23%. a . la: 3....“ .5 3.?!th “My”? . 313 h" : Qflrnzfl. a .1... . 3...} . r $.03. . A. .5... . I." 31““. ”Howard? v .fi. 4|: X: .k. I! . c T}JC¢.:Q Date 0-7639 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Victimization Trend In Korea: A Test Of Routine Activity Theory presented by Junseob Moon has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mastermafiegree in Criminal Justice Mnyié Z (A k 1 I / )(ajor professor 11/18/02 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c;/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15 VICTIMIZATION TREND IN KOREA: A TEST OF ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY BY Junseob Moon A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 2002 ABSTRACT VICTIMIZATION TREND IN KOREA: A TEST OF ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY BY Junseob Moon Routine Activity Theory(RAT) is a commonly used approach for explaining criminal victimization in Western society (Mustaine & Tewsbury, 1998). However, there is no study to explain the victims' routine activities and the criminal victimization in Korea, even though the lifestyle in Korea has become more western. The objective of this study is to examine the RAT using the Korean crime victimization data. The Korean victimization survey is analyzed to find out the relationship between an individuals’ daily routine activity and his or her actual victimization experience through micro-level analysis. The present study examines the key concepts underlying RAT (motivated offenders, suitable target, and absence of guardianship) to examine patterns of victimization in Korea. Measures of each concept are developed and evaluated in terms of their ability to explain individuals’ risks of property and violent crimes. This study uses nationally represented samples of 2,100 subjects over the age of 15 or above, collected through face-to-face interviews spanning 10 days from 1 May 1999 to 10 May 1999. For this study, Chi-square and logistical regression are used. According to this study, the single and the young, who spend the more time outside the home are significant factors to explain victimization. The finding shows that the home is the safest place in Korea, since there is no personal level victimization (including sexual crime) in Korea. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Hard work alone would not have been sufficient to complete this thesis. It also involved supporting of some very fine people, though I could never name them all. The author wishes here to express his immeasurable gratitude to the faculty members in the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. I would like to contributions of the practicum committee members, Dr. Sheila Royo Maxwell, Dr. Mahesh Nalla, and Dr. Vince Hoffman, whose suggestions and guidance made this thesis attainable. It is obvious that this research could not be completed without the cooperation of Dr. Byung -ln Cho, Senior researcher in the Korean Institute of Criminology. Most of all, I dedicate this work to my family members. To my parent, Sang-Woo Moon and Jung-Hee Choi, for their consistent encouragement and pride in everything I have done (well, almost everything). Also, they were always enthusiastic and supportive about my endeavors, always at my side, and offering loving encouragement. They are always with me. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Study ........................................................................... 8 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 1O Routine Activity Theory .................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION TO KOREA ................................................................. 20 Population ................................................................................. 20 Crime in Korea ........................................................................... 21 METHOD ........................................................................................... 28 Sample ..................................................................................... 28 Variables ................................................................................... 29 Independent Variables ........................................................... 29 Demographic Factor ...................................................... 29 Lifestyle Factors ............................................................ 3O Guardianship Factors ..................................................... 33 Dependent Variables ............................................................ 35 Research Questions ................................................................. 36 Analytic Technique ................................................................... 37 RESULT ............................................................................................ 39 Victims’ Characteristics on personal level victimization (larceny, robbery, and assault) ...................................................................... 39 Victims’ Characteristics on sexual victimization .............................. 42 The predictors of routine activities of victims on personal level victimization .......................................................................................... 45 The predictors of routine activities of victims on sexual victimization 48 CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 50 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 55 Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire (Korean Version) ......................... 56 Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire (English Version) ....................... 100 Appendix C. Approval of the University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ....................................................... 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 143 Bibliography ........................................................................ 144 LIST OF TABLE Table 1. Number of reported major penal code offenses (1989 -1999) ........... 23 Table 2. The trends of victimization on robbery and larceny ........................ 25 Table 3. Descriptive of demographic factors ............................................ 31 Table 4. Descriptive of lifestyle factors .................................................... 33 Table 5. Descriptive of guardianship factors ............................................ 34 Table 6. Descriptive of dependent variables .......................................... 35 Table 7. Victims’ characteristics of personal level crime ............................. 40 Table 8. Victims’ characteristics of sexual crime ....................................... 44 Table 9. Characteristics of victims regressed on the number of conditions (Personal level victimization) ............................................... 47 Table 10. Characteristics of victims regressed on the number of conditions (Sexual victimization) ......................................................... 48 LIST OF FIGURE Figure 1. Number of reported major penal code offenses (1989 -1999) .......... 