeogwon, where trainees for the court interpreting acquire their education for Chinese, Mongolian, Japanese and Jurchen, and to which the court interpreters belong has been founded in 1393. To be a trainee, the candidate needs to pass an entrance examination. Most of them need to take the imperial examinations i.e. Yeoggwa, to be an interpreting official. During the education and also after having acquired the status of an official, there have been many different ways of promoting the titles and stipends which will be shown in this article. The official interpreters have been dispatched to the Ming Dynasty (China) or to Japan during the Muromachi period for politicial, diplomatic and economic affairs. Their duties and roles will be presented in the following as well. The third part regarding the second half of Joseon which will be presented in a subsequent paper.

Lee, Jieun & Chang, Won Kyung. 2015. A Case Study of Court Interpreters’ Consecutive Interpreting Performances. Journal of Linguistic Studies 20(1), 99-118. This study assessed the interpreting skills of interpreters currently registered with courts, who are referred to as court interpreters in this paper. Thirteen court interpreters’ consecutive interpreting performance was analyzed. After a warm-up exercise, the interpreters, including seven Chinese interpreters and six English interpreters, were asked to interpret recorded speeches with varying degrees of difficulties. The Korean source texts they interpreted were judges’ sentencing with slight modification, adjusted for consecutive interpreting. The interpreters’ interpreting was recorded and then transcribed for analysis. The interpretation was assessed in terms of the accuracy of contents, target language quality and delivery. The results revealed that all the participants have failed to demonstrate sufficient consecutive interpreting skills to deliver accurate interpreting, often mistranslating and producing awkward expressions. The findings suggest that non-Korean speaking defendants may have difficulties with accessing the court and communicating effectively through the interpreters. This paper concludes that court interpreters should be selected based on interpreting skills and that pre-service training is essential for the improvement of the quality of court interpreting. (Ewha Womans University)

Despite the increasing demand for court interpreting, Republic of Korea is not yet equipped with a national or provincial system to select and maintain competent court interpreters. One of the first steps in developing an optimized system is to look into the institutional frameworks of other nations with long-standing traditions in court interpreting. Hence, this paper analyzes and compares court interpreting certification examinations, certification systems, and training programs around the world. Countries analyzed and compared herein include those implementing a national certification system (e.g. the US, Canada), those administering court interpreting certification system and test (e.g. Austria, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland), those conferring national qualification (e.g. South Africa), and those administering accreditation system (e.g. Australia, China). Following the analysis of individual countries, a comparison of the distinct and common features are be made.

Drawing on the discourse of an untrained interpreter-mediated courtroom examination, this paper examines issues related to the accuracy in court interpreting and the role of the court interpreter, and the need for the legal professionals’ awareness about the role of the court interpreter. Through illustrative examples, this paper demonstrates that untrained and incompetent interpreter’s interpreting may influence the witness examination proper. The results clearly indicate that court interpreting service should be provided by trained professional interpreters and that legal professionals need to be aware of issues that may derive from inadequate court interpreting. This paper argues that legal professionals also need to understand how to work with interpreters in courtroom examinations. Finally, this paper calls for the judiciary’s action on enhancing the quality of court interpreting that impinges on the exercise of justice.

It is widely accepted that ‘quality of interpreting is closely linked to the conditions under which interpreters are expected to work’ (Hale 2011). This article examines and compares working conditions provided by domestic and international courts to enable interpreters’ professional operations. Interpreting requirements include courtroom design that enables satisfactory acoustics and visibility, the provision of a dedicated preparation and work place, as well as conditions that include fatigue prevention and other aspects necessary for competent performance. The article shows that satisfactory terms of employment and working conditions in international courts (ICTY, ICC etc.) are in stark contrast to those in domestic courts (mainly in the common law English-speaking countries, and some civil law countries), and that very few domestic courts provide adequate working conditions for interpreters.

