NDSL 266 Link page¿¡¼­ [¿ø¹®º¸±â] ¹öÆ°À» Ŭ¸¯Çϼ¼¿ä.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

A study on the efficient application method of VDA 6.3 Quality System for the quality improvement of battery
 
 Automobile manufacturers require component suppliers to obtain IATF 16949 Quality Management System Certification and to apply their own Quality Assurance System.
 
 European Automobile companies, mainly in Germany, require their suppliers to certify IATF 16949. In addition, their partners are required to have the VDA 6.3 process audit established by the German Automotive Industry Association.
 
 VDA 6.3 process audit is divided into product development process/mass production and service development process/service execution. This study is designed to effectively prepare and execute quality management process audit at the mass production phase.
 
 Through this study, significant items were selected which were affected by a correlation and regression analysis between VDA 6.3 items score and the process quality index of suppliers that supply automobiles battery parts, and then I suggest the practical plan to build an effective processes and improve quality in a short period of time. 
 
 As a result of the study, I selected three of the 38 items of VDA 6.3 process audit that are highly related to process quality index. Selected items are as follows.
 1) P6.2.3(Are special characteristics managed in the production?)
 2) P6.5.3(In the case of deviations from product and process requirements, are the causes analysed and the corrective actions checked for effectiveness?)
 3) P6.6.4(Are customer requirements met at the delivery of the final product?)
 
 I clarified the requirements for the three selected items and clarified how to improve them. And I worked with our partners to make improvements.
 As a result, overall scores of the VDA 6.3 process audit improved by 0.14 points, while P6.2.3 improved by 0.6 points, P6.5.3 improved by 1.0, and P6.6.4 improved by 0.2 points. During this period, the process quality index improved by 61%.
 
 After the improvement, three items were validated to determine if they were the key factors affecting process quality improvement and verified through regression analysis.
 
 In this study, I'm confident that this study can help improve quality in a short period of time by executing three items of VDA 6.3 process audit that much related to process quality.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

Background: In the busy primary care setting, there are several limitations in applying Alcohol Use Disorders Identifi cationTest in Korea (AUDIT-K) to screen problem drinking. Thus, for primary healthcare practice, we evaluated AUDIT-C, whichcovers questions from 1 to 3 in AUDIT-K, and AUDIT-K Question 3 Alone to present cut points for these two screeningquestionnaire according to AUDIT-K test scores.Methods: In a university hospital, we surveyed 302 males with a drinking history via self-administered questionnaireincluding AUDIT-K, from November 2007 to April 2008. On the basis of total score in AUDIT-K, we divided them into fourgroups: normal, problem drinking, alcohol use disorder, and alcohol dependence. For each alcohol drinking behaviorpattern, we drew the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves to present cut points for appropriate sensitivity andspecifi city. In addition, we compared the performance of AUDIT-C and AUDIT-K Question 3 Alone through area underthe curve (AUC).Results: For AUDIT-C, we designated the score 8 or more as problem drinking, 9 or more as alcohol use disorder, and 11or more as dependence. The results of sensitivity/specifi city for each group were 82%/76%, 76%/79%, 80%/86%, respectively,which were suitable for screening. For AUDIT-K Question 3 Alone, we defined the score 3 or more as problemdrinking or alcohol use disorder and the score 4 as dependence. The results of sensitivity/specifi city for each group were79%/80%, 84%/67%, 85%/77%, which were appropriate for screening. For every drinking behavior group, AUDIT-C wassuperior to AUDIT-K Question 3 Alone in screening performance (problem drinking: 0.88 vs. respectively 0.85, alcohol usedisorder: 0.86 vs. 0.82, alcohol dependence: 0.88 vs. 0.81)Conclusion: We confi rmed that both AUDIT-C and AUDIT-K Question 3 Alone, which are more convenient and have fewertime con-straints than AUDIT-K, are reasonable screening methods for problem drinking. Thus, we recommend furtherdrinking assessment and proper intervention for male drinkers who have scores 8 or more in AUDIT-C or 3 or more inAUDIT-K Question 3 Alone.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¿ì¸®³ª¶óÀÇ Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸®´Â Çѱ¹Àü»ê¿ø¿¡ ÀÇÇØ 1987³â¿¡ óÀ½À¸·Î µµÀԵǾú´Ù. Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸®´Â Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ È¿À²¼º, È¿°ú¼º, ¾ÈÀü¼º Çâ»óÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© °¨¸®´ë»óÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ µ¶¸³µÈ °¨¸®¿øÀÌ Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ±¸Ãࡤ¿î¿µ¿¡ °üÇÑ »çÇ×À» Á¾ÇÕÀûÀ¸·Î Á¡°Ë¡¤Æò°¡ÇÏ°í °¨¸®ÀÇ·ÚÀÎ ¹× ÇÇ°¨¸®¿ø¿¡°Ô °³¼±ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ »çÇ×À» ±ÇÇÔÀ¸·Î½á Á¤º¸È­ »ç¾÷ÀÇ ½ÇÆи¦ ¹Ì¿¬¿¡ ¹æÁöÇÑ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸®ÀÇ È¿°ú¼º°ú Á߿伺Àº Á¡Á¡ ³ô¾ÆÁö°í ÀÖ´Ù. À¥ Á¢±Ù¼ºÀº ¸ðµç »ç¶÷ÀÌ ´Ù¾çÇÑ Á¶°ÇÀÇ È¯°æ¿¡¼­ ´Ù¾çÇÑ ÀåÄ¡¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇؼ­ À¥ ÄÜÅÙÃ÷¿¡ Á¢±ÙÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï º¸ÀåÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇϸç, º¸ÆíÀû Á¢±Ù¼ºÀ» È®º¸ÇÔ¿¡ µû¶ó Àå¾Ö¸¦ Áö³­ »ç¶÷ »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÀϽÃÀûÀ¸·Î ºÒ¸®ÇÑ Á¶°ÇÀ» °®°Ô µÈ Á¤»óÀο¡ À̸£±â ±îÁö Æí¸®ÇÏ°Ô À¥ ÄÜÅÙÃ÷¸¦ Á¢±ÙÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µÈ´Ù. ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿¡¼­´Â 2008³â 4¿ùºÎÅÍ ½ÃÇàµÈ ¡¸Àå¾ÖÀÎÂ÷º°±ÝÁö ¹× ±Ç¸®±¸Á¦ µî¿¡ °üÇÑ ¹ý·ü¡¹¿¡ ÀÇÇØ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º Áؼö°¡ ¹ýÀûÀ¸·Î Àǹ«È­ µÇ¾î °ü·Ã »ç¾÷µéÀÌ È°¹ßÇÏ°Ô ÁøÇàµÇ°í ÀÖ°í, ¾ÕÀ¸·Îµµ ¸¹Àº »ç¾÷µéÀÌ ÁøÇàµÇ¸®¶ó ¿¹»óµÈ´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ÇöÇà Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸® ±âÁØ¿¡´Â À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º°ú °ü·ÃµÈ Á¡°ËºÐ¾ß³ª Ç׸ñÀÌ Á¦½ÃµÇ¾î ÀÖÁö ¾Ê¾Æ, °¨¸®¹ýÀκ°, °¨¸®Àκ°·Î °¢ÀÚ µ¶ÀÚÀûÀÎ Á¡°Ë¹æ½ÄÀ» äÅÃÇÏ¿© °¨¸®¸¦ ¼öÇàÇÏ¿© ¿Ô°í, ±× °á°ú ÀÏ°ü¼º ÀÖ°í, ½Å·Ú¼º ÀÖ´Â °¨¸® ÀÇ°ßÀÌ Á¦½ÃµÇÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù´Â ¹®Á¦Á¡ÀÌ ÀÖ¾î °³¼± ´ëÃ¥ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ µû¶ó º» ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â ¸ÕÀú ÇöÇà °¨¸® ü°èÀÇ ¹®Á¦Á¡À» »ìÆ캸±â À§ÇØ Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ°¨¸®Á¡°ËÇؼ³¼­ v3.0À» ±âÁØÀ¸·Î ÀÀ¿ë½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸®¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º°ú °ü·ÃµÈ À¯»ç °¨¸® Á¡°Ë»çÇ×À» µµÃâÇÏ°í ÇöÇà °¨¸®Æò°¡ ¹æ¹ýÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ÙÀ½À¸·Î À¥ ±â¹Ý Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ ´Ü°èº° °³¹ß°ü·Ã ³»¿ë°ú À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º ´Ü°èº° °í·Á»çÇ×À» ±â¹ÝÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®, ¼³°è, ±¸Çö, °Ë¼ö, ¿î¿µ ÃÑ ´Ù¼¸ ´Ü°è¿¡ °ÉÃÄ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º °ü·Ã °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ°í °¨¸® Æò°¡ ±â¹ý¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¦¾ÈµÈ ´Ü°èº° °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñ¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ÇöÀç °¨¸®¸¦ ¼öÇàÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °¨¸®¿øµéÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î Á¡°ËÇ׸ñÀÌ ÀûÇÕÇÑÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Å¸´ç¼º, Á߿伺, ÃøÁ¤°¡´É¼º°ú °¨¸®ÀÇ ¿ø·¡ ¸ñÀû¿¡ ºÎÇÕÇÏ´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ È¿À²¼º, ½Å·Ú¼º, Áذżº¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á¾ÇÕÀûÀ¸·Î ¼³¹® Á¶»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´°í, ±× °á°ú Á¦½ÃµÈ °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñµéÀº ¸ðµÎ º¸ÅëÀÌ»óÀÇ Æò±Õ°ªÀ» ³ªÅ¸³» Á¡°ËÇ׸ñÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ ÀûÇÕ¼º°ú ºÎÇÕµµ¸¦ °®´Â °É·Î ÆÇ´Ü ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñµéÀÇ Å¸´ç¼ºÀ» °ËÁõÇϱâ À§ÇØ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º °ü·Ã Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ °¨¸® »ç·Ê¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°í, °³¼±µÈ Á¡°ËÇ׸ñ ±âÁØÀ» Àû¿ë½ÃÄÑ ±âÁ¸ÀÇ °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñ°ú °³¼±µÈ Á¡°ËÇ׸ñÀ» ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ³í¹®¿¡¼­ Á¦½ÃµÈ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º ´Ü°èº° °¨¸® Á¡°ËÇ׸ñ°ú »ç·Ê¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÑ °¨¸®Æò°¡´Â Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛ À¥ Á¢±Ù¼º °ü·Ã »ç¾÷¿¡¼­ È°¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ̶ó »ý°¢µÇ¸ç, ½ÇÁ¦ °ü·Ã »ç¾÷¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© È¿°ú¼ºÀ» °ËÁõÇÏ°í ¼öÁ¤ º¸¿ÏÇÏ´Â ºÎºÐÀº ÇâÈÄ ¿¬±¸°úÁ¦·Î ¹Ì·çµµ·Ï ÇÑ´Ù.In 1987, Information System Audit of our country was firstly introduced by NCA(National Computerization Agency). To improve the efficiency, effectively and safety of information system, Information System Audit is previously prevented from the fail of Information System Project - the independence auditor from the target audit totally check and evaluate the an item about construct and operation of information system and asking the requirement an item of improve to reverse-auditor. Therefore, the effectively and important of Information System are getting more and more attention. Web accessibility means that everyone insures access of web content using by the various devices at variously conditional environment, and can be easily and conveniently accessed both a physically handicapped person and normal held temporarily unfavorable condition according to securing the universal accessibility. In our country, related-business is active progressed to legally impose the Web accessibility by ¡¸A law related to physically handicapped person distinction prohibition and right relief etc.¡¹¿¡ operated in 2008. April. In future we expect that the many businesses is progressed. But, because there are the problem that the improvement measure are needed. Firstly, in order to investigate the problem of current audit system, the similar audit guideline related to the web accessibility in the application system audit region based on the inspection manual of information system audit is derived and the method of current audit evaluation is analyzed in this paper. Secondly, the audit inspection list related on web accessibility based on the content related to the step-by-step development of web-based information system and the step-by-step consideration of web accessibility is proposed and the evaluation method is presented. Where, there are five step that the analysis, architecture, achievement, inspection and operation. Thirdly, the research for the auditors which perform the current audit about inspection list of proposed five-step is totally investigated for coinciding in the orignal purpose of audit based on the Effectuality, Reliability, Compliance with the Fitness, Importance, Measurability and inspection list. This result is decided that the proposed audit lists have all meaningful as a inspection content with average value over normal. Lastly, to confirm the validity of audit inspection lists, a study case of information system related to web accessibility is analyzed, the improved audit lists is applied. And then, the conventional audit inspection lists and improved audit lists are analytically compared. In this thesis, the audit result of proposed web-accessibility phased audit guideline and a case study can think the make the best use of the business related web-accessibility. And, we hereafter is postponed the next study subject to confirm and revise the effectively applied real related business.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