24 vii Introduction Generally crimes are comprised of three elements: the offender, the victim, and their interaction. However, in the past years, criminologists were primarily interested in and focused on criminals, rather than on victims of crime. This often meant they ignored the role of places and targets in criminal events (Weisburd, 1997). Criminologists focused on the criminal and the factors surrounding the criminal. For example, they examined why some people commit crimes and others do not and why some commit crimes at very high rates and others do not. They also looked at age factors, such as at what age people begin committing crimes and at what age they stop. Rarely, if ever, did these criminologists shift their primary focus to look at the victims. Starting in the 19608, the research model that focused only on the criminal changed, as several social movements started to pay attention to the victims of crime, instead of only those that committed the crime (Karmen, 2000). An emphasis in the trend of criminological studies from the study of criminal offenders to the study of victim’s behaviors and victims was developed during the 19703 (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986). In an early classical text, The Criminal and His Victim (1948), von Hentig explored the relationship between the criminal and the victim. This is the first study that addresses the nature of the victim. von Hentig tried to explain that the victim was often a factor in the criminal act and expanded upon this notion (1948). von Hentig expressed that “increased attention should be paid to the crime— the provocative function of the victim.” He claimed that “With a thorough knowledge of the inter-relations between doer and sufferer, new approaches to the detection of crime will be opened (p 450).” Many of scholars credit Beniamin Mendelsohn as the ‘father’ of victimology. Mendelsohn coined the term “victimology” (Doer & Lab, 1998; Koichi, 1996; Lee, 2000). Mendelsohn, like von Hentig, was interested in the relationship between victims and offenders (Doerner & Lab, 1998). He used a questionnaire to ask about the situation in a criminal offense. By interviewing victims as well as bystanders and witnesses, he discovered a strong interpersonal relationship between victims and offenders (Doerner & Lab, 1998; Lee, 2000; Walklate, 1989). Mendelsohn made six categories based on legal considerations of victims’ blaming degree; completely innocent victims, victims with minor guilt or victims 2 due to ignorance, victims as guilty as the offender, victims guiltier than an offender, victims most guilty, and simulating or imaginary victim (Doerner & Lab, 1998; Lee, 2000; Walklate, 1989). His classification was used in many recent studies, both in criminology and victimology. Mendelsohn’s work is some of the most prominent in the areas of criminology and victimology (Doerner & Lab, 1998) However, the early victimologist generally failed to focus on the damage inflicted on the victims by their offenders. Also, the early victimologists were not interested in efforts regarding the victim’s rehabilitation or recuperation. In an attempt to understand the causes of crime, they concentrated on how the victim contributed to his or her demise. Eventually, the idea of victim precipitation emerged from this preoccupation of ‘blaming the victim”. The victim blaming contained in some of early victimological studies can be seen in the ways in which the police, courts, social workers and victim support agencies interact with victims (Williams, 1999). The critical victimology, however, shows much more interest in the practical effects of theories and policies upon actual victims, and in the dynamic relationship between theorizing and dealing with victims. Critical victimology is 3 one of the recent trends in victimology. Mawby and Walklate (1994) defined critical victimology as “an attempt to examine the wider social context in which some versions of victimology have become more dominant than others and also to understand how those versions of victimology are interwoven with questions of policy response and service delivery to victims of crime (p.21).” It began by deconstructing the assumptions beneath the individualistic, victim blaming tradition (Walklate, 1989) but rapidly moved on to consider ways of improving services to victims and of altering traditional thinking about victims’ right (Mawby & Walklate, 1994; Mullender, 1996). After the emergence of victimology, many criminal justice and victimology scholars have tried to gauge the extent of criminal victimization. Gauging this extent has been a long time goal in this area (Doerner & Lab, 1998). In the United States, information about crime and victimization had been based mostly on the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). Although the UCR was and is still widely used, many criminologists have argued that the statistics officially recorded by the police, or any other agent of the criminal justice system for the matter, are not an accurate measure of crime and victimization (Doerner & Lab, 1998; Walklate, 1989). Much research has been conducted in the last century in an effort to 4 demonstrate that officially recorded statistics of crime underreport crime, leading to the so-called ‘hidden crime’ in society. For a long time, criminologists have widely believed that the true amount of crime is largely unknown. The unknown quantity of crime in any given society is known as the ‘dark figure’ of crime (Doerner & Lab, 1998). The criticism and dissatisfaction with official records as an accurate measure of the amount and distribution of crime has led criminologists to construct an alternative measure of crime. The effort toward this end result is the victimization survey, which is based on interviews with samples of individuals who answer questions concerning their experiences with victimization (O’Brien, 1985). The victimization survey uses dramatically different measures of crime compared to official measures because they rely on ordinary citizens to remember and report to an interviewer their experiences as victims (Kim, Shim, & Cho, 1991 ). In Korea, the difference between the official data and victimization survey has not yet been systematically studied. Also, the study field and view towards this issue is very limited. In addition to this, the victimization survey which is the basis of the study, has been conducted sporadically and differentially. Therefore, 5 in order to clarify the overall crime level and to understand the sociological reasons of crime, various studies and improvements both in the quantity and quality of studies are necessary. Routine activity theory is a western-based theory that has been tested many times over in the United States. This theory has repeatedly proven to be reliable, and continues to be used throughout America, England, Australia, and Great Britain. Primarily, this theory is used when cities have “unstoppable” crimes. By unstoppable means crimes that continue to take place with police action or when police tactics have no discernible effect. At this time, it is better to focus on the victims instead of the criminals if the particular crime is to be controlled. By focusing on the victims, we can identify particular traits or variables that are present when the majority of the crimes occur. Consider this situation, a city if suffering from a large number of rapes in a certain suburban area, and police or public actions have no effect. In this situation, it would definitely be prudent to utilize the routine activity theory. In using this theory, we could identify which traits or variables seem to be present when the rapes occur. For example, if it could be found that one particular factor was present in most of the crimes we would seek to eliminate this factor from the suburban area. If the factor in question was lighting, which deals with the guardianship aspect of the routine activity theory, it would be looked to eliminate all the dark spots in that area. New streetlight fixtures would be erected, broken streetlights would be repaired, and it would be even possibly bring in high visibility police call boxes. From past experiences, these lighting measures would definitely have an effect on the rapes, much more so than if the police had chosen to concentrate on the criminals