For defendants and witnesses who do not speak the official language of the court, the provision of interpreting and the quality of court interpreting are equally important. This paper aims to develop a rating scale for the assessment of the competence of court interpreters and court interpreting quality. Based on the literature review, we have developed a rating scale with the three criteria of accuracy, target language quality, and delivery. The ten-point rating scale has four bands, ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘mediocre’, and ‘poor’, for each criterion of quality, and points assigned to each band: 10 points for ‘excellent’, 8 to 9 points for ‘good’, 6 to 7 points for ‘mediocre’, and 5 points and below for ‘poor’. The audio-recorded interpreting data and Korean court record of the examinations, which were made available for this study, consisted of dialogue interpreting during fourteen courtroom examinations of witnesses and defendants from non-Korean speaking backgrounds. The data of 10 hour and 34 minute long interpreting involved eleven interpreters in seven languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek. Each language interpreting was assessed by two raters based on the rubric provided by the researchers. While English, Chinese, Russian and Japanese raters had at least MA level training in translation and interpreting and included at least one rater who was familiar with court interpreting, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek raters were language instructors or fluent bilinguals, lacking professional translator or interpreter training. The results indicate that the raters generally understood the criteria and the band descriptors and came up with similar results. The inter-rater reliability measured by a percent agreement between raters proved to be high. In terms of overall band scores, the rater agreement was 100% in six languages except for English, which was still strong (75%). The findings support the practicality and effectiveness of using rating scales in the assessment of court interpreting in different contexts, including certification examination. Despite the limitations of the current research, the rating scale proved to be a useful tool that can be employed by non-professional interpreter raters. The assessment of eleven interpreters performances revealed that the overall interpreting competence of the eleven interpreters was mediocre.

The process of designing an education system often requires great endeavor; setting goals, defining variables, conducting surveys to diagnose the status quo and, last but not least, fine-tuning the details of the system according to the goals and circumstances. This paper on court interpreter education in Korea follows a similar process. It first attempts to clearly define the goals of court interpreter education, and to figure out which variables are to be considered to forestall unexpected factors adversely affecting the plan. The external (supply and demand of court interpreter market, etc.) as well as internal (age, languages of the court interpreters etc.) variables construct the backbone of this paper. With regard to the external variables, a survey is conducted to identify the current court interpreter market situation in Korea, while the education models of the U.S., Canada, Australia and Europe are examined in relation to internal variables. The final chapter presents a design of a court education system suitable to Korea with relevant details elaborated.

국내의 외국인 범죄자 수가 해마다 증가 추세를 보이고, 그 국적도 다양해지고 있다. 이에 양질의 통번역 서비스가 사법영역에서 필요해지고 있다. 그러나 여전히 인력 모집, 관리, 운영 등에 공백이 있어 원활한 재판 운영과 피고인의 기본권 보장이 우려된다. 이에 본 연구는 법정통역 관련 규정인 「통역·번역 및 외국인 사건 처리 예규(재일 2004-5)」를 기준으로 현행 제도와 운영 현황의 문제점을 고찰하고, 한국외대 연구팀이 대법원 행정처의 의뢰를 받아 작성 발표한『법정 통·번역인 평가에 관한 연구』를 기반으로 개선 방안을 제안하고자 한다. 법정통역의 운영, 통번역인의 선발, 최초 교육 및 재교육, 보수 개정, 법정 통번역인의 신분 정립, 통번역 서비스 운영 및 사용 절차 등 항목을 중심으로 기술하여 향후 국내 법정 통번역 서비스 수준 제고에 보탬이 되고자 한다.

The number of foreigners who violate the law in Korea is increasing by the year, and their nationalities continue to diversify. The situation necessitates high-quality translation and interpretation services in the courtroom. However, gaps remain in the recruitment, management and deployment of competent personnel, raising concerns over the ability to conduct trials smoothly and guarantee defendants’ basic rights. The present study uses Rules for Court Interpretation and Translation for Cases Involving Non-Korean Speakers (Jea-il 2004-5) as the basis for examining problems in Korea’s current regulations concerning court interpreting, and suggests improvement measures based on the Study on the Evaluation of Legal Translators, written by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies research team at the request of the Supreme Court Administration. This study aims to help enhance the quality of court interpretation services provided during criminal trials in Korea going forward by studying the current operation of court interpretation for criminal trials, the selection of translators and interpreters, their initial training and retraining, adjustments in their remuneration, the establishment of a proper social standing for court interpreters, and procedures for operating and using interpretation and translation services.

