• 발명특허
• /
• v.13 no.9 s.151
• /
• pp.20-21
• /
• 1988

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.3 s.133
• /
• pp.28-29
• /
• 1987

• 발명특허
• /
• v.13 no.5 s.147
• /
• pp.28-29
• /
• 1988

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.8 s.138
• /
• pp.30-31
• /
• 1987

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.5 s.135
• /
• pp.36-37
• /
• 1987

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.10 s.140
• /
• pp.36-37
• /
• 1987

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.2 s.132
• /
• pp.46-47
• /
• 1987

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.4 s.134
• /
• pp.26-27
• /
• 1987

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.66 no.2
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to analyze precedents related with child abuse for protection of the rights of the child. There should be the law related with 'punishment for child abuse,' which is the grounds of punishment, to make a precedent in the law punishing for 'child abuse,' but there is the concept only for 'child abuse' in the Child Welfare Law, the fundamental law; therefore, for a direct judgment for punishment, only precedents of 'child abuse' related with loss of parental rights and judgements for criminal cases, civil cases and laws covering special cases have been made. For that reason, 'the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases' is desperately required (On last December 23, 2013, the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases passed the National Assembly). Hence, precedent analysis had performed by grouping precedent from 2000 to 2013 which were not judged as child abuse in trial but can be regarded as child abuse. When analyzing each precedent according to the contents of analysis and judgment by fact relevance in this study, problems which the current legislative system has were deducted through an implication of each case by diagnosing using diagraming after classifying lower instance terminated cases, which precedents of the Supreme Court and judgments sent to the Supreme Court were excluded, while excluding cases settled in the civil level and classifying analysis of civil case precedents which did not become a criminal case and completed as a civil case, analysis of criminal case precedents, classification of precedents of loss of the parental rights (regarding child abuse) and precedents of any other special laws. And compensatory tasks for special laws regarding punishment of child abuse were presented while suggesting compensatory tasks for the legislation regarding deducted problems.

• The Optical Journal
• /
• s.99
• /
• pp.76-79
• /
• 2005

본 고에서는 최근 광학관련 특허출원 제1991-6896호 대법원 판례를 소개하고자 한다. 본 사례는 1991년 특허출원을 했으나 그에 앞서 유사한 내용으로 유럽 쪽에서 낸 특허내용에 비해 진보성이 떨어진다는 판단아래 특허청, 특허심판원, 특허법원 등에서 번번이 기각이 됐고, 최종적으로 지난해 4월 28일 대법원이 원심판결 파기환송을 함으로써 특허출원인의 손을 들어줬던 사건이다. 이번 사건을 통해 주목해야 할 것은 특허청구범위에 기재된‘구성’의 의미가 포괄하는 범위이다. 즉, 발명을 이루는 구조적요소, 수단 및 그 결합관계의 한정이‘발명이 구성에 해당된다’는 것. 또한 구조적 요소에 의해서만 특정하는 것은 곤란하고 구조만으로 특정하려 할 때 종래기술과, 기술적으로 구별하기 어렵다면 구조적 사항 외에 요소도 발명의 구성에 해당된다는 것. 마지막으로 성질 또는 특성 등에 의하여 물건을 특정하려고 하는 기재를 포함하고, 성질 또는 특성이 그 발명의 내용을 한정하는 사항이라면 이것 역시 발명의 구성에 해당된다는 것이다.