À½ÁÖ´Â ¼Õ»óÀÇ °¡Àå À§Çè ¿äÀÎÀ¸·Î Á¤È®ÇÑ Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¼¼°èº¸°Ç±â±¸¿¡¼­ °³¹ßÇÑ Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (¸¸¼ºÀ½ÁÖÇàÅÂÃøÁ¤ ÀÌÇÏ AUDIT)¿Í °°Àº µµ±¸¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¼ºÀο¡¼­ÀÇ À½ÁÖÇàÅÂ¿Í ¼Õ»ó ¹ß»ý·ü ¹× ¼Õ»ó ¼¼ºÎ Ư¼º°úÀÇ ¿¬°ü¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ°íÀÚ ½Ç½Ã ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â 2009³âµµ ±¹¹Î°Ç°­¿µ¾çÁ¶»ç¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ¼ºÀÎ ¸¸ 19¼¼ ÀÌ»ó ¼ºÀÎ Áß 7,893¸íÀÌ Âü¿©ÇÏ¿© ¼Õ»ó¿¡ ÀÀ´äÇÑ 7,511¸í, ±× Áß À½ÁÖÇàÅÂÁ¶»ç Âü¿©´Â 6,6362¸í ¼³¹®¿¡ ¹«ÀÀ´ä 104¸íÀ» Á¦¿Ü ÃÖÁ¾ 6,258¸í ¿¬±¸ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. AUDIT¹üÁÖ¿¡ µû¸¥ ¼Õ»ó ¹ß»ý·ü ¹× ¼¼ºÎƯ¼º Áï ½ÅüºÎÀ§, À¯Çü, ±âÀüº° ¼Õ»ó ¹ß»ýÀ²ÀÇ ºñ±³À§Çèµµ¸¦ T-test, ANOVA, Logistic regression ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »êÃâÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åë°èºÐ¼®Àº SPSS 19.0 Åë°èÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼®°á°ú üÀü¼Õ»ó¿¡¼­ ³²ÀÚ°¡ ¼Õ»óÀÇ ¹ß»ýÀÌ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ô¾Ò´Ù. À½ÁÖ °ü·Ã ¼Õ»óÀÇ °æ¿ì¿¡¼­ ³²ÀÚ°¡ ¿©ÀÚ¿¡ ºñÇØ ¼Õ»óÀÇ ¹ß»ý À§ÇèÀÌ 8.3¹è ³ô¾Ò´Ù. ±³À°Àº °íµîÇб³ Á¹¾÷ÀÚ°¡ AUDITÀÌ °¡Àå ³ôÀº ºñÀ²À» º¸¿© À¯ÀÇÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, °áÈ¥ÇÑ »ç¶÷°ú ¿ù¼ÒµæÀÌ 201-300¸¸¿øÀÎ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ AUDIT°¡ °¡Àå ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç À¯ÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖÀÚ¿Í ¾ËÄÚ¿ÃÀÇÁ¸ÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀǹÌÀÖ°Ô Áõ°¡µÈ ½ÅüºÎÀ§ÀÇ ¼Õ»óÀº µÎ °æºÎ¿¡¼­ 0.0371·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ°í AUDIT¿Í ¼Õ»ó¿ÜÀÎ ±âÀü¿¡¼­´Â ¿î¼ö»ç°í, ¹Ì²ô·¯Áü, ±âŸ, ºÎµúÈû, Ã߶ôÀÇ ¼øÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, ¼Õ»óÀÇ À¯Çü ºÐ·ù»ó ±âŸ(¿­»ó, Á»ó, Áßµ¶, °üÅë»ó µî)¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. À½ÁÖ·Î ÀÎÇÑ ¼Õ»ó ¹× ¼Õ»ó¿ÜÀÎÀÇ ±âÀüÀº ¸Å¿ì Áß¿äÇϸç, »ó´ãÀÚ¸¦ ÅëÇÑ µ¿±âÀ¯¹ß Á¶Á¤ÀÌ ÀÌ·ç¾î Áö°Ô µÇ¸é À½ÁÖȽ¼ö¸¦ ÁÙ¿© À½ÁÖ·Î ÀÎÇÑ ¼Õ»óÀ» ¿ÏÈ­½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÀåÄ¡°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¹è°æ°ú ¸ñÀû : µ¿±â°­È­°³ÀÔÀº ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã Áßµ¶ÀÚ¿¡°Ô ¸Å¿ì È¿°úÀûÀÎ Ä¡·á¹ýÀ̸ç, Ç¥ÁØÈ­µÈ µ¿±âºÎ¿© »ç·Ê°ü¸®´Â Çѱ¹ÀÇ Àü±¹ Ä¿¹Â´ÏƼ ¼¾ÅÍ¿¡¼­ Á¦°øµÈ´Ù. Áö±Ý±îÁö µ¿±âºÎ¿© »ç·Ê°ü¸®´Â Á¦ÇÑµÈ °ø°£, ¼Ò±Ô¸ð °øµ¿Ã¼ ¹× ´Ü±â°£¿¡ ¼öÇàµÇ¾úÀ¸³ª ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ÀÇ Àü»ê ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» »ç¿ëÇÑ Ç¥ÁØÈ­µÈ µ¿±âºÎ¿© »ç·Ê°ü¸®´Â ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÇÑ°èÁ¡µéÀ» ±Øº¹ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ ¿ì¸®´Â Àü±¹ÀûÀ¸·Î ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã Áßµ¶ÀÚÀÇ ½ÇÁ¦ »óÅÂ¿Í Àü»êÈ­µÈ µ¿±âºÎ¿© »ç·Ê°ü¸® 5³â °á°ú¸¦ ¸ð¾Æ ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÇ È¿°ú¸¦ Á¶»çÇß´Ù.
 
 ¹æ¹ý : º» ¿¬±¸ (n = 3,318)´Â Ä¡·á ³ëÃâ Àü Àα¸»çȸÇÐÀû Ư¼º, Ä¡·áÀÇ ¸¸Á·µµ, Ä¡·á Áß º¯È­ µî°ú ÇÔ²² Ä¡·áÀü Ãʱ⠻óÅÂ¿Í Ä¡·á ÈÄ ÃÖÁ¾ ÃßÀûÁ¶»ç °£ µÎ °¡Áö ±×·ìÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡¼­ 5³â µ¿¾ÈÀÇ ÃßÀûÁ¶»ç°üÂûÀÇ °á°ú Â÷À̸¦ Á¶»çÇß´Ù. »ç·Ê°ü¸® Àü¹®°¡ÀÇ ±¸Á¶È­µÈ Æò°¡, °³ÀÔÀ» ÅëÇØ µ¥ÀÌÅ͸¦ ¼öÁýÇßÀ¸¸ç, »çȸÀα¸ÇÐÀûÀΠƯ¼ºÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´°í, ¼ºº°, ´ÜÁÖ¿©ºÎ, µ¿±âÁ¤µµ ¹× °³ÀÔÈÄ º¯È­¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿äÀÎ Â÷À̸¦ È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ¼ºº°, ´ÜÁÖ¿©ºÎ, ±×¸®°í Ä¡·á ÀüÈÄ¿¡ µû¸¥ AUDIT, BDI, HAIS µîÀ» Æò±Õºñ±³ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »çȸÀα¸ÇÐÀû º¯¼ö¿¡ µû¸¥ ´ÜÁÖ¿ÍÀÇ ¿äÀκм®À» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù
 
 °á°ú : ´ÜÁÖ À¯Áö¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿äÀÎÀ¸·Î´Â ¼ºº°, ³ªÀÌ, Á÷¾÷À¯¹«, »ó´ã°æ·Î µîÀ̾ú°í, Ãʱ⺯¼ö¿¡ µû¸¥ ´ÜÁÖ¿ÍÀÇ ¿äÀκм®¿¡¼­´Â óÀ½ À½ÁÖ½ÃÀ۽ñâ, ½À°üÀû À½ÁÖ ½ÃÀ۽ñâ, µ¿±âÁ¤µµ µîÀÌ ¿µÇâ·ÂÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. ÃÖÁ¾ÃßÀûÁ¶»ç °á°ú¿Í ´ÜÁÖ¿ÍÀÇ ¿äÀκм®¿¡´Â AUDIT, HAIS, RCQ µîÀÌ ¿µÇâ·ÂÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â¾ú´Ù. K-Áßø ±³Â÷°ËÁõ¹æ¹ýÀ» ÅëÇÑ ¸ðµ¨ ¿¹Ãø¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °á°ú·Î´Â ÀüüÀûÀÎ ¿¹Ãøµµ´Â 70.4%·Î ºñ±³Àû ³ô°Ô ¿¹ÃøÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ÀáÀç°èÃþ ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇÑ ¿¹Ãø ¸ðµ¨À» ÅëÇؼ­´Â °¢ 4°¡ÁöÀÇ °èÃþÀ¸·Î ³ª´µ¾úÀ¸¸ç °¢ °èÃþ °£ Ư¼ºÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÏ¿´´Ù. 
 
 °á·Ð : º» ¿¬±¸´Â 5³â µ¿¾ÈÀÇ ÃßÀû°üÂû Á¶»ç¸¦ ÅëÇÏ¿© ´õ¿í ÅëÇÕÀûÀÌ°í ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿©ÁØ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ °³¹ßµÈ Ç¥ÁØÈ­µÈ Àü»êÈ­ »ç·Ê°ü¸®´Â Àü±¹ÀûÀÌ°í ÅëÇÕÀûÀÎ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ëÀå¾Ö Ä¡·á¿¡ À־ ±Ù°Å±â¹ÝÄ¡·á·Î »ç¿ëµÇ¾î 1Â÷Àû µµ±¸·Î È°¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ̸ç, ÇâÈÄ 4Â÷»ê¾÷ÀÇ ¹ß´Þ°ú ´õºÒ¾î ÀÇ·á, °Ç°­ ºÐ¾ßÀÇ ºòµ¥ÀÌÅÍ´Â ÀÇ·á»ê¾÷°ú ¿¹¹æ ¹× °ü¸® Áß½ÉÀÇ ÀÇ·á¼­ºñ½º ¹ß´Þ¿¡ Å« ±â¿©¸¦ ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