외국인 범죄 증가와 결혼, 취업 등으로 국내에 장기 체류하는 외국인 수가 증가하면서 대법원은 법정통번역사의 중요성에 주목하게 되었고, 법정통번역사 인증평가를 실시하는 등 법정통번역사 선발 및 교육에도 많은 변화가 있었다. 헌법상 기본권인 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 수호하고 대한민국 사법체계의 선진화를 위해 양질의 법정통번역사 재원 확보와 운영은 반드시 필요하다. 법정통역인 인증평가의 운영으로 법정통번역사 인력이 확보되었으나 희소언어 재원은 여전히 부족하며, 그에 대한 개선안이 제도적, 학술적으로 적극 논의되고 있지 못하다. 이에 본 연구는 제도적 개선과 현행 자원의 활용 등 수단을 통해 희소언어 법정통번역사 인력 확보에 관한 방향을 모색하고 개선 방안을 제언하고자 한다.

As the number of long-term foreign residents in Korea continues to grow due to factors such as immigration, marriage, and employment, and as crimes involving foreign nationals increase, the importance of court interpreting has come into sharper focus. In response, the Supreme Court of Korea has introduced notable reforms, including the implementation of a certification exam for court interpreters, to improve the selection and training process. Ensuring access to qualified court interpreters is crucial for upholding the fundamental right to a fair trial and supporting the advancement of the judicial system. While the certification system has helped establish a foundation of interpreter resources, a critical shortage of interpreters remains for rare languages. Despite this, institutional and academic discourse on addressing the issue remains limited. This study aims to explore current challenges in securing rare language court interpreters and proposes policy recommendations for improvement, with a focus on institutional reform and the strategic utilization of existing resources.

As of July 2024, the National Court Administration of the Supreme Court of Korea launched the Court Interpretation Center to provide remote court interpreting services. Building upon previous research on remote interpreting, this study examines the benefits and challenges of remote court interpreting through a survey of professional interpreters who are actively practicing remote court interpreting in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. The survey reveals six benefits: significant time savings, improved focus, reduced external distractions, increased access for a broader range of users, reduced emotional stress, and comfortable working attire. It also identifies six challenges: technical difficulties, sound quality issues, and limited visual cues. Additional concerns include a lack of trial information typically accessible in a face-to-face setting, limited control over the speaking pace of participants, and privacy risks. The findings suggest that remote court interpreting will flourish as technical advances are made.