themselves instead of the victims. Routine activity theory is a commonly used approach for explaining criminal victimization in Western society (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). However, there is no study to explain the victims’ routine activities and the criminal victimization in Korea, even though the lifestyle in Korea has become more western. Cohen and Felson (1979) argued that the routine activity theory helps assemble some diverse and previously unconnected criminological analyses into a single substantive framework. Victimization is associated with lifestyle, daily routines, and demographics and for this reason, the routine activity theory is not only limited to western countries. The objective of this study is to examine the routine activity theory using the Korean crime study. The crime victimization data from the Korean 7 victimization survey will be analyzed to find out the relationship between an individuals’ daily routine activity and his or her actual victimization experience through micro-level analysis. Purpose of Study Victimology is a new field of inquiry in the social sciences, including Korea. In recent years in Korea, many scholars have tried to focus on the victims of crime, but there is no study that has measured the victims’ characteristics. Moreover, systematic research on the effects of victimization has not been conducted, and the survey itself is still very limited in Korea. Despite these difficulties, the re have been three victimization surveys conducted in Korea: once in Seoul in 1991, and after that, twice nationwide: in 1993 and again 1998 by the Korean Institute of Criminology. Studies that have used these data, however, had been descriptive studies. Moreover, a major threat to reliability has been the use of different questionnaires. This study attempts to investigate the extent and aspects of criminal victimization, to discover specific characteristics of victims and offenders, and to analyze those factors affecting micro-level (individual) criminal victimization in Korea, based on the routine activity theory. As the routine activities of the persons change, the aspect of personal criminal victimization of these individuals also changes. Routine activity theory suggests that the social context of criminal victimization is a central issue in understanding victimization risks (Lynch, 1987; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1997). Personal lifestyles and routine activities of individuals could partially explain personal criminal victimizations in Korea. The present study examines the key concepts underlying Routine Activities Theory (motivated offenders, suitable target, and absence of guardianship) to examine patterns of victimization in Korea. Measures of each concept are developed and evaluated in terms of their ability to explain individuals’ risks of property and violent crimes. The purpose of this study is to test empirically the routine activity theory, and examine similarities and differences in major factors associated with the personal - level victimization in Korea. Throughthis study, this approach can be used to explain crime rates, and may be used to plan for future needs of criminal justice services and personnel. Literature Review In the United States, the first victimization surveys were accomplished in the late 19603 (9.9., Biderman, Johnson, McIntyre & Weir, 1967; Reiss, 1967; Ennis, 1967), then methodology was studied and improved (US. Bureau of the Census, 1970; LEAA, 1972, 1974), and the National Crime Survey was implemented in 1972. The National Crime Survey was renamed to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which more clearly reflect the emphasis on the measurement of victimization experienced by U. S. citizens (Doerner 8 Lab, 1998). The NCVS collects detailed information about certain criminal offenses, both attempted and completed, that concern the general public and law enforcement (O’Brien, 1985). These offenses include the frequency and nature of rape, robbery, assault, household burglary, personal and household theft, and motor vehicle theft (O’Brien, 1985). Victimization surveys, however, have limitations. First, the NCVS does not measure homicide or commercial crime (Levitt, 1999). Second, the researchers who conduct these surveys find that those interviewed tend to incorrectly remember exactly when a crime occurred; such as in property 10 offenses, where victims often forget how much the losses were (Pursley, 1994). Third, by far the major problem associated with the victimization survey technique is its cost (Doerner & Lab, 1998). The greatest advantages come from surveys at the local level that focus on what can be done to upgrade neighborhood crime prevention and police effectiveness programs (Doer & Lab, 1998). However, the cost of conducting victimization surveys on an annual basis in most communities would be prohibitive, and most communities simply cannot afford them. Those limitations can affect their accuracy. During the past decades, many scholars and researchers have been interested in the question of personal differences in criminal victimization, especially explanations of why crimes occur and why some people rather than others are more likely to become the victims of crime. Kennedy and Sacco (1997) pointed out that there are two major explanations related to causation of victimization (p.93). The first explanation is questions of opportunity and attempts to understand the ways in which victimization episodes are distributed in time and space. The second major explanation type is intended to illuminate how victims and offenders affect and are affected by each other in the context of social change. As mentioned above, for this study, the crime trend is tested by 11 routine activities theory, since this approach can be used to explain crime rates, and plan future needs for criminal justice services and personnel (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Cohen & Cantor, 1981; Cohen, 1981; Messner & Tardiff, 1985; Felson, 1987). Routine Activity Theory In recent year, there are several attempts to specify the conditions necessary for victimization. These efforts go under such names as the “routine activity approach” (Cohen & Felson, 1979), the “opportunity perspective” (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Mayhew et al.,1976), and the“lifestyle opportunity” perspective (Hindelang, Gottfredson, 8 Garofalo, 1978). Routine activity theory is one of the most populartheories used to explain victimization. Routine activity theory suggests that “differences in victimization risk are due to differences in the routine activities of persons (Lynch, 1991: 545).” Crime and everyday life makes routine activity theory and its developments since 1979 by Cohen and Felson, accessible to students and scholars (Thompson & Fisher, 1996). Routine activity has been defined as “recurrent and prevalent activities (especially formalized work, provision of food and shelter, and leisure activities), which provide for basic population and individual needs” (Cohen & 12 Felson, 1979: 593). Hence, routine activities may occur at home or away from home, although the primary activity examined in most previous studies is the amount of time spent outside the home with nonhousehold members (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Routine activity theory focuses on certain social circumstances that cause victimization, which means that the person's daily routine lifestyle characteristics affect the criminal situation by determining how often suitable targets can be faced with motivated offenders (Copes, 1999). In other words, this theory sees crime as a function of people’s everyday behavior and seeks to