21¼¼±âÀÇ Àηù´Â »ê¾÷ÀÇ ¹ß´Þ¿¡ µû¸¥ °ø¾÷È­¿Í ±â°èÈ­·Î À¯»ç ÀÌ·¡ ÃÖ´ëÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû dz¿ä¸¦ ´©¸®°í ÀÖÁö¸¸, »ê¾÷ÇöÀåÀÇ ÀçÇØ°¡ Áõ°¡µÇ´Â ¹®Á¦Á¡µµ ÇÔ²² ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ 20¼¼±â ÃʹݺÎÅÍ ÇÏÀθ®È÷³ª ¹öµå µî¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© »ê¾÷¾ÈÀü¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸µéÀÌ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁ³´Ù. ÇÏÀθ®È÷´Â ÀçÇØÀÇ ¿øÀÎÀ» ±Ù·ÎÀÚ °³ÀÎÀÇ ¹®Á¦·Î ±¹ÇÑ ½ÃÄ×´Ù¸é, ¹öµå´Â ÁøÀϺ¸ÇÏ¿© °³ÀÎÀû ¹®Á¦°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®Ã¼Á¦ÀÇ Á߿伺À» °­Á¶ÇÏ¸ç °æ¿µÁøÀÇ Àû±ØÀû °³ÀÔÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
 ö°­»ê¾÷Àº ±¹°¡ÀÇ ±âÃÊ»ê¾÷ÀÌÀÚ ÀÚº» Áý¾àÀûÀÎ ´ë±Ô¸ð ÀåÄ¡»ê¾÷À¸·Î ±¹¹Î°æÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±â¿©µµ°¡ ¸Å¿ì Å©´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Ÿ »ê¾÷¿¡ ºñÇØ »ç°íÀçÇØ ¶ÇÇÑ ¸¹¾Æ¼­ ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®´ëÃ¥ÀÌ ½Ã±ÞÇÏ°Ô ¿ä±¸µÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ °í¿ë³ëµ¿ºÎ ¹× ¾ÈÀüº¸°Ç°ø´ÜÀÇ ÁÖµµ·Î ö°­¾÷°è¿Í °øÁ¶ÇÏ¿© ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®´ëÃ¥À» ¸¶·ÃÇÏ°íÀÚ 2010³â¿¡´Â ¡®Ã¶°­»ê¾÷ ¾ÈÀüº¸°Ç ¸®´õ½Ê±×·ì¡¯À» ¹ßÁ·½ÃÅ°¸ç, °æ¿µÃþÀÇ Àû±ØÀûÀÎ Âü¿© Åä´ë¸¦ ¸¶·ÃÇÑ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ 2012³â¿¡´Â ¡®¾ÈÀüº¸°Ç °ø»ýÇù·Â ÇÁ·Î±×·¥¡¯À» äÅÃÇÏ¿© ´ë±â¾÷ÀÌ ¿µ¼¼ÇÑ Çù·Â¾÷üÀÇ »ê¾÷¾ÈÀüÀ» ¸ð»öÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, 2013³â¿¡´Â ¡®Áß´ëÀçÇØ ¿¹¹æ ÇöÀå°£´ãȸ¡¯¸¦ °³ÃÖÇϱ⵵ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
 ±¹³» ö°­¾÷À» ´ëÇ¥ÇÏ´Â Pö°­»ç´Â ¼±ÁøÀûÀÎ ¾ÈÀü¹®È­¸¦ ±¸ÃàÇÏ°íÀÚ µàÆù(DUPONT)¿¡ ¾ÈÀüÁø´ÜÀ» ÀÇ·ÚÇÏ°í, SAO(Safety Acts Observation:¾ÈÀüÇൿ°üÂû)½Ã½ºÅÛµµ äÅÃÇÑ´Ù. »ç°íÀçÇØ°¡ ¹ß»ýÇϱâ ÀÌÀü¿¡ ¼ö¾øÀÌ ¹Ýº¹µÇ´Â ÀÎÀû¿À·ù¸¦ Â÷´ÜÇÏ´Â ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®½Ã½ºÅÛÀ¸·Î »ç°í¸¦ »çÀü¿¡ ¹æÁöÇÏ¿© ¡®¹«ÀçÇØ »ç¾÷À塯À» ¸¸µå´Âµ¥ ±× ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. Áï °ü¸®°¨µ¶ÀÚ°¡ ÀÛ¾÷ÀÚÀÇ ÇൿÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿© ÀçÇØ»ç°íÀÇ À§Ç輺 ¿äÀÎÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇÏ°í, ºÒ¾ÈÀüÇÑ ÇൿÀ» »çÀü¿¡ Á¦°ÅÇÏ´Â ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÌ´Ù. 
 SAO½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ÀÏȯÀ¸·Î SAO Audit¿¡ ÀÔ°¢ÇÏ¿© 2014³â¿¡¼­ 2016³â±îÁö °ü¸®°¨µ¶ÀÚ°¡ ÀÛ¾÷ÀÚÀÇ ºÒ¾ÈÀüÇÑ Çൿ¿¡ µû¸¥ ÀçÇØ À¯ÇüÀ» ¿¹ÃøÇÏ´Â ¾ÈÀüÇൿ°üÂûÀ» ½ÇÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× °á°ú 2014³â¿¡´Â 30,379°Ç, 2015³â¿¡´Â 20,594°Ç, 2016³â¿¡´Â 14,976°ÇÀ¸·Î Áý°èµÇ¾ú´Âµ¥ ºÒ°ú 3³â ¸¸¿¡ 51%°¡ °¨¼ÒÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î °üÂûµÇ¾ú´Ù. 
 ÀÌ´Â SAO½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» ÅëÇÑ ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®ÀÇ ±àÁ¤Àû È¿°ú¸¦ ¹Ý¿µÇÏ¸ç ¾Æ¿ï·¯ °ü¸®Ã¼Á¦ÀÇ ¾ÈÀüÀÇÁö°¡ ÀÛ¾÷ÀÚÀÇ ¾ÈÀüÇൿ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» º¸¿©Áشٰí ÇÏ°Ú´Ù. Áï »ê¾÷¾ÈÀü¿¡¼­ °æ¿µÁøÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀÌ Â÷ÁöÇÏ´Â ºñÁßÀ» ±Ø¸íÇÏ°Ô º¸¿©ÁÖ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
 »ê¾÷¾ÈÀüÀ» È®º¸ÇÏ°í »ç°íÀçÇظ¦ ¿¹¹æÇϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â ÃÖ°í°æ¿µÀÚÀÇ ¾ÈÀüÀÇÁö°¡ ¸Å¿ì Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù°í »ç·á(ÞÖÖù)µÈ´Ù. °æ¿µÁøÀº ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®³ª ¾ÈÀü±³À°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÅõÀÚ¸¦ ¼±ÅÃÀûÀ¸·Î ¼ö¿ëÇÒ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, ºÎ°¡°¡Ä¡¸¦ âÃâÇÏ´Â ÇʼöÀûÀÎ ¿ä¼Ò·Î ÀνÄÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. »ê¾÷¾ÈÀüÀ» °æ¿µÀü·«ÀÇ Â÷¿ø¿¡¼­ ÃßÁøÇϸç Àå±âÀûÀÎ Ãø¸é¿¡¼­ ¿¹»êÀ» ÅõÀÔÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù°í »ç·áµÈ´Ù. °æ¿µÁøÀº °æ¿µÀ̳信 ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®°¡ ¿ì¼±ÀûÀ¸·Î ¿¬°èµÉ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï °³¼±ÇÏ°í, Àüü ±¸¼º¿øÀÌ »ê¾÷¾ÈÀü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °¡Ä¡¸¦ °øÀ¯ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÌ ±¸ÃàµÉ ¶§ ºñ·Î¼Ò ¡®¹«ÀçÇØ »ç¾÷À塯ÀÌ ½ÇÇöµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¿©´ë»ýÀÇ À½ÁÖ¹®È­¿Í ÇàŸ¦ Á¶»çÇÏ°í, °úµµÇÑ À½ÁÖ·Î ÀÎÇÑ °Ç°­»óŸ¦ °£Á¢ÀûÀ¸·Î È®ÀÎÄÚÀÚ ¿ù°æÀüÁõÈıº°úÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ÀÌ¿¡ µû¶ó ´ëÇлýµéÀÇ ÀýÁÖ±³À° ¹× ±ÝÁÖ ±³À°¿¡ È°¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ±âÃÊ ÀڷḦ Á¦°øÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±¤ÁÖ±¤¿ª½Ã¿¡ À§Ä¡ÇÑ 5°³ ´ëÇп¡¼­ ÃÑ 566¸íÀÇ ¿©´ë»ýÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 2013³â 3¿ù 26ÀϺÎÅÍ 4¿ù 5ÀϱîÁö ÀÚ±â±âÀÔ½Ä ¼³¹®Á¶»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë À§Çè¼öÁØÀ» ÃøÁ¤Çϱâ À§Çؼ­ ¼¼°èº¸°Ç±â±¸¿¡¼­ °³¹ßÇÑ ¾ËÄڿûç¿ëÀå¾Ö¼±º°°Ë»ç(Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: AUDIT)¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¾ËÄڿûç¿ëÀå¾Ö¼±º°°Ë»ç(AUDIT)¸¦ ÅëÇØ Á¤»óÀ½ÁÖÀÚ, ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖÀÚ, ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚ ±×¸®°í ¾ËÄÚ¿ÃÀÇÁ¸ÀÚ¸¦ ±¸ºÐÇÏ¿´´Ù. AUDIT¿¡¼­´Â ¼ºº°°ú ¼úÀÇ Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¸¥ ÆøÀ½Á¤µµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤Çϱ⠾î·Á¿ö ¿©¼ºÀÇ ÆøÀ½±âÁØÀ» ¼úÀÇ Á¾·ùº°·Î Àû¿ëÇÑ ÈÄ ÆøÀ½ºóµµ ¹× °íÀ§ÇèÀ½ÁÖÀÚ¸¦ ¼±º°ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ë»óÀÚµéÀÇ À½ÁÖ°ü·Ã Áö½Ä¼öÁØÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÑ ¹®Ç×Àº ÃÑ 14¹®Ç×À¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, À½ÁÖ¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ °æÇèµé·Î´Â ÃʱâÀ½ÁÖ °æÇè ½Ã±â, À½ÁÖ¸¦ ÇÏ´Â ÀÌÀ¯, º¸°Ç±³À°°ú ÀýÁÖÈ«º¸ÀÇ °æÇè µîÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. AUDIT ÃøÁ¤ °á°ú Á¤»óÀ½ÁÖÀÚ 64.1%, ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖÀÚ°¡ 27.9%, ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚ°¡ 4.8% ±×¸®°í ¾ËÄÚ¿ÃÀÇÁ¸ÀÚ´Â 3.2%¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ¾ËÄÚ¿ÃÀÇÁ¸ÀÚ¸¦ ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚ¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© °¢ ¿äÀε鰣ÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ »ìÆ캸¾Ò´Ù. ´ëÇлýÀÇ À½ÁÖ¹®È­¿¡¼­ ¹®Á¦½Ã µÇ´Â ÆøźÁÖ¿Í »ç¹ßÁÖ °æÇè ¿©ºÎ¿Í AUDIT ±¸ºÐ°úÀÇ °ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚ°¡ °æÇèÁ¤µµ°¡ ´õ ¸¹Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î È®ÀεǾúÀ¸¸ç, ÃÖÃÊ À½ÁÖ°æÇèÀº ´ëÇÐÀÌÀüÀÇ ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ô¾Ò°í ƯÈ÷ ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖÀÚ¿Í ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚÀϼö·Ï ´ëÇÐÀÌÀüÀÇ °æÇè ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ô¾Ò´Ù. Èí¿¬°úÀÇ °ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚÀÇ 60%°¡ Èí¿¬À» ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ¹Ý¸é Á¤»óÀ½ÁÖÀÚÀÇ °æ¿ì ¾à 6%¸¸ÀÌ Èí¿¬ÀÚ¿´´Ù. ÇÏ·ç Æò±Õ ½Ä»çȽ¼ö¿¡¼­µµ ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚÀϼö·Ï ºÒ±ÔÄ¢ÇÑ ½Ä»ç¸¦ ÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ô¾Ò´Ù. ÆøÀ½°úÀÇ °ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ¾ËÄڿó²¿ëÀÚ 100%°¡ ÆøÀ½ÀÚ·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã À½ÁÖÁö½Ä°ú °ü·ÃÇÏ¿© ÇгâÀÌ ¿Ã¶ó°¥¼ö·Ï À½ÁÖÁö½Ä Á¡¼ö°¡ ´õ ³ô¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, ÀýÁÖ³ª ±ÝÁÖ¿¡ °üÇÑ È«º¸¹°À» °æÇèÇÑ °æ¿ì Á¡¼ö°¡ ´õ ³ô¾ÒÀ½À» È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. Àüü ´ë»óÀÚ Áß ÆøÀ½ÀÚ°¡ 69.6%¿´°í ÀÌ Áß 1ÁÖÀÏ¿¡ 1ȸ ÀÌ»ó ÆøÀ½ÇÏ´Â ÁÖ°£ÆøÀ½ÀÚ´Â 6.5%, 2ȸ ÀÌ»ó ÆøÀ½À» ÇÏ´Â °íÀ§ÇèÀ½ÁÖÀÚÀÇ ºñÀ²Àº 2.8%·Î Àü±¹Æò±Õ ¼öÄ¡º¸´Ù ³·Àº °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿© ±¤ÁÖÁö¿ª ¿©´ë»ýµéÀÇ ÆøÀ½ºóµµ´Â ºñ±³Àû ¾çÈ£ÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÆøÀ½°ú °íÀ§ÇèÀ½ÁÖÀÚÀÇ °Ç°­»óŸ¦ °£Á¢ÀûÀ¸·Î È®ÀÎÄÚÀÚ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼·Ãë·Î ÀÎÇÑ Ä®½·´ë»ç ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³¯ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¿ù°æÀüÁõÈıº°úÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ »ìÆ캸¾Ò´Âµ¥ ÆøÀ½ÀÇ ºóµµ¿¡ µû¸¥ À¯ÀÇÀûÀÎ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿ù°æÀüÁõÈıº Áø´Ü ´ë»óÀÚÀÇ ¼ö°¡ Àû¾î º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ÅëÇØ °á·Ð³»¸®±â´Â ¾î·Æ´Ù. ±¤ÁÖÁö¿ª ÀϺΠ¿©´ë»ýµéÀÇ À½ÁÖ¹®È­ ½ÇŸ¦ È®ÀÎÄÚÀÚ ¼³¹®À» ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç AUDIT ÃøÁ¤µµ±¸¸¦ ÅëÇØ ´ë»óÀÚ¸¦ ±¸ºÐÇÏ°í, À½ÁÖÁö½ÄÁ¡¼ö ¹× ¿ù°æÀüÁõÈıº ¿©ºÎ¸¦ È®ÀÎÇÑ ÈÄ °¢ ¿äÀΰúÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ »ìÆ캸¾Ò´Ù. À̸¦ ÅëÇØ ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ´ë»óÀÚ¿¡ ¸Â´Â Â÷º°È­µÈ ±ÝÁÖ ¹× ÀýÁÖ ±³À° ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÇ °³¹ß¿¡ ³ë·ÂÇØ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÁÖ¿ä¾î: AUDIT, À½ÁÖ¹®È­, À½ÁÖÁö½Ä, °íÀ§ÇèÀ½ÁÖÀÚ, ¿ù°æÀüÁõÈıº, ÁÖ°£ÆøÀ½ÀÚ, ÆøÀ½ÀÚ