2000년대 후반 국내체류외국인 수의 증가와 동시에 급증한 외국인 범죄 건수와 아시아권내 국제결혼의 증가로 제기되기 시작한 외국인 관련 이혼, 혼인무효 등 가사사건의 증가를 계기로, 우리나라에서 사법통역 관련 수요가 급증하게 되었다. ‘사법통역’은 일반적으로 국가의 사법권 행사와 관련된 모든 절차에서 요구되는 통역을 의미하는데, 현행법상 법원조직법, 형사소송법, 민사소송법, 난민법에서 외국인 또는 청각장애인, 언어장애인이 국가의 사법권 행사와 관련된 경우에 통역인으로 하여금 통역을 하게 하는 근거를 찾을 수 있다. 그러나 아직까지 우리나라에서는 사법절차에서 통역을 할 수 있는 사법통역 전문가의 선발방식, 전문교육 등에 관한 체계적인 제도가 확립되어 있지 않은 상황이고, 사법통역과 관련된 법원의 판례에 대한 연구도 수행되지 않았다. 이에 반해, 여러 나라의 이민자들과 대륙의 토착민족으로 구성된 미국, 캐나다, 호주에서는 1970년대부터 사법절차에서 통역의 제공이 공정한 재판을 위하여 필수적인 것으로 인식되기 시작하였다. 미국의 일부 주 헌법과 캐나다 헌법은 피고인의 통역을 제공받을 권리에 관한 명문의 규정을 두고 있고, 사법기관에서 사법통역을 제공하는 절차와 방식 등이 체계적으로 확립되어 있다. 또한 미국과 호주에서는 영어구사능력이 제한적인 사람들의 공평한 사법에의 접근이 가능하도록 사법통역의 품질을 보장하기 위하여, 사법통역을 제공하는 통역인에 대한 자격인증제도를 운영하고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 미국, 캐나다, 호주의 사법통역 관련 판례를 통하여 사법통역제도의 운영 방식을 살펴보고, ‘통역’이라는 단어를 포함하고 있고 실제로 사건에서 ‘통역’이 문제가 된 우리나라 법원 판결문 77건을 선정․분석하였다. 지난 40년 동안 형성된 미국, 캐나다, 호주의 판례에서 사법통역의 정확성과 중립성을 보장하기 위한 다양한 장치를 확인할 수 있었다. 예를 들어, 캐나다와 호주에서는 통역이 제공되는 외국인 사건의 경우에 공판 또는 심리과정을 모두 녹음하여, 통역의 정확성에 이의가 제기되었을 때 녹음한 자료를 토대로 통역의 정확성을 판단하고 있었다. 또한 미국의 판례에는 사법통역과 관련된 이의 제기의 유형별 판단 기준이 명확히 제시되어 있었다. 우리나라 법원도 통역이 제공되지 않았다는 내용의 이의제기와 통역이 공정하지 못하였다는 내용의 이의제기에 대하여서는 어느 정도 일관된 기준을 제시하고 있었다. 그러나 통역의 정확성에 관한 이의가 제기되었을 때, 법원은 통역내용을 녹음한 자료에 기초하여 통역의 정확성을 판단하는 것이 아니라, 여러 가지 다른 증거를 종합하여 통역을 통하여 진술된 내용의 신빙성을 판단하고 있었다. 통역의 정확성 확보는 국어가 통하지 않는 외국인 또는 청각장애인, 언어장애인의 사법절차상의 권리 행사에 필수적인 것으로, 통역의 정확성에 이의가 제기되었을 때 명확한 판단이 가능하도록 통역내용의 녹음 또는 녹화를 의무화하는 방안을 마련하여야 할 것이다.

In the late 2000s, a sudden increase in demand for legal interpreting was witnessed in Korea due to a rapidly growing number of crimes committed by resident aliens and a rising number of divorce or annulment suits fled between Korean and foreign spouses. “Legal interpreting” indicates all forms of interpreting which are required in the performance of the state’s justice procedures. In Korea, statutory bases for providing an interpreter for those who are unable to understand Korean?e.g. non-Korean-speaking foreigners, hearing-impaired persons, or linguistically impaired persons?are found in the Court Organization Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Civil Procedure Act, and the Refugee Act, but a detailed legal interpreting system, such as criteria or qualifications required to work as a legal interpreter, has not been established yet. Furthermore, no investigation into Korean court cases in which legal interpreting was used has yet been conducted. On the other hand, since the 1970s, the provision of an interpreter in court has been regarded as a necessary part of a fair trial in the United States, Canada, and Australia, countries in which there are large immigrant populations, as well as a number of indigenous citizens who do not speak sufficient English to follow the proceedings of a judicial hearing. Canada and some states in the United States even articulate a criminal defendant’s right to the assistance of an interpreter in their constitutions, as well as sustaining systematic procedures and methods for providing an interpreter throughout the judicial process. In addition, certification procedures for legal interpreters have been implemented in the United States and Australia in order to guarantee fair access to justice for those who have limited English proficiency. Thus, this article first reviews how the United States, Canada, and Australia operate their legal interpreting systems through their judicial precedents and then analyzes the 77 Korean court cases in the sentencing of which the words “interpreting” occurs, and in which legal interpreting was disputed by one or more parties. In the judicial precedents of the United States, Canada, and Australia over the last 40 years, mechanisms for ensuring fairness and accuracy of legal interpreting can be identified. For example, Canada and Australia mandate that all court hearings conducted through an interpreter are recorded, and that transcripts of those recordings be used when an objection to the accuracy of interpreting is raised. In the United States, judicial precedents present specific standards for deciding the acceptability of objections according to the different sorts of disputes related to legal interpreting. The Korean legal system also provides considerably consistent standards for determining objections to the absence of an interpreter and unfair interpreting. However, regarding an objection to the accuracy of the interpreting, the court decides the reliability of the interpreted statements based on other relevant evidence, because of a lack of audio or video recordings or transcripts of the interpreting. Considering the importance of accuracy of legal interpreting in the exercise of the procedural rights of those who are unable to understand Korean, the Korean legal interpreting system should be revised to introduce mandatory recording requirements for all interpreted statements in judicial procedures.