explain the occurrence of criminal acts as the confluence of the following circumstances (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1986, 1994; Garofalo, 1987; Lynch, 1987; Miethe, et al., 1987; Miethe & Meier, 1990). First, there must be a motivated offender, who must be motivated and able to commit crime. While most theories tried to explain crime by focusing only on the offender, Cohen and Felson (1979) maintained that offenders represent just one element of the criminal situation. Second, there must be a suitable target. For these crimes to occur, there must be an object toward which the offender acts. For example, there must be a car before auto - theft can occur, a person present for an assault, or an unlocked 13 window to break into. Third, a suitable target must exist in the absence of capable guardianship. Capable guardianship means anybody or anything that might prevent the victimization from occurring. As used by Cohen and Felson (1979), the term does not refer only, or even mainly, to formal law enforcement in any narrow sense but to the whole range of factors that protect persons and property by discouraging offending. For the criminal act occurring, the target and the offender must be at the same place at the same time. The general point is that measuring routine activities only in terms of the total amount of time persons spend away from home is problematic unless adjustments are made for persons exposure risk by considering the nature and temporal patterning of these activities (Stafford & Galle, 1984). Many scholars have used routine activity theory to examine personal — level criminal victimization from several methodological perspectives within a variety of social contexts (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Garafalo, Siegel, & Laub, 1987; Lynch, 1987; Miethe, Stafford, & Long, 1987; Messner & Tardiff, 1985; Sherman, Garti n, & Buerger, 1989). In terms of this theory, the relationships between demographic variables and personal victimization can be attributed to differences 14 in lifestyle. Hindelang and his colleagues (1978) argued, “this is because various constellations of demographic characteristics are associated with role expectations and structural constraints that, mediated through individual and subcultural adaptations, channel lifestyles (p. 246).” Miethe and his colleagues (1987) theorized that the temporal dimension of routine activity theory was an important indicator of a person’s lifestyle and that this factor is separate from, and mediate the effect of, social demographic variables on victimization. They tried to assess the extent to which the measures of major activity during the daytime (outside the home) and frequency of nighttime activity away from home mediated the relationship between demographic factors and violent victimization, and between these factors and property victimization. They found that even if major activities during daytime and nighttime intervened in the relationship between victimization and selected demographic factors, they did so more strongly for property than for violent victimizations. Many studies found that demographic factors affected criminal victimization. The young, residents of urban areas, males and singles (unmarried persons) are exposed to motivated offenders because they are usually spending 15 their nighttime away from home (Gottfredson, 1984; Hindelang, et, al., 1978; and Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). Some studies, based on the National Crime Survey and British Crime Survey, showed that age, race, sex and marital status are generally among the most powerful predictors of interpersonal victimization (Cohen et al., 1981 ; Gottfredson, 1984, 1986; Laub, 1990), as well as larceny victimization (Cohen & Cantor, 1980). Based on the former studies, given that victimization rates are higher in nonhousehold locales (streets, parks, other buildings), persons whose major daytime activity has changed from “ in home” (e.g., homemakers, unemployed), to “ outside the home” (e.g., in school, employed) should experience an increased risk of victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The fact that predatory crime occurs disproportionately during evening hours should result in an increased risk of victimization among persons who increase their nighttime activity outside the home over time (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Among the various criminal behaviors, theft is one of the most frequently occurring crimes in the United States (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). More than 22.7 million people were victimized with theft offenses in 1994, representing 56% of all the criminal victimization that occurred in that year (Bureau of Justice 16 Statistics, 1995). According to the previous research, individual behaviors and social background are the most important factors that determine theft victimization (Mustaine & Tewsbury, 1998). Messer and Tardiff (1985) examined that the location of homicide (at home versus away from home) and the nature of the victim and perpetrator relationship could be predicted by the ability of several social demographic variables - gender, race, age, marital status, and employment status. They found that females, blacks, and Hispanics were more likely to be murdered by family members and friends than were others. They also found that women, the very young and old, and unemployed persons were more likely to be victimized at home than were persons in the respective comparison groups. Many scholars have been using the routine activity theory to strongly support the idea that movement into the public domain increases one’s risk for victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999). The person’s routine activities and lifestyle can be shown that movement in public places makes one a suitable target. For example, employed persons are more likely to be victimized than unemployed persons in the public locales, however, the unemployed are more often victimized than those individuals who stay in their homes for whatever 17 reason (Cohen & Cantor, 1981; Cohen, Cantor, & Kluegel, 1981). Some studies show that the persons who have the higher economic or symbolic value are more attractive targets, and thus are at greater risk of victimization than others (Lynch, 1987; Miethe & Meier, 1990). Therefore, persons with higher income, social - status, and education, who probably own more valuable properties, are more attractive to criminals and therefore are assumed to have higher risk of victimization (Cohen, et al., 1981; Miethe & Meier, 1994; Van Dijk, Mayhew, and Killias, 1990). Gottfredson (1984) demonstrated that persons spending nighttimes outside the home for leisure (e.g., at bars, movie, etc.) suffer a higher risk of victimization than those confining their leisure time to the home (see also Corrado, Roesch, Glackman, Evans, & Leger, 1980; van Dijk & Steinmetz, 1984). Regardless of the theoretical perspective of researchers, research indicates that offenders generally use distinguishing environmental stimuli that function as cues to provide important information about the potential targets (Bennett & Wright, 1984; Brantingham & Brantingham, 1978, 1981; Brown & Altman, 1981; Cromwell, Olson, & Avery, 1991; Wright & Decker, 1994). Personal — level criminal acts have reported a preference for targets that exhibit ‘useful’ characteristics, such as poor street lighting, lots of bushed obstructing 18 entry points, and quiet streets, which may result in low levels of surveillability and an abundance of hiding places (Litkermann, 1973; Phelan, 1977), which, environmental characters, are also related to the guardianship of potential victims. The routine activity analytical frameworks are said to assume as given the motivation to offend, and state that patterns in daily vocational and victimized by altering levels of exposure to potential offenders. 