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¼ºÀûÀ¸·ÎÇöÀç Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎÀº ´ëÇѹα¹ ³»¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â µ¿³²¾Æ½Ã¾Æ ÀÌÁÖÀÚµé Áß °¡Àå ¸¹Àº ¼Ò¼ö¹ÎÁ·ÀÓ¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í À̵éÀÇ ¾ËÄڿüҺñ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸´Â Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â µíÀÌ º¸ÀδÙ. º» ¿¬±¸´Â Çѱ¹ÀÎÀÇ À½ÁÖ¹®È­ ȯ°æ¿¡ µÑ·¯ ½×¿© ÇöÀç ´ëÇѹα¹ ³»¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼Òºñ¿Í ±× °ü·Ã¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¸ð»öÇÏ¿´´Ù. 
 º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº 
 1. Çѱ¹ ³» °ÅÁÖÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼·Ãë¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇöȲÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ°í 
 2. ÀÀ´äÀÚµéÀÇ Çѱ¹ À½ÁÖ ¹®È­¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÞÀº ±â°£À» Á¶»çÇÏ¿©
 3. Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã °ü·Ã Áúº´ ¿¹¹æ¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â º¸°Ç ¼­ºñ½º¿Í ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¿¹¹æ ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇÑ ±âº» ÀÚ·á·Î¼­ Çѱ¹¿¡ »ç´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã À½ÁÖ ÀڷḦ ¼öÁýÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù.
 ¿¬±¸ ¹æ¹ýÀº ÀÀ´äÀÚµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë ´Ü°è¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§ÇÏ¿© ¼¼°èº¸°Ç±â±¸(WHO)ÀÇ Ç¥ÁØ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼³¹®ÀÎ AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), ½ºÆ®·¹½º ¼öÁØÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿©´Â ½ºÆ®·¹½º ÀÎÁöôµµ 14(Perceived Stress Scale Version 14)¸¦, »õ·Î¿î ¹®È­ÀÇÀÇ ÀûÀÀ¼º Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© °³ÀÎ ÀûÀÀ¼ºÆò°¡ ¼³¹®(Individual Adaptability Assessment survey)À», ´ã¹è»ç¿ë ¼öÁØÀÇ Æò°¡¿¡´Â ´º¿å ±Ý¿¬Æò°¡¾ç½Ä(New York¡¯s Smoking Quitline assessment form)À» ÇÔ²² »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´°í, ¸¶Áö¸·À¸·Î µ¿·á¾Ð·Â(peer pressure)°ú ¹®È­ÀûÀÎ ¿µÇâ·Â(cultural influences)À» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ÇÑ ¹ÎÁ·¿¡°Ô ÀûÇÕÇÑ ¼³¹®À» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù.
 °á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ À½ÁÖÇÏ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀº 31¼¼¿¡¼­ 40¼¼ »çÀÌÀÇ °í¿ëµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â ³²¼ºµé·Î ¼ºº°(p.000), ¿¬·É(p .040), µ¿·á¾Ð¹Ú(p .000)°ú Èí¿¬ÀÚ(p .001)µé¿¡°Ô¼­ À¯ÀǼºÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù.
 Ưº°È÷ ÀþÀº ¼ºÀÎÀ¸·Î µ¿·á¾Ð¹Ú ôµµ¿¡¼­ ³ôÀº Á¡¼ö¸¦ ¾òÀº ±×·ì¿¡¼­ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö¿ÍÀÇ °ü·ÃÀÌ ´õ À¯ÀÇÀûÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. »çȸÀα¸ÇÐÀûÀÎ º¯¼öµé°úÀÇ ±³Â÷ºÐ¼®¿¡¼­´Â ¼ºº°(p.083), °áÈ¥¿©ºÎ(p.653) ¹× Á÷¾÷(p.758)Àº ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö¿¡ À¯ÀǼºÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³ªÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ÀÎÁöµÈ ½É¸® ¼öÁØ°ú ´õºÒ¾î AUDIT ÃÑ Á¡¼ö Æò±Õ¿¡¼­´Â Èí¿¬ (p.001)¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÀûÀÎ °á°ú°¡ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Èí¿¬ÀÚ´Â ºñÈí¿¬ÀÚ¿¡ ºñÇØ AUDIT Á¡¼ö°¡ ³ôÀº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
 ÀÀ´äÀÚµé Áß µ¿·á¾Ð¹ÚÀ» ´õ ¹Þ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÌ µ¿·á¾Ð¹ÚÁ¡¼ö°¡ ³ô¾ÒÀ¸¸ç(p.000) AUDIT Á¡¼öµµ ³ô¾Ò´Ù. °³ÀÎ ÀûÀÀ¼º Á¡¼ö´Â ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ëÀå¾Ö¿¡ À¯ÀǼºÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡Áö ¸øÇÏ¿´À¸³ª(p.106) ÀÎÁöµÈ ÀûÁ¤ ½ºÆ®·¹½º (perceived moderate stress)¿¡¼­´Â À¯ÀǹÌÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù (p.036).
 Çѱ¹¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÏ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹Îµé Áß 20-30¼¼ÀÇ ÀþÀº ¼ºÀÎ Ãþ¿¡¼­ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö°¡ ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² ¿¬·ÉÃþ¿¡¼­ º¸´Ù µÎµå·¯Á³À¸¸ç ÀÌ°ÍÀº Çѱ¹Àεé°ú °°´Ù
 ´ëÇѹα¹ ³»¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÏ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼Òºñ ºóµµ´Â ¸Å¿ù ÁÖ¸» À½ÁÖÀÚ°¡ ¸¹À¸¸ç Çѱ¹¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÑÁö 24°³¿ù¿¡¼­ 36°³¿ù »çÀÌ¿¡ °¡Àå À¯ÀǹÌÇÏ°Ô Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ¸ÆÁÖ¸¦ ¼±È£ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
 ÀÚ·á ¼öÁý¿¡ ÃæºÐÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ ½Ã°£Á¦¾àÀ¸·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â Çѱ¹Àΰú °áÈ¥ÇÑ Çʸ®ÇÉ ¿©¼ºµéÀ̳ª Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ ´ëÇпøÀ» °øºÎÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ Çлýº¸´Ù´Â Çѱ¹¿¡ °í¿ëµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â ÀÀ´äÀÚ°¡ ´õ ¸¹¾Ò´Ù. ¾ÕÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â Çѱ¹¿¡ ´õ ¿À·¡ °ÅÁÖÇÑ °áÈ¥À¸·Î ÀÎÇÑ À̹ÎÀÚµéÀ̳ª ´ëÇпø ÇлýµéÀÌ Æ÷ÇԵDZ⸦ Á¦¾ÈÇÑ´Ù.
 °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î ÀþÀº ¼ºÀÎ ³²¼ºÀ¸·Î¼­ °í¿ëµÇ¾î ÀÖÀ¸¸ç Èí¿¬°ú À½ÁÖ¸¦ Çϸ鼭 ³ôÀº µ¿·á¾Ð¹Ú Á¡¼ö¸¦ °¡Áø »ç¶÷µéÀÌ Çѱ¹ÀÇ À½ÁÖ ¹®È­¿¡ ´õ Å©°Ô ¹ÝÀÀÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î À¯ÀǼºÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. ´ëÇѹα¹ º¸°Ç º¹ÁöºÎ´Â Çѱ¹ ³» Àη¿¡ Å« ºÎºÐÀ» Â÷ÁöÇϸç Çѱ¹ ³»¿¡ °ÅÁÖÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çʸ®ÇÉ ±¹¹ÎµéÀÇ À£ºùÀ» À§ÇÑ °Ç°­ ÁõÁøÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã ¼Òºñ·Î ÀÎÇÑ Áúº´ ºÎ´ãÀ» ÁÙÀ̴µ¥ º¸°ÇÁ¤Ã¥µé°ú »çȸÀÎ½Ä ÇÁ·Î±×·¥µéÀÌ Á¦¾È µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. Çѱ¹ À½ÁÖ¹®È­ÀÇ ¼ö¿ë·ÂÀº Çѱ¹ÀÇ ¿Ü±¹ÀÎ ³ëµ¿·Â¿¡ ºÎÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡¸ç ÀÌ°ÍÀº Çѱ¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦¿¡µµ ¼ÕÇظ¦ ¹ÌÄ¥ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù. 