이른바 “아내강간죄”를 처음으로 인정한 대상판결은 이와 관련된 그간의 논란을 잠재운 듯이 보인다. 그러나 아내강간에 관한 논란이 수그러든다면 이것은 대상판결 때문이 아니라, 개정(2012. 12.)된 성형법이 시행에 들어갔기 때문일 것이다. 좀 더 살펴보면 (대상판결의)다수의견은 오히려 형법이론상 여러 가지 문제를 일으킬 빌미를 제공하였다. 다수의견은 반대의견의 여러 가지 논리적인 문제제기에 대해 명확한 논증을 하는 대신 도처에서 논리의 비약으로 피신하였다. 다수의견이 자신의 논거를 보강하기 위해 원용한 성전환자 판례는 우리의 사안에는 적절한 것이 아니다. 두 판례는 문제사안 자체가 서로 다르기 때문이다. 또한, 종전판결과 부정설을 정확히 구별하지 못한 채 뭉뚱그려 비판함으로써, 그 뒤에 이어진 논증은 우리의 주제(개정 전의 제297조를 근거로 아내강간죄를 인정할 수 있는가)에서 벗어났다. 다수의견은 대부분의 힘을 아내강간은 강간죄로 처벌되어 마땅한 행위라는 점을 밝히는데 쏟았으나, 이에 대해서는 부정설은 물론 어느 누구도 이미 반대하지 않고 있다. 다수의견은 아내강간의 처벌필요성이 아니라 이러한 행위가 형법 제297조로 처벌될 수 있는가에 대해서 설명했어야 했다. 종전판결은 형법 제297조에 의한 아내강간죄 성립을 ‘실질적 부부관계’를 기준으로 적절히 제한하려 하였던 것이다. 대상판결은 충분한 논증 없이 ‘실질적인 부부관계 속의 아내’도 강간죄의 객체인 ‘부녀’에 포함시킴으로써 종전판결을 변경했다. 그러나 이는 형법해석의 한계를 넘은 것이다. 즉 ‘부녀’의 의미에는 부합할지 모르나, 사안에 적합한 해결을 위한 체계적·목적론적 해석 노력은 하지 않음으로써 유추로 나아간 것일 뿐이다. 부녀는 같은 조의 ‘강간’ 표지와 연결되지 않으면 온전히 해석될 수 없기 때문이다. 결국 다수의견은 보호법익(=성적자기결정권)을 지나치게 강조한 나머지 결과지향적 해석에 빠져 보장적 과제를 침해하였다. 개별사례인 이 사건에 집착한 나머지 법을 해석한 것이 아니라 사례에 법을 끼워 맞춤으로 현행 법규의 해석과 입법론을 혼동했다는 비판을 받을 것이다. 이 과정에서 종전판결의 취지는 가볍게 배척되고 말았는데 아쉬운 일이다. 제297조의 ‘부녀’에서 ‘실질적 부부관계에 있는 아내’는 제외되어야 한다는 종전판례는 성적자기결정권과 가정(家庭) 유지라는 두 법익을 최대한 보호하려는 혜안의 균형추라고 할 수 있는데 그 지혜가 사장(死藏)된 것이다. 아쉬운 것은 종전판례를 유지하더라도 피고인은 강간죄로 처벌될 수밖에 없었고, 곧 개정형법이 시행되어 아내강간의 문제가 입법적으로 해소될 수 있는 상황이었는데, 많은 문제를 야기하면서까지 종전판례를 변경하였다는 점이다. 요컨대, 대상판결은 입법론으로 해석을 시도함으로써 유추금지원칙, 나아가 소급효금지원칙 위반의 논란을 남겼다. 이제 개정형법의 시행으로 더 이상 아내강간에 대한 논란은 일어나지 않을 것이지만, 지적된 바와 같은 대상판결의 잘못된 법해석 태도는 반복되어서는 안 될 것이다.

