Mystery novelist Do Jin-gi, who is currently serving as legal advisor for "I Want to Know That," has returned with a new cover and text after 10 years with his 2013 work, "Who Killed the Little Match Girl?"
This book presents 22 exciting stories about the most important legal principles in a trial through the battle between 'Lawyer Socrates' who takes on the defendant's defense, 'Prosecutor Wook' who wants to punish the defendant without thinking, and 'Judge Yeomra' who is torn between the two.
This book, which brings characters from fairy tales and history to the afterlife court and determines their guilt or innocence while explaining modern legal concepts in a comical way, was also selected as a youth education book and was recognized as “a textbook on legal common sense essential for ordinary people to live.”

Who Killed the Little Match Girl?: Law and Morality
Socrates: Law is the strongest rule of all.
Wouldn't it be problematic if such a law were used carelessly? It's not good to blindly create laws just because something is inconvenient.
The law should only deal with important matters, and morality in everyday life should be left to the people.
Yeomra: That's right.
If there are too many laws, life will be difficult.
Socrates: The law does not interfere with morality.
We only engage in matters of moral importance.
For example, the law prevents bad behaviors such as hitting, stealing, and cheating, as in ①, ②, and ③ above.
Among the many morals, these are the ones that say, 'At least this must not be broken.'
The saying that law is the minimum of morality comes from this idea.
Yeomra: Hmm.
If that's the standard, then it'll be resolved now...
Socrates: That's not true either.
Yeomra: Why!
--- From "Statement 1: Law is the minimum of morality"

Is the Pied Piper a Kidnapper?: Causality
Socrates: Because just because there is a relationship of 'cause and effect' does not mean that causality is acknowledged.
In law, there must be something called a causal relationship.
Yeomra: "Corresponding causality?" That's another technical term!
Socrates: It's not difficult.
A significant causal relationship is a relationship in which it is accepted that if there is a certain cause, that result will 'usually' occur.
To put it simply, it is a 'usually so' relationship.
If you drink poison, you will 'usually' collapse.
If you hit someone with a club, it 'usually' hurts them.
Therefore, there is a significant causal relationship between the cause of poisoning and the effect of collapsing.
Likewise, there is a significant causal relationship between the cause of being hit with a club and the effect of being injured.
But, if you give birth to a daughter, you can't say that she "normally" grows up to feed someone else a poisoned apple, right? That's a very exceptional and unusual case, isn't it? There's no "significant causal connection" between the Queen's mother giving birth to her and Snow White collapsing from the poisoned apple.
Therefore, it cannot be punished by law.
Yeomra: I see.
--- From "Statement 2: There is a formula for sin"

Did DiCaprio on the Titanic push Kate away and live alone?: Emergency evacuation
Socrates: A man was drowning in a shipwreck, barely holding on to a floating wooden plank.
At this time, another drowning man approached.
That man also tried to hold on to a wooden plank to survive.
But this wooden plank could only support the weight of one person.
If two people were to hang on it, the plank would sink and they would both die.
The man holding the wooden plank pushed the man behind him away, causing him to drown.
Can someone be punished for pushing others and monopolizing the wooden plank? That's the question.
It is called the 'Carneades' plank' because it is said to be a problem posed by the ancient Greek philosopher Carneades.
Yeomra: Tsk.
Why are all Greek names so difficult?
Socrates: The man who took the wooden plank pushed the other man to his death in order to save himself.
Anyway, it is true that he committed murder.
However, this behavior is an inevitable choice to avoid disaster.
So we don't punish them.
In Chinese idiom, it can also be said as ‘human nature’.
With danger looming before us, it would be difficult to evade it while strictly adhering to the law. "Escape" actions in such "emergency" situations are not punishable.
In legal terms, it's called an emergency evacuation.
Yeomra: This term is a bit easy.
It's an emergency evacuation.
Urgent evacuation, is that it?
Socrates: That's right.
--- From "Statement 3: There are sins that cannot be punished"

What's the secret code known only to Alibaba and the thieves?: The presumption of innocence
Socrates: In that way, it may be possible to punish ten thieves with certainty.
But if we do that, won't there be an innocent traveler who is not a thief but gets punished along with the others?
Inspector: So, 10 to 1… .
Socrates: It's not a question of numbers.
If that's the case, someday one of us may be unjustly accused of being a sinner.
King Yeomra, Inspector: No way… .
Socrates: No, it's not true.
It can happen to anyone.
The law is a set of rules for all of us.
But conversely, the law should not create people who are wronged.
It would be better if the criminal organizations were after us.
Because the police and our families can protect us.
But what if the law did that? What if someone were branded a criminal and imprisoned simply because they were suspicious? It's a horrifying thought.
Because the law cannot be avoided even if you try to avoid it.
So, it becomes even more frightening if the law makes decisions that easily.
Yeomra: Now that I hear it, it seems like Socrates' words are correct.
Socrates: So there is a famous saying from ancient times.
“It is better to let ten thieves go free than to make one innocent criminal.”
Yeomra: Aah! Isn't that exactly the same situation as our trial?
Socrates: Yes.
Even if ten thieves go free, one traveler should not be unjustly punished.
--- From "Statement 4: In a trial, the process is more important than the result"

Should the Merchant of Venice keep his promise and give up his pound of flesh?: Private Autonomy and Exceptions
Socrates: 'Acts contrary to social order', simply put, refers to a contract with contents that are difficult for an ordinary person's conscience to accept.
Portia: What is it? For example?
Socrates: Examples include a contract to commit a crime together, or a contract to harm a person's body.
Maeng-gu and Yeong-gu agreed to steal together.
If the promise is broken, the other party will be fined 1 million won.
The weak-hearted Yeong-gu couldn't sleep that night out of regret.
When I was about to steal, I felt guilty.
But if I were to quit, I'd probably have to give Maeng-gu 1 million won for breaking his promise.
Should Yeong-gu keep his promise to steal? If he breaks it, should he give the 1 million won to Maeng-gu?
Yeomra: Are you asking me? (Oh no, this isn't my court.)
Portia: You're probably asking me, right? I don't think so.
Socrates: That's right.
There's no need to worry about the permanent, right? A promise to steal is invalid because it violates social order.
So there is no need to keep it.
There is also no need to give Maeng-gu 1 million won for breaking his promise.
Shylock: Why is the atmosphere so unfavorable… .
--- From "Statement 5: Almost every trial involves money"

O was found not guilty.
Why Should J. Simpson Pay Damages?: The Evidence and Confidence
“This is true.
It's so absurd.
In the criminal trial, Simpson was found not guilty.
They decided that Simpson did not kill his wife.
But Simpson lost in the civil trial.
They decided that Simpson killed his wife.
“Isn’t the trial crazy?”
“Mathematically, this is impossible.
But the law says it is possible.”
“How can that be?”
“Because the principles of criminal and civil trials are different.”
“The principle is different?”
“A civil trial is a fight between two people.
If one side wins, the other side must lose.
You can't win both.
“Right?”
“I guess so.”
“The judge has to decide who wins anyway.
Even if you're not sure.
So, which side should we side with? Since this is an evidentiary trial, we should naturally let the side with more evidence and more certainty win, right?”
“I guess that can’t be helped.”
“In civil trials, the side with better evidence wins.
“If your evidence is even slightly better than your opponent’s, you win.”
“So the evidence doesn’t have to be perfect.
“Just being better than the other person is all that matters, isn’t it?”
“Yes, that’s right.
“Because a civil trial is a dispute between two people.”

--- From “Statement 6: Conflicting judgments can be reached in the same case”