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

This study analyzes the relationship between internal audit quality and tax avoidance of public corporations. The public corporation pursues the same profit as the private corporation, and the management of the public corporation pursues the opportunistic behavior and the private benefit, and there is incentive to try the tax avoidance. The results of this study are as follows. First, it is reported that the quality of the internal audit improves the efficiency of the public corporation or decreases the earnings management(Shin and Kim 2015). Therefore, if the quality of internal audit of public corporations is increased, opportunistic behavior of manager and pursuit of private benefit will be suppressed, and tax avoidance of public corporations will be reduced. In this study, we conducted an empirical analysis on the relationship between internal audit quality and tax avoidance by using objective and quantitative data ¡°evaluation of performance of standing auditing job performance¡± as a substitute for internal audit quality. As a result of the empirical analysis on the effect of internal auditing evaluation on the tax avoidance of public corporations that introduced the performance evaluation of the public corporation auditing performance from 2008 to 2012, The degree of avoidance was significantly decreased. The results of this empirical study show that the introduction of performance evaluations of public corporations' performance audits has been recognized as an evaluation of the quality of standing auditors and internal audit organizations, thereby inducing the improvement of internal audit quality. This effectively prevents manager¡¯s behavior and private benefit pursuits, It seems that tax avoidance is effectively reduced. The empirical results of this study indicate that the evaluation of the perfor- mance of the public corporation 's audit, introduced by the government in 2007, plays a positive role not only in transparency of public corporations but also in transparency in taxation of public enterprises. Therefore, the results of this study are meaningful for internal audit related policy makers because the improvement of internal audit quality of public corporations is important evidence for enhancing public interest by eliminating the inefficiency of public corporations.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Áö¹æÀÇȸÀÇ Áö¹æÀÚÄ¡´Üü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ¼º°úÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ ±Ô¹üÀû ¸ðÇüÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ°í, À̸¦ ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î Ãæû³²µµ °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸÀÇ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ¼º°úºÐ¼®À» À§ÇÑ °æÇèÀû ¸ðÇüÀ» ±¸ÃàÇÏ¿© ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ¼º°ú¸¦ °æÇèÀûÀ¸·Î Á¶»ç¡¤ºÐ¼®Çϸç, °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸÀÇ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»ç °³¼±À» À§ÇÑ Á¤Ã¥Àû ¹× Á¦µµÀû ¹æ¾ÈÀ» µµÃâÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù. ¿¬±¸°á°ú ¹× ¹æÇâÀ» Á¦½ÃÇϸé, ù° °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ¼º°úÃøÁ¤ ¹× °ü¸®¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¹ýÁ¦ ±¸ÃàÀ» ¸¶·ÃÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. µÑ°, °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ Àü¹®¼º Á¦°í¸¦ À§ÇÑ Ç°ÁúÁ¶»ç ¹× ±³À°ÈÆ·Ã Á¦µµ¸¦ µµÀÔÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ¼Â°, °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ¼ö¿ë¼º Á¦°í¸¦ À§ÇÑ Æò°¡ ¹× ¼­º£ÀÌ Á¦µµ¸¦ µµÀÔÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ³Ý°, °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ´ë¿ÜÇù·Â ü°è¸¦ ±¸ÃàÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ´Ù¼¸Â°, °è·æ½ÃÀÇȸ ÇàÁ¤»ç¹«°¨»çÀÇ ½ÇÁ¦ ±¸ÇöÀ» À§ÇÑ »çÈÄ°¨»ç(Follow-up Audit) Á¦µµ¸¦ µµÀÔÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸´Â Data Integrity Áؼö¸¦ À§ÇØ Á¦¾à ȸ»ç¿¡¼­ ¼öÇàÇØ¾ß ÇÒ ¾÷¹«°¡ ¹«¾ùÀÎÁö, ±×¸®°í °¢ ¾÷¹«¸¦ ¼öÇàÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ ¿î¿µ ¹æ¹ýÀ» ¾î¶»°Ô ¼ö¸³ ÇØ¾ß ÇÏ´ÂÁö¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ¿¬±¸Çϱâ À§ÇØ ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ Data Integrity ½ÇÇöÀ» À§ÇÑ ±âÁØÀÎ ALCOA ¿øÄ¢À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ Ãâ¹ßÇÏ¿© ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ¾÷¹« ÁÖÁ¦¸¦ µµÃâÇÏ¿´°í, °¢ ¾÷¹«ÀÇ ¿î¿µ ¹æ¹ýÀ» ¿¬±¸Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© FDA 21 CFR Part11, PIC/S ÀÇ Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments: PI041-1 (2021), WHO ÀÇ Guidance on Good Data and Record Management Practices (2016) µîÀ» ÂüÁ¶ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
 ÀÌ¿¡ µû¶ó, ALCOA ¿øÄ¢ÀÎ Attributable (±Í¼Ó¼ºÀÇ), Legible (Àб⠽¬¿î), Contemporaneous (µ¿½Ã¼ºÀÇ), Original (¿øº»ÀÇ), Accurate (Á¤È®ÇÑ) °³³äÀ» ±â¹ÝÀ¸·Î µµÃâµÈ ¾÷¹« ÁÖÁ¦´Â Validation, º¸¾È °ü¸®, Electronic Signature °ü¸®, µ¥ÀÌÅÍ °ü¸®, Audit trail °ü¸®, Self-Inspection À̾ú´Ù. µµÃâµÈ °¢ ¾÷¹« ÁÖÁ¦ÀÇ ¿î¿µ ¹æ¹ýÀ» ¿¬±¸Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© °ü·Ã ±ÔÁ¤ ¹× Guidance ¿¡ ¸í½ÃµÈ ±â´ë »çÇ×À» Á¤¸®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¤¸®µÈ ±â´ë »çÇ× ¹× ¿¬±¸ÀÚÀÇ ½Ç¹« °æÇèÀ» ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î, °¢ ¾÷¹« ÁÖÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ Àû¿ë ¹æ¾ÈÀ» µµÃâÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú·Î, Data Integrity ¸¦ ÁؼöÇÏ´Â ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ±¸ÃàÀ» À§ÇÑ ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ »ç¿ëÀÚ ¿ä±¸ »çÇ× Ç׸ñ°ú, ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ÀûÀýÇÑ ¿î¿µÀ» À§ÇÑ º¸¾È °ü¸®, Electronic Signature °ü¸®, µ¥ÀÌÅÍÀÇ °ËÅä ¹× °ü¸® ÀýÂ÷¸¦ µµÃâÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Data Integrity °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ÀÇ Self-InspectionÀ» ¼öÇàÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ÀýÂ÷ ¹× »ó¼¼ üũ¸®½ºÆ®¿Í, È¿°úÀûÀÎ Data Integrity ÀÇ ½ÇÇöÀ» À§ÇÑ À§Çè Æò°¡ ¹æ¹ýÀ» µµÃâÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¸¶À½Ã¬±è¿¡ ±â¹ÝÇÑ ÀÎÁöÄ¡·á(MBCT) ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÌ ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ ´ëÇлýÀÇ ¿ì¿ï, Ã浿¼º ¹× ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â È¿°ú¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸¾Ò´Ù. »çÀü Á¶»ç¿¡¼­ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö ôµµ-Çѱ¹ÆÇ(AUDIT-K), ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ ¼±º° °Ë»ç(PDST), Çѱ¹ÆÇ ¿ªÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ ¿ì¿ïôµµ(CES-D) ¹× Barratt Ã浿¼º ôµµ(BIS)¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× Áß ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ ¼öÁØ(AUDIT-K 12Á¡ ÀÌ»ó, PDST 3Á¡ ÀÌ»ó)À» ÃæÁ·½ÃÅ°°í, ¿ì¿ïÀ» °æÇèÇÏ´Â 30¸íÀÌ Âü°¡ÇÏ¿© MBCT ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ Áý´Ü°ú ÅëÁ¦Áý´ÜÀ¸·Î ¹«¼±ÇÒ´ç µÇ¾ú´Ù. MBCT ÇÁ·Î±×·¥Àº 2°³¿ù °£ 10ȸ±â ½Ç½ÃµÇ¾ú°í, °¢ ȸ±â´Â 80-100ºÐÀÇ ½Ã°£ÀÌ ¼Ò¿äµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÇ ÃßÀû±â°£±îÁö ÃÑ 10¸í(MBCT ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ Áý´Ü 6¸í, ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü 4¸í)ÀÌ ÁßµµÅ»¶ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. ¿ì¿ï, Ã浿¼º ¹× ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ Çൿ Á¤µµ´Â »çÀü, »çÈÄ, 1°³¿ù ÃßÀû ¹× 2°³¿ù ÃßÀû ±â°£ µ¿¾È °Ë»ç¸¦ ÅëÇÏ¿© ÃÑ 20¸íÀÇ Âü°¡ÀÚ(MBCT ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ Áý´Ü 9¸í, ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü 11¸í)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡°¡ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁ³´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú MBCT ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ Áý´ÜÀÌ ¿ì¿ï, Ã浿¼º ¼öÁØÀÌ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´õ °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´°í, ¹®Á¦À½ÁÖ ¼öÁØÀº À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´õ °³¼±µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ±× ¼öÁØÀº ÃßÀû°Ë»ç±îÁö À¯ÁöµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¸¶Áö¸·À¸·Î º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ÀÇÀÇ¿Í Á¦ÇÑÁ¡ ¹× ÃßÈÄ ¿¬±¸¸¦ À§ÇÑ ½Ã»çÁ¡ÀÌ ³íÀǵǾú´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ž翭¿Â¼ö±ÞÅÁ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ Àå±â¼º´ÉÆò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ ½ÇÇè°ú TRANSYS¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ½Ã¹Ä·¹À̼ÇÀ» ¼öÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. PSTAR ¹æ¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ¼º´ÉÆò°¡´Â ±âÁ¸ ¿­¼º´ÉÆò°¡º¸´Ù ³â¼º´ÉÆò°¡¸¦ °¡´ÉÇÏ°Ô ÇÔÀ» ÀÔÁõÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÔÁõ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¿¡³ÊÁö °³³äÀÇÀå±â¼º´ÉÆò°¡¿Í ¿¡³ÊÁö·®À» °è»êÇÏ¿´°í, ¸ðµ¨½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ Audit ModelÀ» ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ¿© ÀçÇ¥ÁØÈ­ °è¼ö¸¦ »êÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

This study investigated the writing audit of ELL(English Language Learner) students in a state whose ELL students comprise a half of the total. The writing audit, as well as the usual ELL writing assessment, adopted a holistic rating approach. The state authorize teachers as raters through rater requirements and rater training courses. The qualified teacher-rater of an ELL student collected and rated writing samples of the ELL student in a variety of domains, which demonstrates an authentic assessment. The state department of education conducted a three-year audit for the writing assessment of 560 grades 2-12 ELL students, gathered acceptable, stable reliability evidences, and obtained writing samples for consequent teacher-rater training courses. The inter-rater agreement rates between teacher-rater and state-rater of the last audit ranged between 76% and 98%, depending on which agreement rate is referred to. These high agreement rates are encouraging, showing that teachers can be trained to be reliable holistic raters through proper rater training. Further study topics are addressed.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸´Â À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀڵ鿡°Ô À½ÁÖ¿îÀü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿ÜÇöÀû ŵµ¿Í ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ°í, ÀÌ Åµµ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀϹÝÀΰúÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ¿Í µÎ ŵµ°£ÀÇ °ü°è, ½É¸®Àû Ư¼ºÀÇ Áý´Ü °£ Â÷ÀÌ¿Í ±× °ü°è¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áý´Üº° Ư¼ºÀ» º¯º°Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀº À½ÁÖ¿îÀü Àû¹ßȽ¼ö¿¡ µû¶ó Ãʹü(À½ÁÖ¿îÀü 1ȸ)°ú Àç¹ü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ(À½ÁÖ¿îÀü 2ȸ) Áý´ÜÀ¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÇ¾ú°í ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü(ºñÀ½ÁÖ¿îÀü)Àº À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀÇ ¿¬·ÉÀ» °í·ÁÇÏ¿© ¸ðÁýÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼¼ Áý´Ü(Ãʹü, Àç¹ü, ºñÀ½ÁÖ¿îÀü)ÀÇ ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÑ °á°ú, Àç¹ü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀº ´Ù¸¥ Áý´Ü(Ãʹü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ¿Í ÅëÁ¦Áý´Ü)¿¡ ºñÇØ ³»ÇöÀûÀΠŵµ¿¡¼­ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ(Á¢±ÙÇÏ´Â) ŵµ°¡ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ô¾ÆÁ® ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Áï, ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ Àç¹ü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀÌ À½ÁÖ¿îÀü¿¡ ´ëÇØ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ(Á¢±ÙÇÏ´Â) ŵµ¸¦ º¸¿©, ÃßÈÄ¿¡µµ Àç¹ü À§ÇèÀÇ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ½Ã»çµÊÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚÀÇ ½É¸®Àû Ư¼º°ú °ü·ÃµÈ °á°ú¿¡¼­´Â ¾ËÄڿù®Á¦(AUDIT-K), ¿ì¿ïÇÑ Á¤¼­(CES-D) ¹× Ã浿¼º(K-BIS-11-R)ÀÌ Ãʹü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³ª, Ãʹü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû ¹®Á¦°¡ ÀÖÀ½ÀÌ È®ÀεǾú´Ù. ÀÌ·± °á°ú·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© Àç¹üÀÇ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ô°í »ó½ÀÀûÀÎ À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀ» ¼±º°Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â, Ãʹü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´ÜÀÏ ¶§ºÎÅÍ ¾ËÄڿù®Á¦(AUDIT-K), ¿ì¿ïÇÑ Á¤¼­(CES-D) ¹× Ã浿¼º(K-BIS-11-R), À½ÁÖ¿îÀü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿ÜÇöÀû ŵµ¿Í ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ µî Æ÷°ýÀûÀÎ °Ë»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ´Â ÀÓ»óÆò°¡(clinical evaluations)°¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ°í Ãʹü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ Áý´Ü¿¡ °­·ÂÇÑ ÁÖÀǸ¦ ÁÙ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ƯÈ÷, Àç¹ü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚÀÇ À½ÁÖ¿îÀü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Åµµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤Çϴµ¥ À־ ¿ÜÇöÀû ŵµº¸´Ù ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ´õ È¿À²ÀûÀÎ ¿¹ÃøÀÎÀÚÀÓÀ» È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í Àç¹ü À½ÁÖ¿îÀüÀÚ´Â °ú°Å ½À°üÀÎ ³»ÇöÀû ŵµÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÌ ¸Å¿ì ³ô±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ³»ÇöÀû ŵµ¸¦ Á¤È®È÷ Æò°¡ÇÏ°í º¯È­½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ ½É¸®Àû °³ÀÔ°ú ÈÆ·ÃÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÔÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