It seems that the judgement, which concluded so-called the "wife rape" case as a sexual assault, has put an end to the controversy that had been rampant for quite a while. However, to be exact, it might be the reformed Korean Rape Law(2012.12.) that ended the controversy related to wife rape, not the judgement. And we can even find out the majority opinion of the judgement conversely has caused several problems on criminal law theories. They didn't make clear many logical problems raised by opposing opinion but fled to a jump of logic. The transgender case was not appropriate in this case, which they chose to strengthen their argumentation because the two cases are not the same structures. In addition, they criticized the opposing side not fully understanding its view, not to mention the argumentation got out of our subject(Can we recognize wife rape as a criminal assault based on the former Criminal Law §297). The majority opinion concentrated most of their energy to prove wife rape as a criminal act and that it deserves punishment, but no one on opposing side disagrees with it. They should have explained whether this act can be punished by Criminal Law §297 or not. In brief, opposing view does not deny the necessity of punishment but does deny the interpretation of wife rape by Criminal Law §297, which sees the act as a criminal assault. However, they argued that the word 'Bu-nyoe; a woman', the object of §297, can also include 'a wife in actual marital relationship', which I think is illogical. The interpretation by the majority may correspond with 'possible meaning of the legal term' but there are not much of their efforts of gaining systematic-teleological interpretation to draw out the optimal interpretation on this matter. They saw and tried to make something meaningful out of the word 'Bu-nyoe' only, overlooking the word 'Kang-gan', the act of §297. Therefore, they intimidated the guarantee task(or function) of Criminal Law, highlighting Rechtsgut of sexual self-determination too much. They, so obsessed with this individual case, fit the law into the case by force. They got confused between the interpretation of the law and de lege ferenda. In this process, the former Judgement has been banished too easily. It is such a shame. In §297, the former Judgement said that a wife in the actual marital relationship must be excluded from Bu-nyoe and, sought insight to balancing and protecting two Rechtsgut, right to sexual self-determination and family maintenance. But this wisdom has died. What is more pitiful is the Supreme Court changed the former judgement creating a lot of problems. If the former judgement wasn't ever repealed, the defendant was to be punished inevitably, and wife rape problem would have been solved by the reformed Law which was about to take effect in a month. In a nut shell, replacing the interpretation with de lege ferenda, Supreme Court has left lex stricta and lex praevia violence controversy. Now, with the enforcement of the reformed Korean Rape Law, there will be no more controversy about wife rape. Though, the wrong interpretation attitude of the Supreme Court that I pinpointed above must not be repeated again.

Recently, some US patents are invalidated by Korean Intellectual Property Office or Courts. Sanopi Aventis case(2009) can be listed as one of those cases at issue. In this case, the interpretation of the "Transition Phase of Claim" was debated at the court. US Patent filed through PCT(Patent Cooperation Treaty) to Korea was invalidated by the Korean Supreme Court based upon the Korean Patent Law Art. 42(written description requirement). Patent Court held valid that "consisting essentially of" as a transition phase under the context of Korean Patent Law Art. 42 as is the same case in US. However, Korean Supreme Court's understanding was somewhat different. "Consisting essentially of" is actually too vague for the persons' ordinary skilled in the art to interpret the exact meaning of the claim in the biotechnology area and considering the prosecution history of this claim at issue, Korean patent becomes more comprehensive that the US one in the course of national filing to Korea through PCT. In addition, the wording of Korean Patent Law Art. 42 is different from that of US. Specific feature of this case was main reasons of this Supreme Court case. While, after this decision practitioners in Korea will not use "Consisting essentially of" type of transition any more due to the risks of being invalidated. KIPO has to present a more detailed guideline for clearing the misunderstanding regarding the transition phase.