19 Introduction to Korea Population The population of South Korea was estimated at approximately 47,470,969 in 2000 estimated (CIA, 2000). The annual growth rate has been steadily declining since the 19605 and is now 0.93 % based on the annual birthrate of 15.12 per 1,000 (CIA, 2000). The majority of the people live in the South and southwestern coastal area. Seoul is the most populous region with 20% of the population followed by North Kyoung-sang Province (14.5%), South Jul-la province (12.7%), and Kyoung-Ki province. The pace of the urbanization was highest in the large metropolitan cities, such as Seoul and Pusan, which averaged 9% annually between 19605 and 1970s. Seoul itself contains one out of every five South Korean. Government efforts to stem the flow of the p0pulation from rural areas to towns include the new community movement, launched in 1971. This movement was designed to stimulate the rural environment by channeling state development funds to rural areas and this is successfully finished. South Korea is the world’s most ethnically and linguistically homogeneous nation. Virtually the entire population is of Korean origin and there is no evidence 20 of non-Mongoloid admixture. There is no national ethnic minority. The total resident, non-Korean population is estimated at no more than 50,000 of whom the majority is Nationalist Chinese. There are no widespread anti-western feelings among the native population (CIA, 2000). Crime in Korea Crime is a problem in Korea. Several changes in the economic opportunity structure and activity patterns in Korea have taken place in recent years. There have been major increases in traveling outside of the country, the single household, high educational level, and female labor force participation (especially married women), and the percent of unattended house during the daytime. A basic premise underlying the routine activity theory is that these change in routine activity patterns increase target suitability and motivated offenders, and decrease guardianship, and therefore affect the social and temporal distribution of victimization. According to the official criminal statistics, the total crime rate in Korea is 3,454 cases per 100,000 people. The crime rates (except traffic accidents) have increased 55.6% in last 14 years (517,691 cases in 1984 to 805,764 cases in 21 1997) (The Korean Supreme Prosecutor’ 3 Office, 1998). From these statistics, it can be said that murder does not show much increase, but robbery, rape, and arson has increased 3 to 6 times during the last 30 years. Murder has risen from 500 cases in 1968 to 789 cases in 1997, which shows continuous rise and falls between 500 and 800 cases. Robbery has increased by approximately 4.5 times during the last 30 years from 946 cases in 1968 to 4,284 cases in 1997. Seen from the yearly rates, the 1979 rate seems similar or a little decreased compared to that of 1968, however, the numbers skyrocketed since then; 2,374 cases in 1980, 3,135 cases in 1985, and 4,195 cases in 1990. In 1991, the rate declined to 2,766 cases, but shot again to 4,496 in 1994, which reached the peak. The rate decreased from 3,414 cases in 1995 to 3,586 cases in 1996. The number was 4,282 in 1997, which was increased by 6,96 compared to the previous year. Rape had rose from 1,350 cases in 1968 to 7,120 cases in 1997, which shows approximately by 5.3 times during the last 30 years. The data show that since the early 1980’s, which was the end of the 3rd Economic Development Movement in Korea, the serious crime rates had significantly increased because the economic situation was getting better in that 22 Table 1. Number of reported major penal code offenses (1989 - 1998)“ 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 Then 100600 65031 6'7724—77—094 60492 fiw 60790 68812 80995 676? Robbery 4065 4195 2766 2549 2676 4469 3414 3566 4262 5407 Rape 5102 5519 5175 5465 7051 6169 4912 5666 5665 6016 Assault 6. Bod", 25629 25524 25627 24799 27917 30400 26151 29240 26466 33635 Injury *Source: Crime Statistics (1999) era (White Book, 1999). This seems to defy current criminological thought. Therefore, this trend shows that the lifestyle and routine activity in Korea has been changed in that period (e.g., high income, working condition, outdoor activities, and so on.), and this situation affected the crime rates. As shown table 1, the crime rates in Korean during 1997 to 1998 were dramatically increased, since the Asian Economic Crisis was started in 1997. During the crisis, livelihood — related crimes were especially increased, for example, theft and robbery. Theft had increased from 68,812 cases in 1996 to 80,995 cases in 1997, and continuously increased in 1998. All other criminal code offenses have been increased since 1994. 23 Figure 1. Number of reported major penal code offenses (1989 - 1998) 120000 100000 4‘ "K ‘\ ’ ‘- 80000 5 ’4’ The“ \ I X ' —°—Robbery 60000 «17,—4“ —&'-Rape 40000 X _;j(_ _*_ . '9K- Assault& :11 - x - x - x 1 x ’K x bodily injury 20000 0 l 1 al I l l_ l $§§§§§$§§§ The objective of this study is to adapt the routine activity theory using the Korean crime study. The crime victimization data resulting from Korean victimization survey will be analyzed to find out the relationship between an individuals daily routine activities and his or her actual victimization experience through micro-level analysis. 24 Method The purpose of this study is to find special characteristics of personal - level victimization in Korea. To examine the personal — level criminal victimization, data are analyzed from Victimization Survey in Korea conducted in 1998 by the Korean Institute of Criminology (KIC). The following is a discussion of the research question and the related hypotheses. The general characteristics of samples in original research are categorized by the respondents’ residential region, personal socio — economical level, and households’ socio — economic characteristics. In this study, however, the total victimization information is used. Sample This study uses nationally represented samples of 2,100 subjects over the age of 15 or above. Che-ju Island was not in this sampling frame due to cost effectiveness concerns. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews spanning 10 days from 1 May 1999 to 10 May 1999. 25 Variables For this study, the demographic variables (sex, age, family annual income, educational level, etc.), the lifestyle variables (daytime activity, nighttime activity, leisure activity, fear of crime, etc), and the guardianship variables (times of house vacancy, perception toward the police, residential circumstance condition, self defense, etc.) are used. There are further explanations below. 