Objectives£ºThe purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of anxiety&depressive symptoms according to the severity of alcohol use in patients with alcohol use disorder.Methods£ºA total of 85 patients with alcohol use disorders were enrolled in this study. The severity of alcohol use was measured by the Korean version of alcohol use disorders identification test(AUDIT-K)&National Alcohol Screening test(NAST). Anxiety and depressive symptoms were measured by using the Beck Anxiety Inventory(BAI) and the Beck Depression Inventory(BDI), respectively. Pearson¡¯s correlation test was applied to correlate among the severity of alcohol use, anxiety and depressive symptoms.Results£ºThe mean scores of AUDIT-K, NAST, BAI and BDI were 22.22(¡¾8.28), 6.24(¡¾3.25), 18.64(¡¾13.08), and 22.05(¡¾10.13), respectively. Pearson¡¯s correlation test showed that between the score of AUDIT-K and NAST, BAI or BDI, there were positively significant correlations(r=.534, p£¼.01 ; r=.231, p£¼.05 ; r=.334, p£¼.01), respectively. And in cases of¡Ã26 score of AUDIT-K, there were much more positive correlations with BAI(r=.425, p£¼.05).Conclusion£ºThe results of this study demonstrated that patients with alcohol use disorders have high co-morbid anxiety and depressive disorders. Overall, the greater severity of alcohol use may be associated with more anxiety and depressive symptoms. However, it is suggested that in the patients with severe alcohol use, correlation appeared to be positive only for anxiety symptoms.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

This paper reviews the Self-Audit and Inspection System based on the Public audit and inspection law of 2010. The law regulates governments and public sectors to set up the self Audit and Inspection organizations and institutions. So, This paper proposes the ideas for the BAI, governments and public sectors according to the field research's results.First, the BAI enforce the speciality and responsibility for the self Audit and Inspection organizations. Second, the BAI makes up for the evaluation indexes by their needs and traits. Finally, BAI, governments and public sectors participate the evaluative processes and feedback, learn and applicate the results and best practices by the other's.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

Today the government's increased role and functions give birth to the blind spot of audit and inspection. The roles and functions of the SAO(The Self-Audit Organization) existed in the government and public institutions are increasingly growing and expanding. The bilateral cooperation for efficient auditing in the public sector of between the BAI(The Board of Audit and Inspection) and the SAO is very important. The BAI as the supreme audit institution evaluate the activity of the SAO every year.In this article, I would like to analysis of the resonable connection between the SAO¡¯s audit activities and the BAI¡¯s the evaluation system. The criteria for analysis of connection are independence, professionalism, and collaboration.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) prescribe that internal audit is useful to assess the adequacy of the internal control in order to perform efficiently administrative tasks within the companies. It implies that internal audit has a important role as a risk managements and not just discover irrationality and fraud. This allows us to prevent accounting fraud, management checks, improvement of performance. In this circumstances, the importance of the internal audit is growing. However, there are several papers for internal audit of private companies, because there are limitations to use the evaluation reports of internal audit for private companies. However, we are possible to use the evaluation reports of internal audit for public companies. Under the reports of ¡°performance evaluation of internal audit¡±, which has been implemented since 2007, it is possible to examine the impact of internal audit quality on earnings managements. According to the rules, the assessors provide the evaluation results for performance and the degree of efforts for public corporation in each year. In order to evaluate the performance results of internal audit, the assessors consists of professors, certified public accountants, experts from various fields, and so on. Their evaluation of internal audit is treated as a quantitative indicators and the evaluation processes include following 7 contents: 1) ensuring professionalism, ethics, and independence of audit; 2) strengthen internal controls; 3) operational performance and follow-up management of internal audit; 4) prevention activities and recurrence prevention of careless management; 5) audit activities and follow-up management of management guidelines; 6) commitment for transparency and ethics; 7) agency evaluation of management. As the evaluation results of internal audit, the assessors assign the scores between 6 to 9 in each year. In this paper, we examine the performance results of internal audit on earnings managements. In specific, this paper explore whether the internal audit quality affect earnings managements during sample period by using objective and quantitative performance evaluation data for public companies. In this regards, we use the quantitative evaluation data for public corporations. We solely focus on the results of ¡°performance evaluation of internal audit¡± and public corporations for two reasons. First, it is the most quantitative data based on ¡°Article 36 of Law on the Management of Public Organizations¡±, and thus offers the greatest power for our tests. While prior papers test the effect of internal audit through a survey or literature reviews. Also, we have a limitation to explore whether the assessment of internal audit affect the earnings managements¡¯ behavior because of the evaluation results of internal audit quality have been regarded as an important corporate confidential or is not allowed to use. Second, public companies might be treated as instruments of public policy, and thus the public companies have the different characteristics from private companies. Fewer studies examine the effect of internal audit for private or public companies through the survey or literature reviews. For example, Yoo (2009) examines the effect of internal audit that is one of the corporate governments on management performances. Douglas et al. (2009) provide the empirical results by using Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)¡¯s internal audit data. They find that experience of auditors, education, and training are negatively affect the earnings managements. The recent paper (Jeong et al. 2013) show the positive relation between earnings managements and management performances for public companies. Although there are several papers for weaker results, the results of whether the data of ¡°Article 36 of Law on the Management of Public Organizations¡± mitigates the behaviors of earnings managements for public companies has not been previously documented. To examine whether earnings managements behavior are more affected by higher internal audit quality or not. We construct IAS_D using evaluation results that could impact firm¡¯s ability to manage their earnings from the reports of ¡°performance evaluation of internal audit¡±. Our sample is comprised of 120 firms that reported the results of quality of internal audit from 2008 to 2013 only for public companies. In this study, we expect that the assessment of internal audit quality ultimately improve the quality of internal audit by ensuring accountability of the audit organization and bringing the activation of internal containment system. We find the higher internal audit quality might reduce behavior of earnings managements for public corporations. The results indicate that the introduction of performance evaluation results of internal audit quality may provide the improving accounting transparency. In addition, it brings the activation of internal containment system and responsibility indirectly by implementing performance evaluation of internal audit. This paper provide the insight the role of internal audit for public corporations with taking performance evaluation of internal audit after 2007, while we have the lack of prior papers that examine the impact of the evaluation data. Therefore, we provide the improved understanding of internal audit quality for related authorities to operate performance evaluation of internal audit.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¸ñÀû : Á÷ÀåÀÎÀº °¢Á¾ ½ºÆ®·¹½º¸¦ ¿ÏÈ­½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇØ À½ÁÖ¸¦ ÇÑ´Ù´Â ¿¬±¸µéÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â °¢Á¾ ½ºÆ®·¹½º ¹× ¿Ü»óÀû »ç°Ç °æÇèÀÌ ¸¹Àº ¼Ò¹æ°ø¹«¿øÀÌ º¸°íÇÏ´Â ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ¿äÀεéÀ» ºÐ¼® ÇÔÀ¸·Î¼­ Á÷ÀåÀÎÀÇ À½ÁÖ ¹®Á¦¿¡ ´ëÇØ º¸´Ù Àû±ØÀûÀÎ Ä¡·á¿Í °³ÀÔ¿¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù. ¿¬±¸ ¹æ¹ý : 3°³ µµ½Ã¿¡ ¼Ò¼ÓµÈ ¼Ò¹æ¼­¿¡ ±Ù¹«ÇÏ´Â ³²ÀÚ ¼Ò¹æ°ø¹«¿øÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ëÀå¾Ö ½Äº° ôµµ(Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ëÀå¾Ö À¯¹«¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ°í ÀÏ¹Ý Àα¸ÇÐÀûÀÎ º¯Àΰú ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ Ã´µµ¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ¿© °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ºÆ®·¹½º °ü·Ã ôµµµé·Î ¿Ü»óÀû ½ºÆ®·¹½º °æÇèÀ» Á¶»çÇϱâ À§ÇÑ »ýÈ° »ç°Ç Æò°¡ üũ¸®½ºÆ®(Life Event Checklist, LEC), ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ ½ºÆ®·¹½º Áö°¢°ú °ü·ÃµÈ Çѱ¹Çü Áö°¢µÈ ½ºÆ®·¹½º ôµµ(Perceived Stress Scale, PSS-K), ¹× Á÷¾÷°ú °ü·ÃµÈ ½ºÆ®·¹½º¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â Çѱ¹Çü Á÷¹« ½ºÆ®·¹½º ÃøÁ¤µµ±¸ ´ÜÃàÇü(Korean Occupational Stress Scale-Brief, KOSS-B)¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¤½Å Áõ»óÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â »ç°Ç Ãæ°Ý ôµµ-°³Á¤ÆÇ(Impected Event Scale-Revised, IES-R), »óÅÂ-Ư¼º ºÒ¾È ôµµ(Stait Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI) ¹× º¤ ¿ì¿ï ôµµ(Beck Depression Inventory, BDI)¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÃÑ 584¸íÀÇ ÀڷḦ ȸ¼öÇÏ¿© ½Å·Úµµ°¡ ¶³¾îÁö´Â ÀڷḦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ 438¸íÀÇ ÀڷḦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö¸¦ AUDIT 15Á¡À» ±âÁØÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿© µÎ ±ºÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö À¯¹«¿¡ µû¸¥ »çȸÀα¸ÇÐÀû º¯ÀÎ, Á÷¾÷Àû º¯ÀÎ, ½ºÆ®·¹½º °ü·Ã º¯ÀÎ, ¿ì¿ï, ºÒ¾È, PTSD µîÀÇ Á¤½Å Áõ»ó °ü·Ã º¯ÀεéÀ» ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °á°ú : ³²ÀÚ ¼Ò¹æ°ø¹«¿ø¿¡¼­ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö À¯¹«¿¡ µû¸¥ µÎ ±º¿¡¼­ Èí¿¬, LEC, IES-R, STAI-TÀÇ Æò±Õ°ª¿¡¼­ À¯ÀǹÌÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p< 0.05). ´Ùº¯·® ·ÎÁö½ºÆ½ ȸ±ÍºÐ¼®¿¡¼­ Èí¿¬°ú ¿Ü»óÀû »ç°Ç °æÇè°ú PTSD Áõ»óÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»´Â LEC¿Í IES-R¿¡¼­ °¢°¢ À§Çèµµ 2.084 (CI = 1.172 - 3.705), 1.163 (CI = 1.010 - 1.339), 1.002 (CI = 1.002 - 1.046) ·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °á·Ð : ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú´Â ¼Ò¹æ°ø¹«¿ø¿¡ À־ ¿ì¿ï, ºÒ¾ÈÀ̳ª Á÷¹« ½ºÆ®·¹½ºº¸´Ù ¿Ü»óÀû ½ºÆ®·¹½º °æÇèÀ̳ª ¿Ü»óÈÄ ½ºÆ®·¹½º Àå¾Ö Áõ»óÀÌ ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë°ú ´õ °ü·ÃÀÌ ÀÖÀ½À» º¸¿©ÁØ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ¼Ò¹æ°ø¹«¿øÀÇ ¿Ü»óÀû ½ºÆ®·¹½º °æÇè°ú PTSD Áõ»ó¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀûÀýÇÑ °³ÀÔÀº ¾ËÄÚ¿Ã »ç¿ë Àå¾Ö ¿¹¹æ¿¡µµ µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