특허권 존속기간 연장제도와 관련하여, 여러 판결들이 지속적으로 선고되고 있다. 제약회사의 관점에서는 존속기간 연장을 적극적으로 할 수 있도록 할 유인을 가지고 있다. 그런데 한편으로는 존속기간연장을 인정하는 것의 요건은 엄격하게 해석하여야 할 필요성이 있다. 이런 점에서 특허권 존속기간의연장에 있어서 신물질의 해석을 약사법과의 관계에서 어떻게 파악을 하는 것이 좋을까 하는 점에 대해서 이 판결은 중요한 의의가 있다. 이 사건에서 쟁점이 되는 페길레이션이 특허법 시행령 제7조의 해석을 어떻게 하여야 하는 것이다. 대상 판결에서 대법원은 유도체의 개선된 활성은 유도체에 관한 발명이 특허를 받기 위한 진보성 인정의 근거가 될 수 있으나, 최초로 허가를 받은 기허가된 의약품과 비교하여 약리 효과를 나타내는 활성부분이 차별화되지 않는 한 그 특허의 존속기간을 연장대상으로 보기 어렵다고 판단한 것이다. 그 결과 특허권 존속기간의 연장 대상이 되는 “약효를 나타내는 활성부분”의 범위를 대법원과같이 보게 되면 약동학적 특성 등이 개선된 개량 약물의 특허권 존속기간의 연장이 제한되게 되었다. 존속기간연장등록출원에 있어서 ‘신물질(약효를 나타내는 활성부분의 화학구조가 새로운 물질)’의 의미 해석과 관련해서 ‘약효를 나타내는 활성부분’과 ‘유효성분’은 구분되는 것으로, 의약품의 효능·효과의 정도에 차이가 있다 하더라도, 기허가된 의약품과 약효를 나타내는 활성부분의 화학구조가 동일한이상, 존속기간연장등록출원의 ‘신물질’이 되지는 않는다고 판시한 대법원의 판결은 특허법 시행령의문언에 충실한 해석이라고 판단된다. 특허법 시행령의 해석은 문언과 정책적인 필요성 사이에서 고려하여야 하나 문언을 우선하면서 필요하다면 해석론이 아니라 입법론으로 대응하는 것이 타당하다.

The concept of Patent Term Extension, analyzed in the South Korean Supreme Court case 21Hu11070, originated in the US with the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Regarding the patent term extension system, several rulings are continuouslybeing announced by the Korean Court. From the perspective of pharmaceutical companies, there is an incentive to actively extend the term. However, the requirements for getting an extensionmust be strictly interpreted. In this regard, this ruling is significant for interpreting new substances under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, particularly in cases involving PEGylation and patent term extension. The issue under debate is how to interpret Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act. The Korean Supreme Court held that while improved activity of a derivative may establishnovelty for patentability, it does not justify a patent term extension unless the active part producing the pharmacological effect differs from that of the first approved drug. As a result, under the Supreme Court’s view, patent extensions for a drug with improved pharmacodynamic properties will be limited unless the active part itself is distinct. In interpreting “new substance”(defined as a substance with a new chemical structure in the active part showing the medicinal effect) for extension applications, the court distinguished between the “active part”and the “effective ingredient.”Even if efficacy or effect differs, the product is not a “new substance”if the active part’s chemical structure matches that of an already approved drug. This is judged to be an interpretation that is faithful to the wording of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act. When interpreting the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act, both wording and policy considerations must be weighed. However, priority should be given to the text itself, with policy concerns addressed through legislation rather than judicial interpretation.