1. Independent variables The variable posited to mediate the impact of demographic attributes on the likelihood of victimization is the measure of the quantity and nature of routine activities outside the home. As mentioned above, many previous studies have examined the routine activity theory to explain criminal victimization, but they used different ways to test the routine activity theory. Three factors are tested in this study: demographic factor, lifestyle factor, and absence of capable guardians. Demographic Factors The demographic factors used in this study are gender, marital status, age, educational level, occupation, and household income are used. Gender was coded into two dummy categories, male (= 1) and female (= 0). Most studies 26 have found that persons who are more likely to be victimized are singles and/or males (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). Marital status was dichotomized into single or not. The single includes ‘widowed’, ‘separated’, ‘divorced’, and ‘never married”. The ‘separated’ status is still legally ‘married’ status, however, since the separated person lives alone, this is included in the ‘single’ variable in this study. Consequently, marital status, also serves as a proxy measure for the availability of capable guardians (Maxfield, 1987). Due to the overall low frequencies of each occupational category, these occupational categories were recoded into a new category called “employed”. Table 3 is a summary table indicating sample sizes and percentages of demographic variables. Lifestyle factors ‘Lifestyle factors’ are any activities that put someone at risk for victimization and could include routine lifestyle and that the visibility to offenders or their informants. Tremblay and Tremblay (1998) said “a crucial lifestyle variable is the amount of time a person spends in public places and among non- family members (p.295).” They also said that “an important routine activity 27 Table 3. Descriptive of demoggphic factors Demographic N % Gender 2,100 Male 1,048 49.9 Female 1,052 50.1 A00 Range 1 3—87 Mean 37.3 Educational Level 2,097 Never been school 61 2.9 Elemantary school 179 8.5 Middle school 234 11.2 High school 867 41.3 Community College 234 11.2 4-year University 488 23.3 Graduate school 34 1.6 Employment 2,077 No 898 42.8 Yes 948 56.8 Household Monthly Income 1,941 Mean 1,994,700 me 0-20,000,000 variable is the ‘away from household activity ratio’- an index designed to measure variations over time in crime opportunity levels (p.295).” The four variables used for measuring lifestyle (see Table. 4) were relation to victimization in this study are commute, daytime activity, transportation, and nighttime activity. The variable named ‘commute’ was obtained from dichotomous variable (yes — no). The ‘transportation’ variable was recoded into three categories: public (=1), private (=2), and private/risky (=3). The ‘public’ 28 transportation includes urban bus, village bus, seat bus, cross-country bus, commute bLS, school bus, subway, train, and taxi. The ‘private’ transportation. includes car, and RV or van. The ‘private/risky transportation includes bicycle or walk, which can be included into the‘private’ transportation. Since these are riskier than other ‘private’ transportation, it was separately categorized. The ‘daytime activity was categorized into two domains: home/school (=1) and work (=2). The daytime activity at school is nonhousehold activity, however, since the school is one of the safest places in Korea from personal victimization, this activity was combined with ‘household’ activity. The ‘nighttime activity variable indicates if the respondent’s evening activity away from home more than once a week or not. A measure of the individuals nighttime activity was dummy coded, more than once a week (= 1) and less than once a week or never (= 0). The persons who spend their evening time away from home more than others increase their encounters with potential offenders and are at greater risk of individual victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). Given that victimization occurs disproportionately at night, 29 Table 4. Descriptive of lifestyle factors Lifestyle N % Commute 2,100 No 743 35.4 Yes 1,357 64.6 Transportation 1,347 Public 684 50.7 Private 397 29.5 Private/Risky 266 19.8 Daytime Activity 2,057 At home or At School 952 46.3 At Working Place or Outside 1,105 53.7 Nighttime Activity 2,097 More than once a week 987 47.1 Less than once a week or Never 1,110 53.0 the frequency of nighttime entertainment (evening activity) was the best available measure of a nonhousehold activity that should increase exposure to risk (Hindelang et al., 1978). Guardianship factors The concept of ‘ capable guardianship’ is not clearly defined in past researches. However, Eck and Weisburd (1995) defined a ‘guardian’ as a person who can protect a target (P. 5), including friends and formal authorities such as police and security personnel, “intimate handlers’ such as parents, 30 Table 5. Descriptive of guardianship factors Guardianship N Self-defense activity (scale: 5-25) Avoid specific area Do not walk alone at night Postpone a night schedule Do not carry much cash Do not take a cap alone at night Cronbach's Alpha = 0.79 Perception toward the neighbor (scale: 4-16) Help each other Know well each other Rent easily personal possessives Share information on the neighborhood Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.88 Perception toward the neighborhood (scale: 4-16) Trash disposed carelessly Vacant houses or land Many dark and secluded places Specific place with delinquent juveniles Cronbach's Alpha = 0.63 Perception toward the police work (scale: 3-12) Patrol well Immediate dispatch Trust police work Cronbach‘s Alpha = 0.74 teachers, coaches, friends, employers, and ‘place managers’ such as janitors, and apartment managers (Eck, 1994;Eck & Weisburd, 1995:5, 6, 55; Felson, 1 986, 1995221). 31 Table 6. Descriptive of dependent variable N % Personal Total 2,100 No 1 .893 89.8 Yes 207 1 0.2 Larceny 2,100 No 1 .955 93.1 Yes 145 6.9 Robbery 2,100 No 2,077 98.9 Yes 23 1 .1 Assault 2,100 No 2,061 98.1 Yes 39 1.9 Sexual Sexual [Felony] 1,044 No 983 94.2 Yes 61 5.8 2. Dependent variable Personal - level victimization and sexual victimization are analyzed. Personal-level victimization includes personal-level larceny, personal-level robbery, injured or nearly injury by an assault, and sexual assault and harassment. Sexual assault and harassment was asked only to female respondents. The experiences of the personal victimization, except sexual assault and harassment, were computed into one category, which includes all three victimization experiences: personal - level larceny, personal— level robbery, and 32 injured or nearly injured by an assault. Due to the overall low frequencies of each victimization category, these victimization categories were combined into a new category, called “victimized”. Table 6 is a summary table indicating sample size and percentages of each victimization variable. The respondents answered each victimization question based on their victimization experiences during 1998. All dependent variables were dichotomized (victimization =1 or no- victimization=0). Research questions As mentioned previously, the general purpose of this study is to find the special characteristics of personal —level victimization in Korea. In this section, the questions are developed based on the literature review. As mentioned before, personal life style and routine activities affect personal victimization. However, personal lifestyle and routine activities differ in many ways from society to society. The uniqueness of each society in its culture, political situation, population size, composition, factors associated with personal — level victimization vary among different routine activities, and wealth generates different criminal victimization styles. Therefore, this study assumes that there would be variations in the 33 personal - level victimization in different routine activities. This study tests the following hypothesis: Ho: There is no relationship between victims’ routine activities and personal level victimization (larceny, assault, robbery, and sexual crime). Ha: There is a relationship between victims’ routine activities and personal level victimization (larceny, assault, robbery, and sexual crime). Analytic technique A total of two bivariate analyses and two of multivariate analyses were tested. To conduct bivariate analysis of effects, Chi-square analysis is used to address the relationship of each factor of routine activities theory and the personal level victimization, including larceny, robbery, assault, and sexual crime. To test the demographic factors, this study considers gender, age, marital status, educational level, and income. Also to measure the lifestyle factors, this study is considers commute, transportation, daytime activity, and nighttime activity. This analysis is used to test the absence of guardianship factors affects the victimization. Regression analyses were used to assess the effects of demographic, lifestyle, and guardianship variables on the dependent measure while controlling for other variables. The appropriate regression analysis for models with a binary dependent variable, such as victimization/nonvictimization, is logistical regression (Long, 1997). Many criminal justice researchers have used this model, although it is the most appropriate for a dichotomous dependent variable. 