Conducting the performance audit system that emphasizes policy impact evaluation is of great importance for deciding whether to continually implement the existing policy. In this paper, we analyzed the performance audit system in Korea and found that performance audit is not prevalent in the country. Furthermore, the performance audit system has been putting more emphasis on finding out the problems of the existing policy, rather than emphasizing policy evaluation. In this paper, we analyzed the performance audit system adopted in the Government Accountability Office in the U.S. in order to derive policy implication for improving the audit system in Korea. We conclude that Korea should adopt the audit system that is evidence-based. Moreover, we recommend using a randomized controlled trial and a difference-in-differences method for the performance audit system in an effort to secure scientifically valid evidence.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¿ì¸®³ª¶ó´Â °ú°Å ±Þ¼ÓÇÑ µµ½Ã¼ºÀå °úÁ¤¿¡¼­ ¹ß»ýÇÑ ¿©·¯ ¹®Á¦Á¡µé°ú Àα¸ Àú¼ºÀå ½Ã´ë¿¡ Á¢¾îµé¸é¼­ ÀϾ´Â ´Ù¾çÇÑ º¯È­¿¡ Á÷¸éÇØ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ µû¶ó, µµ½ÃÁ¤Ã¥µµ È¿À²¼º°ú »ý»ê¼º À§ÁÖÀÇ °³¹ßÁ¤Ã¥¿¡¼­ »çȸÀû ÇüÆò¼º°ú Áö¼Ó°¡´É¼º, »îÀÇ Áú Çâ»óÀ» µµ½ÃÁ¤Ã¥ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥·Î »ïÇÏ¾ß ÇÏ´Â ½Ã±â¿¡ À̸£·¶´Ù. &#xD; 1990³â´ë ¹Ì±¹¿¡¼­µµ ¹«ºÐº°ÇÑ µµ½ÃÈ®»êÇö»ó(Urban Sprawl) ¹æÁö¿Í ¼èÅðÇÏ´Â µµ½ÉÈ°¼ºÈ­¸¦ À¯µµÇÏ°í, µµ½Ã°³¹ßÀÌ È¯°æÀûÀ¸·Î °ÇÀüÇÏ°í Áö¼Ó°¡´ÉÇÑ ¹ßÀüÀ» °¡Á®¿Ã ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Á¤Ã¥ÀÌ ½ÃÀ۵Ǿú´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿¡µµ 1990³â´ë Á߹ݺÎÅÍ ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Á¤Ã¥ µµÀÔÀÇ Çʿ伺°ú µµÀÔÇöȲ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸°¡ ÁøÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù.&#xD; º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå ¿øÄ¢ÀÌ ±¹³» ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó µµ½ÃÁ¤Ã¥¿¡ ¾ó¸¶³ª Àû¿ëµÇ°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö¸¦ Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇØ ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Æò°¡¸¦ ±¹³»¿¡ Àû¿ëÇغ¸´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹Ì±¹ Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥ÀÇ ºÐ¼®¿¡´Â Smart Growth America¿¡¼­ ¹Ì±¹ ȯ°æû(EPA)ÀÇ Áö¿øÀ» ¹Þ¾Æ Ç¥ÁØÀ¸·Î ÀÛ¼ºÇÑ Smart Growth Policy Audit°ú ¹ö¸óÆ®, Äݷζóµµ, ¸Å»çÃß¼¼Ã÷ÀÇ smart growth scorecard¸¦ È°¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. &#xD; º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú·Î ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ È°¿ëÇÏ¿© ±¹³» µµ½Ã±âº»°èȹ°ú Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ Æò°¡¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÀÛ¼ºµÈ Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ È°¿ëÇÏ¿© ¼­¿ï½Ã¿Í ±¤¸í½Ã µµ½Ã±âº»°èȹ°ú Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ »ç·Ê·Î ¼±Á¤ÇÏ°í Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Æò°¡ °á°ú, ¼­¿ï½ÃÀÇ 2030 µµ½Ã±âº»°èȹÀº ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀåÀÇ ¿ä¼Ò°¡ ÇÙ½ÉÀ̽´ ½ÇÇàÀü·«ÀÇ ÇÑ ºÎºÐÀ¸·Î ´Ù¾çÇÏ°Ô ¹Ý¿µÀÌ µÇ¾î ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Á¤Ã¥°èȹÀÇ ¼º°Ý»ó ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ ½ÇÇà°èȹÀÌ ¹ÌÈíÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±¤¸í½Ã 2020 µµ½Ã±âº»°èȹÀº ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå °³³äÀ» Á÷Á¢ ¾ð±ÞÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸³ª Á¤Ã¥¸ñÇ¥³ª ½ÇÇàÀü·«°ú ¿¬°èµÇÁö ¾Ê°í ´Ü¼ø °³³äÀÇ ³ª¿­¿¡ ±×Ä¡°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. &#xD; º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ±¹³» µµ½ÃÁ¤Ã¥ÀÇ Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú´Â ÁöÀÚü°¡ ±×µéÀÇ µµ½ÃÁ¤Ã¥À» ½º¸¶Æ®¼ºÀå °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ Æò°¡Çϴµ¥ µµ¿òÀ» ÁÙ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸´Â Çѱ¹±â¾÷Áö¹è±¸Á¶¿øÀÌ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÑ ±â¾÷ÀÇ ºñÀ繫ÀûÀÎ Á¤º¸ÀÎ ESG Æò°¡ÅëÇÕµî±Þ°ú °¢ ±¸¼º ¿ä¼Òº° ESG Æò°¡µî±ÞÀÌ °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¿¡ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´ÂÁö¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù. ºÐ½Äȸ°è ¹æÁö¸¦ ÅëÇØ È®º¸µÇ´Â ±â¾÷ÀÇ È¸°èÁ¤º¸ Åõ¸í¼ºÀº ±â¾÷ÀÇ »çȸÀû ¼º°úÀÇ ÇʼöÀûÀÎ ¿ä¼ÒÀ̹ǷΠ°ÇÀåÇÑ ±â¾÷Áö¹è±¸Á¶´Â ±â¾÷ÀÇ È¸°èÁ¤º¸ Åõ¸í¼ºÀ» °³¼±ÇÏ´Â °Í¿¡µµ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¥ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¿¹»óµÈ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ º» ¿¬±¸´Â ESG Æò°¡ÅëÇÕµî±ÞÀÌ °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¸¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÅ°´ÂÁö Á÷Á¢ÀûÀÎ ¿µÇâÀ» »ìÆ캸´Â µ¿½Ã¿¡ ´õ ³ª¾Æ°¡ ESG Æò°¡ÅëÇÕµî±ÞÀÌ È¸°èÁ¤º¸ ºÒÅõ¸í¼ºÀ» ¸Å°³È¿°ú·Î ÇÏ¿© °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¸¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÅ°´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇØ ½ÇÁõºÐ¼®ÇÏ´Â µ¥ ¸ñÀûÀ» µÎ°í ÀÖ´Ù. &#xD; º» ¿¬±¸´Â ÀüÀÚ°ø½Ã½Ã½ºÅÛ(DART)¿¡¼­ °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀڷḦ ÀÔ¼öÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ±â¾÷, ±×¸®°í Çѱ¹±â¾÷Áö¹è±¸Á¶¿ø(KCGS)¿¡¼­ ESG Æò°¡ ÀÚ·á°¡ Á¸ÀçÇÏ´Â ±â¾÷À» ºÐ¼®´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© 2013³âºÎÅÍ 2020³â±îÁö 8³âÀ» ´ë»ó±â°£À¸·Î ÃÑ 4,156°³ ±â¾÷-¿¬µµ·Î °¡¼³ °ËÁõÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÁõºÐ¼®°á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. ù°, ESG ÅëÇÕÆò°¡µî±ÞÀÌ ³ôÀº ±â¾÷Àϼö·Ï °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷´Â °¨¼ÒÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. µÑ°, ESG ÅëÇÕÆò°¡µî±ÞÀÌ ³ôÀ»¼ö·Ï ±â¾÷ÀÇ È¸°èÁ¤º¸ ºÒÅõ¸í¼ºÀº ³·¾ÆÁö°í, ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³·¾ÆÁø ºÒÅõ¸í¼ºÀÌ °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¸¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÄ×´Ù. ÀÌ´Â ESG ÅëÇÕÆò°¡µî±ÞÀÌ °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¸¦ ³·Ãß´Â µ¥ ȸ°èÁ¤º¸ ºÒÅõ¸í¼ºÀÌ ¸Å°³È¿°ú¸¦ °¡Áø´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù. ¼Â°, ESG ÅëÇÕÆò°¡µî±ÞÀ» °¢ ¿ä¼Òº°·Î ¼¼ºÐÈ­Çصµ ÀÏ°üµÈ °á°ú¸¦ µµÃâÇÏ¿´´Ù.&#xD; º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¼±Á¤µÈ ºÐ¼®´ë»óÀ» ÃÖ±Ù 2020³â±îÁö È®ÀåÇÏ¿© °ËÁõÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ½ÇÁõºÐ¼®°á°úÀÇ Å¸´ç¼ºÀ» ³ôÀÌ´Â µ¥¿¡ ÀÇÀÇ°¡ ÀÖ´Ù°í ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±âÁØÀÇ ¼±Ç࿬±¸µé°ú ´Þ¸® º» ¿¬±¸´Â Çѱ¹±â¾÷Áö¹è±¸Á¶¿ø(KCGS)ÀÇ ESG Æò°¡Ç׸ñÀΠȯ°æÆò°¡µî±Þ°ú »çȸåÀÓÆò°¡µî±Þ, ±â¾÷Áö¹è±¸Á¶Æò°¡µî±Þ°ú ESG ÅëÇÕÆò°¡µî±ÞÀ» ³× °¡Áö Æò°¡ÁöÇ¥¸¦ °°ÀÌ °í·ÁÇÏ¿© ȸ°èÁ¤º¸ ºÒÅõ¸í¼ºÀ» ¸Å°³º¯¼ö·Î ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© °¨»çº¸°í½ÃÂ÷¿ÍÀÇ °ü·Ã¼ºÀ» ½ÇÁõ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù´Â ½Ã»çÁ¡À» °®´Â´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

Objectives : To describe the prevalence and associations of hazardous harmful drinking in a population of male industrial workers in Ansan, Korea. The study purposes are as follows : 1) To survey job stress by using KOSS(Korean Occupational Stress Scale) and psychosocial stress by using PWI-SF(Psychosocial Well-being Index-Short Form) in a male, industrial worker population. 2) To describe the prevalence of hazardous harmful drinking by using AUDIT(Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) in a male, industrial worker population. 3) To prove the relationship between hazardous harmful drinking and job stress and psychosocial stress in a male, industrial worker population. Methods : A total of 292 subjects from a sample of 600 workers from 40 industries in Ansan, were recruited from November 24, 2004 to February 28, 2005. Interviews included socio-demographic data, the 10-item AUDIT as an indicator of hazardous harmful drinking, the 43-item KOSS as a measure of job stress, and the 18-item PWI-SF. Results : The prevalence of hazardous harmful drinking, as defined by Kim et al.''s guideline, was 45.5%. By multiple logistic regression analysis, hazardous harmful drinking was significantly associated with marital status(OR married 1.691), job time(OR 1.732 11hr¡Ã), smoking (OR 2.298), and job stress(OR lower 50% group 1.105, OR upper 50% group 1.724, OR upper 25% group 4.719). Conclusions : Hazardous harmful drinking is common among male industrial workers in Ansan. This study suggested that hazardous harmful drinking is associated with job stress. Interventions in the workplace must target both drinking problems and job stress.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The study aims to analyze whether auditor size or audit opinion has an influence on corporate credit rating. Since credit rating agencies are responsible for evaluating and rating firms' credit worthiness, they should make all the possible efforts and try to seek available accurate financial information. As auditor size or audit opinion sometimes means the audit quality, it is used as criteria in discriminating better or worse firms. The study sets the hypotheses that big auditors and fair audit opinions have positive effects on credit ratings. To test the hypotheses, the models include credit grade(GRADE) and credit score(SCORE) as dependent variables. Also the test models contain BIG(the proxy of big auditors), OPIN(the proxy of audit opinions), and B*O(interaction term between BIG and OPIN) as main independent variables. The study uses three multiple linear regression models. The test sample consists of 1,019 (samples for GRADE) and 2,166 (samples for SCORE) firm-year data, selected from the Korea Stock Exchange(KSE) listed companies during the period from 1995 to 2002. The study concludes the followings:First, BIG has a significantly positive influence on GRADE in the regression model. This means that credit rating agencies consider big auditors' verification to be good audit quality, accepting the hypotheses. But BIG does not have significant influence upon SCORE.Secondly, OPIN has a stronger positive influence upon both GRADE and SCORE than BIG, implying that credit rating agencies regard fair audit opinions as good qualification for evaluating the firms. Thirdly, credit rating agencies show a positive reaction on B*O, the interaction term. That is, fair opinion through big auditors simultaneously affects credit ratings.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

°¨¸®°¡ Àǹ«È­ µÇ¾úÁö¸¸ ¼ö°ËÇÏ´Â ÇÇ°¨¸®Àΰú »ç¾÷ÀÌ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ´Þ¼ºÇϵµ·Ï Àü¹®°¡ÀÇ µµ¿òÀ» ¹ÞÀ¸·Á´Â °¨¸®ÀÇ·ÚÀÎ ¸ðµÎ °¨¸®±â°üÀÇ °¨¸®°á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½Å·Ú¼º ºÎÁ·°ú °¨¸®¿øÀÇ ÁÖ°üÀûÀÎ ÆÇ´Ü, °¨¸®°¡ ÀÇ»ç°áÁ¤¿¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ´Â Á¤º¸¸¦ ÁÖÁö ¸øÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °Í¿¡ ºÒ¸¸À» °®°í ÀÖ´Ù. °¨¸®ÀÇ·ÚÀÎÀÌ ¿øÇÏ´Â ÇÇ°¨¸®ÀÎÀÇ »ç¾÷¼öÇà °úÁ¤°ú °á°ú¹°ÀÇ ÀûÁ¤¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °ËÅä¿¡ À־µµ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ±â¹ÝÇÑ Àü¼öÁ¶»çÀÇ °´°üÀûÀÎ °¨¸®ÁõÀûÀ» Á¦½ÃÇϱ⠺¸´Ù´Â ÇÇ°¨¸®ÀÎÀÌ Á¦°øÇÑ ÀÚ·á(»êÃâ¹°)¸¦ ±âÃÊ·Î sampling À§ÁÖ·Î °ËÅäÇÏ¿© »ç¾÷ Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ÆÇ´Ü¿¡ ¹«¸®°¡ µû¸£°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÃÖ±ÙÀÇ Á¤º¸½Ã½ºÅÛÀº Â÷¼¼´ë ½Ã½ºÅÛµé°ú °°ÀÌ ¾÷¹« Ãø¸é, Á¤º¸±â¼ú Ãø¸é, °ü¸® Ãø¸é¿¡¼­ ´ë´ÜÀ§ÀÌ°í º¹ÀâÇÏ°Ô ¿¬°èµÇ¾î °³¹ßÀÌ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁö°í ÀÖ¾î ±âÁ¸ÀÇ °¨¸®¹æ¹ýÀÎ °¨¸®¿ø °³ÀÎÀÇ °æÇè ¹× ±â¼ú·Â, ÁÖ°üÀûÀÎ ÆÇ´Ü¿¡ ÀÇÁ¸ÇÏ¿©¼­´Â ÀÌÇØ °ü°èÀڷκÎÅÍ °¨¸®°á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °´°ü¼º ¹× ½Å·Ú¼ºÀ» È®º¸ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ °¨¸®»ý»ê¼º°ú Á¤È®¼º Á¦°í¸¦ À§Çؼ­´Â ÀÚµ¿È­ µµ±¸ÀÇ Çʿ伺ÀÌ Àý´ëÀûÀ̶ó°í º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. º» ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â °¨¸®¿¡¼­ È°¿ë °¡´ÉÇÑ »ó¿ëÅøÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿© Á¦½ÃÇÔ°ú µ¿½Ã¿¡ °¨¸®¿øµéÀÌ °¨¸® Áß¿¡ À¯¿ëÇÏ°Ô »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¸ðµâ´ÜÀ§ÀÇ ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿© sampling À§ÁÖ·Î ¼öÇàÇÏ´ø °¨¸®¿¡¼­ Àü¼ö Á¶»ç¿Í Á¤·®ÀûÀÎ °ËÅä·ÎÀÇ ÀüȯÀ» ÅëÇØ °¨¸® Ç°ÁúÇâ»ó¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ³í¹®ÀÌ °¨¸®ÀÇ Ç°Áú Çâ»ó°ú °¨¸®»ý»ê¼º Á¦°í¿¡ Á¶±ÝÀÌ¶óµµ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ°í ÇâÈÄ ´õ¿í ÁÁÀº ±â´ÉÀÇ ÀÚµ¿È­ µµ±¸ °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇÑ Ãʼ®ÀÌ µÇ¾úÀ¸¸é ÇÑ´Ù.

[±¹³» ȸÀÇÀÚ·á]

¼ÒÇÁÆ®¿þ¾î °³¹ß »ý»ê¼ºÀ» ³ôÀÏ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ÁÖ¸ñ¹Þ°í ÀÖ´Â ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ®´Â ±¸¼º ÀÚüÀÇ ±â´É°ú ȣȯ¼ºµµ Áß¿äÇÏÁö¸¸ ¹«¾ùº¸´Ùµµ ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ®ÀÇ ½Å·Ú¼º Áï Ç°ÁúÀÇ º¸ÀåÀÌ Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù. ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ® Ç°Áú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¢±Ù ¹æ¹ý¿¡´Â ÀÎÁõ(certification) ¹æ¹ý°ú °³¹ß °úÁ¤À» °¨»ç(audit) ¹æ¹ýÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. »ç¿ëÀÚÀÇ ¸¸Á·µµ¸¦ Æò°¡¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ÇÁ·Î¼¼½º °¨»ç´Â Ç°Áú º¸Áõ È°µ¿ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ°í ÀÎÁõ ¹æ¹ýó·³ ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ®ÀÇ ³»ºÎ Ư¼ºÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿© Ç°ÁúÀ» °´°üÀûÀ¸·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¸ç »ç¿ëÀÚ ¸¸Á·µµ¸¦ °¡¹ÌÇÏ´Â ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î Ç°Áú Æò°¡¿¡ Á¢±ÙÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ISO 9126À» ±âº»À¸·Î ÇÏ¿© ÀÌ Ç¥ÁØ¿¡ ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ® Ç°Áú Æò°¡ ±âÁصéÀ» Ãß°¡ÇÏ¿© üũ¸®½ºÆ® ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ°í ¼¼ °¡Áö °üÁ¡ Áï ÄÄÆ÷³ÊÆ® ¿î¿µ, ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ® º¯°æ, ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ® ÇÕ¼ºÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î Ç°ÁúÀ» Æò°¡ÇÔÀ¸·Î Á¦ 3ÀÚ°¡ ¿Ï¼ºµÈ ÄÄÆ÷³ÍÆ®ÀÇ Ç°ÁúÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â ÁöħÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹æ¾ÈÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº °¨»çÇ°Áú(Audit Quality)ÀÇ ´ë¿ëÄ¡·Î¼­ °¨»çÀÎÀÇ »ê¾÷Àü¹®¼º(Audit Specialization)À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© °¨»çÇ°ÁúÀÌ ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ë(Cost of Equity)¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ °üÇØ ½ÇÁõºÐ¼®ÇÏ°í, ÀÌÀÍÁ¶Á¤ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÑ ±â¾÷ÀÇ °æ¿ì »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÌ ÀÚ±âÀÚº»¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ½ÇÁõºÐ¼® ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °¨»çÇ°ÁúÀº »ê¾÷º° ½ÃÀåÁ¡À¯À²À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀº Gode and Mohanram(2003)¸ðÇü(ÀÌÇÏ GM¸ðÇü)°ú, ¼öÁ¤ÇÑ Easton(2004)ÀÇ ¸ðÇü(ÀÌÇÏ MPEG¸ðÇü)À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. &#xD; ½ÇÁõºÐ¼®À» À§ÇÏ¿© 2004³âºÎÅÍ 2008³â±îÁö Áõ±Ç°Å·¡¼Ò¿¡ »óÀåµÈ 12¿ù °á»ê¹ýÀÎ Áß ±ÝÀ¶°ü·Ã ¾÷Á¾¿¡ ¼ÓÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸ç ´ëÇüȸ°è¹ýÀÎÀÌ °¨»çÇÏ´Â ±â¾÷À» Ç¥º»À¸·Î »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. &#xD; º» ³í¹®ÀÇ ºÐ¼®°á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. &#xD; ù°, »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÌ °¨»çÇÑ ±â¾÷ÀÇ ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀº ±×·¸Áö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ìº¸´Ù ³·Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, ÀÌ´Â ÀÚº»½ÃÀå¿¡¼­ ÅõÀÚÀÚ ¹× ±â¾÷ÀÇ ¿ÜºÎÀÌÇØ°ü°èÀÚµéÀÌ »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÇ °¨»çÇ°ÁúÀÌ ´õ ³ôÀ¸¸ç À繫Á¦Ç¥ÀÇ ½Å·Ú¼ºÀ» ³ôÀÌ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î Çؼ®ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. &#xD; µÑ°, ÀÌÀÍÁ¶Á¤ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÑ ±â¾÷ÀÇ °æ¿ì¶óµµ »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÌ °¨»çÇÑ´Ù¸é ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀÌ ³·Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¹ß»ý¾×À» ÅëÇÏ¿© ÀÌÀÍÁ¶Á¤À» ÇÑ ±â¾÷Àº Á¤º¸ºÒ±ÕÇüÀ¸·Î ÀÎÇÑ Á¤º¸À§ÇèÀÌ ºÐ»ê ºÒ°¡´ÉÇϸç ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ ½ÃÀå¿¡¼­ °¡Ä¡Æò°¡ µÇ¾î ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀ» Áõ°¡½ÃŲ´Ù(Francis et al. 2004). ÇÏÁö¸¸ º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú ÀÌÀÍÁ¶Á¤ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇßÀ»Áö¶óµµ »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÌ °¨»çÇÑ ±â¾÷ÀÇ ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀº ³·Àº °ÍÀº ÀÚº»½ÃÀå¿¡¼­ ¿ÜºÎÀÌÇØ°ü°èÀÚµéÀÌ »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÇ °¨»çÇ°ÁúÀ» ³ôÀÌ Æò°¡ÇÏ°í À繫Á¦Ç¥ÀÇ ½Å·Ú¼ºÀ» ³ôÀÌ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿© ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ëÀÌ ³·°Ô Çü¼ºµÇ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î Çؼ®ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. &#xD; º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó °¨»ç½ÃÀå¿¡¼­ ´ëÇüȸ°è¹ýÀÎ Áß¿¡¼­µµ »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀÎÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ½¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áõ°Å¸¦ Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç »ê¾÷º° Àü¹®°¨»çÀΰú ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ë°£ÀÇ °ü°è¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½ÇÁõºÐ¼® °á°ú¸¦ Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù´Âµ¥ ÀÇÀÇ°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. À̸¦ ÅëÇÏ¿© ±â¾÷µé¿¡°Ô´Â °¨»çÀÎ ¼±Åÿ¡ ÀÖ¾î À¯¿ëÇÑ Á¤º¸·Î »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ̸ç, °¨»çÀε鿡°Ô´Â °íÇ°ÁúÀÇ °¨»ç¸¦ Á¦°øÇÏ´Â À¯ÀÎÀÌ µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¼öÁ¤ Jones¸ðÇü(1995)¿¡´Â ´©¶ôº¯¼ö¹®Á¦ ¹× ÃßÁ¤¿À·ù°¡ Á¸ÀçÇϹǷΠÀÌÈÄ Á¦½ÃµÈ ¸ðÇüÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÀÌÀÍÁ¶Á¤À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÑ ÈÄ ºÐ¼®ÇØ º¼ Çʿ伺ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÀÚ±âÀÚº»ºñ¿ë¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â ¹Ì·¡¿¹ÃøÄ¡°¡ ÀϺαâ¾÷¿¡¼­¸¸ Á¦°øµÇ°í ÀÖÀ¸¹Ç·Î Àüü ½ÃÀå¿¡ È®´ëÇؼ®ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¸®°¡ ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship of impulsiveness and alcohol craving by The Korean Version of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-K) in nursing students. A total of 265 nursing students participated in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Impulsiveness was assessed using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) and alcohol craving was assessed using Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS). Data were analyzed using t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients with SPSS/WIN 18.0. Problematic group was 17.8%. Impulsiveness was different depending on the level of AUDIT-K. The score of non-planning impulsiveness was higher in alcohol use disorder group. Alcohol craving was different depending on the level of AUDIT-K. There was a positive correlation between impulsiveness and alcohol craving. In conclusion, it was partly supported that alcoholism severity was associated with alcohol craving and impulsiveness. Therefore we could adapt the results to counseling in nursing student.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether audit quality is improved by lowering the risk of misstatements of financial statements as a result of using the valuation experts and computer experts. The auditing standards provide for the use of specialists when it is deemed necessary by the auditor. In addition to accounting standards adopting fair value valuation, the size of the company is increasing and the auditors are obliged to disclose the hours using expert on the audit report, so it is a good opportunity to study whether the quality of audit improves as the auditor. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the audit quality improves with the use of valuation experts and IT professionals. To be more specific, First, we investigate whether the quality of audit increases as the auditor spend more time in the field of valuation and computer expertise. In other words, we investigate whether the audit quality increases with the number of hours spent using the experts, or is affected by the ratio of time spent using the experts. Second, the need for using the experts will depend on the firm characteristics such as the size of the company, the proportion of the items evaluated as fair value in the financial statements. Therefore, we investigate whether the effect of hours using expert on audit quality depends on the characteristics of the company. The results of this study are as follows. Discretionary accruals decreased significantly with higher rate and time of using expert. However, the rate of using expert did not affect the quality of accruals. This study contribute to the changes in inefficient audit procedures and the development of audit by presenting the empirical results that the quality of auditing can be improved efficiently by using experts.

/ 9

Filters

º¸±âÇü½Ä

Á¤·Ä¼ø¼­

Æ÷¸Ë

¸®½ºÆ® ¼ö