35 Results This chapter presents the results of the study. It presents information on the characteristics of victims and the effects of these cl'eracteristics on their victimization. Also, it presents information on the types of routine activities of victims and their impact on victimization. Victims’ Characteristics on personal level victimization (larceny, robbery, and assault) Table7 presents base line information on the victims on personal level victimization sampled for this study. As shown the table, some characteristics are vastly different between victims and non-victims. Results indicate that nine variables significantly related to the victimization: marital status (p<.01), educational level (p<.05), age (p<.001), household income (p<.01), commute (p<.01), daytime activity (p<.01), self—defense activity (p<.01), perception towards the neighborhood (p<.001), and perception towards the police work (p<.05) were significantly related to the personal level victimization. While many formal studies have shown that gender Is one of the most significant variables to measure victimization, this variable is not significant in this 36 Table 7. Victims’ characteristics of Personal level crime Victimization NO YES N % N % Gender 0 Female 950 49.8 102 52.8 1 Male 957 50.2 91 47.2 Marital Status “ 0 Not married 821 43.1 104 54.5 1 Married 1083 56.9 87 45.5 Employment 0 No 806 42.7 92 48.2 1 Yes 1080 57.3 99 51.8 Educational Level ' 1 Never been school 59 3.1 2 1.0 2 Less than high school 390 20.5 23 11.9 3 High school 780 41.0 87 45.1 4 Community college 208 10.9 26 13.5 5 4-year University or higher 467 24.5 55 28.5 Age m Mean 37.6 32.9 Median 35.0 30.0 Income (Korean Won) “ Mean 196.8 225.2 Median 112.4 200.0 Commute “ 0 No 693 36.3 50 25.9 1Yes 1214 63.7 143 74.1 Daytime Activity “ 1 Mostly at home 552 27.9 33 17.5 2 Mostly at school 345 18.5 52 27.5 3 Mostly at work 1001 53.6 104 55.0 Nighttime activity 1 Almost everyday 252 13.2 35 18.1 2 Once In two or three dats 267 14.0 35 18.1 3 Once a week 363 19.1 35 18.1 4 Once or twice a month 483 25.4 51 26.4 5 Hardly ever 418 22.0 28 14.5 6 Never 121 6.4 9 4.2 Self defense activity “ Mean 8.16 8.94 Median 7 8 Neighbor Mean 13.08 12.85 Median 7 13 Neighborhood ‘“ Mean 8.21 8.87 Median 8 9 Police work ' Mean 7.73 7.45 Median 8 8 Note: ' = p<.05, "=p<.01, “=p<001 37 analysis. The measure of marital status indicated that 54.5% of victims were single compared to 45.5% of married victims, which meant that the single was more vulnerable on the personal level victimization. The contingency table for educational level showed that almost 90 percent of victims had high school degree or higher. The higher the educational level, the higher the victimization. Among them, the person who completed high school is the most victimized (45.1% of total victims.) The mean age of victims was 32.9 years old, while non- victims’ average age was 37.6 years old. The formal research also shows that age is one of the most striking indicators of crime victimization (Hindelang, et al., 1977; Markides & Tracy, 1976), and this study also showed the victims were more likely to be the young on the personal level victimization in Korea. Related to the average household income of the victims, 2,225,200 Korean Won ($1.00 = 1,300 Won, in February, 2002) a month, which was almost 10% higher than non- victims’ household monthly income. The higher socio-economical status, the more the victimization of personal level victimization in Korea. Almost three quarters of victims were commuting, while 63.7% of non- victims did stayed home or at school. This result indicated that many crimes occurred when the people commuted or were away from home. More than half 38 of victims (55%) spent their time at the working place when they were victimized, while twenty-seven percent (27%) of victims spent their time at school, and less than twenty percent (17.5%) of victims were victimized at home. Four measures of ‘guardianship’ are included in the analysis. Cohen and Felson (1979) created the individual activity ratio to indicate the extent to which individuals are ‘unprotected’ by perception of their environment. The persoris self defense activities, their perception towards the neighborhood, and the perception towards the police work were significantly related in the personal level victimization. Victims’ Characteristics on sexual victimization Table 8 provides baseline data on the victims of sexual victimization sampled for this study. As shown in the table, some characteristics are vastly different between victims and non-victims. The sexual victimization was affected by the victims’ marital status (p<.001), educational level (p<.01), age (p<.001), commute (p<.001), daytime activity (p<.001), nighttime activity (p<.001), self defense activity (p<.05), perception towards the neighbor (p<.05), perception towards the neighborhood (p<.01), and perception towards the police work 39 (p<.001) were significantly related to the personal level victimization. Table 8 showed that over 85 percent of the female victims were single, while almost half of non-victims were single. The persons with higher educational background were more likely to be victimized than with lower educational background, while there were 5 percent of non-victims who had never been to school. The average of victims was 25.5 years old, comparing to the non-victim’s average age of 38.1 years old. This result showed that young women were more vulnerable to sexual crime. According to the results, the person with higher household income was victimized more than with lower household income. The average household level income of victims was almost 10 percent higher than non-victims’ average household income. Almost 80 percent of sexual crime occurred outside the home during the daytime, since 46.7 percent of victims were at work place and 3 percent of victims were at school. Nighttime activities were also significantly affected to the sexual victimization. Almost 80 percent of victims were going out more than once or more a month at night, while over 40 percent of non-victims 40 Table 8. Victims’ characteristic of Sexual Crime Victimization NO YES N % N % Marital Status **’ 0 Not married 410 41.8 52 85.2 1 Married 572 58.2 9 14.8 Employment 0 No 527 54.3 35 57.4 1 Yes 444 45.7 26 42.6 Educational Level "' 1 Never been school 45 4.6 0 0.0 2 Less than high school 231 23.5 3 4.9 3 High school 410 41.8 28 45.9 4 Community college 106 10.8 12 19.7 5 4-year University or higher 190 19.3 18 29.5 Age ... Mean 38.1 25.5 Median 35.0 22.0 Income (Korean Won) Mean 195.4 214.7 Median 180.0 200.0 Commute “” 0 No 483 49.1 15 24.6 1 Yes 500 5.9 46 75.4 Daytime Activity "" 1 Mostly at home 404 42.0 44 18.3 2 Mostly at school 159 16.5 21 35.0 3 Mostly at work 400 41.5 28 46.7 Nighttime activity "" 1 Almost everyday 86 8.8 12 19.7 2 Once in two or three days 78 8.0 11 18 3 Once a week 142 14.5 12 19.7 4 Once or twice a month 266 27.1 19 31.1 5 Hardly ever 315 32.1 7 11.5 6 Never 94 9.6 0 0 Self defense activity * Mean 9.69 10.67 Median 9 10 Neighbor ' Mean 13.19 12.16 Median 14 12 Neighborhood '* Mean 8.22 9.13 Median 8 9 Police work “" Mean 7.78 6.98 Median 8 7 Note: " = p<.05, "=p<.01, "" =p<.001 41 answered about their nighttime activities as “hardly ever or never.’ For measuring the guardianship factors, the victim’s self-defense activity, perception towards the neighbor, neighborhood, and the police work are significantly related to the sexual victimization. The predictors of routine activities of victims on personal level victimization After examining the difference of routine activities on between victims and non-victims, the following section examines the predictors of routine activities of all victims on personal level victimization using logistical regression (Refer to table 9). The bivariate models used earlier do not statistically control for the effects of multiple variables on routine activities, logistic regression models are used to examine the effects of victims’ routine activities on the personal level victimization. Logistic regression is the most appropriate method if analysis for two reasons (Aldrich & Nelson, 1984; Hanushek & Jackson, 1977). First, the operationalizations include both continuous and categorical variables. Second, the measure of victimization is a skewed dichotomous variable. This allows a 42 clearer examination of the factors that may attribute to victims being victimized under certain conditions. The aim to see whether the routine activity of victims is contingent upon their routine activity itself, or other characteristics of victims. The findings from the logistic regression analysis of the effects of routine activities on personal level victimization experiences appear in Table 9 and are quite mixed. For instance, two proximities to demographic measures (employment and household income), one lifestyle measure (daytime activity), and two guardianship measures (self-defense activity and perception towards neighborhood) are associated with personal level victimization experience. The employed person carries a higher risk of victimization on personal level crimes. Also, the person who has higher household income is more likely to be victimized on the personal level victimization. Among the lifestyle factors, the daytime activity was the only significant factor. The persons who spent more time outside during the daytime were more likely to be victimized on personal level crime. The person who was doing or having self-defense activity has less chance to be victimized. It meant that self-defense activity was helpful to prevent victimization from personal level crime. Perception toward their neighborhoods was also significant. 43 Table 9. Characteristics of Victims Regressed on the Number of Conditions (Personal level victimization) Full Model _V_a_riaLble B QSE Exp (B) Constant -3.61 0.81 Gender -0.02 0.20 0.9928 Age 001 0.01 1 .0046 Marital Status 0.08 0.23 0.7449 Employment -0.43 0.22 0.7736 "’ Educational level 0.01 0.03 1.0490 Household Income (Korean Won) 0.00 0.00 1.0014 "* Commute 0.00 0.27 1 .2303 Daytime Activity 075 0.32 0.2938 ” Nighttime Activity 0.12 0.18 1.0447 Self-Defense Activity 0.08 0.03 1.0487 ”* Perception towards Neighbor 0.01 0.03 1.0494 Perception towards Neighborhood 0.15 0.04 1.1550 "" Perception towards police work -0.06 0.05 0.9050 Log-likelihood 1170.66 Chi-square 52.74 R-square 0.1 ” p<.05, “ p<.01, "” p<.001. The R square of personal level victimization indicates that 10 percent of the variance in personal level crime was explained by the independent variables. In summary, employment status, household income, daytime activity, self-defense activity, and perception toward the neighborhoods were identified as significant predictors of victimization of personal level crime. Table 10. Characteristics of Victims Regressed on the Number of Conditions (Sexual victimization) Full Model Mble 8 SE Expt B) Constant -1.06 1.48 Age -0.04 0.02 0.9588 * Marital Status -1.51 0.46 0.1745 *” Employment 0.13 0.33 1.6796 * Educational Level 0.02 0.10 1.0320 ” Household Income (Korean Won) 0.00 0.00 1.0007 *” Commute -0.49 0.55 0.7979 Daytime Activity -0.29 0.60 1.4361 Nighttime Activity 0.08 0.32 1.2606 Self-Defense Activity 0.08 0.05 1.1106 Perception towards Neighbor -0.02 0.05 0.9884 Perception towards Neighborhood 0.14 0.08 1.1612 Perception towards police work -0.19 0.10 0.9073 * Log-likelihood 427.21 Chi-square 71.68 R-square 0.20 The predictors of routine activities of victims on sexual victimization The findings from the logistic regression analysis of the effects of routine activities on sexual level victimization experiences appear in Table 10. The result shows that age, marital status, employment status, educational level, household level income, and perceptiontowards police work were significant factors to predict victimization of the sexual crime. According to the result, the employed person carries a higher risk of 45 victimization on sexual level crimes. Also, the person who has higher household income is more likely to be victimized on the sexual level victimization characteristics. The age variable is also showed significant statistical result. It means that the younger female individual is more likely to be victimized on the sex-related crime. Marital status is also the important factor to predict the victimization on the sex crime, which means that the single are more vulnerable on this type of crime. On the sexual victimization, no life style shows statistically significant in this study. Perception towards police work is statistically significant. The persons who have been victimized have more negative perception towards the police work. The R square of sexual level victimization indicates that 20 percent of observed variability in sexual level crime was explained by the independent variables. In summary, age, marital status, employment status, household income, and perception toward police work were identified as significant predictors of victimization of sexual level crime. 46 Conclusion The popularity of the routine activity approach for the explanation of victimization and crime rates has dramatically increased in the last few years. Social differentiation in the likelihood of victimization is commonly attributed to differences in routine activities/lifestyles that place suitable targets who lack guardianship on proximity to motivated offenders. This study used theory and research on personal level crimes to provide conceptualizations of central concepts from a routine activities approach to criminal victimization. By laying out this framework, it was able to assess the importance of individual characteristics in personal level victimization. The primary question addressed in this study was “there is a relationship between the personal victimization and routine activities.” The result of this study suggest that routine activities are a population vulnerable to crime victimization, and the some routine activities that characterize the personal lifestyle contribute to the victimization of personal level victimization. Based on the logistic regression results, it appears that demographic factor has a significant amount of explanatory potential when it comes to influences over women’s sexual victimization. Variation in the personal level 47 incidences of larceny, robbery, and assault appears to be result of a variety of demographic factors (such as employment status, household income), a lifestyle factor (such as daytime activity), and guardianship factors (such as perception towards their neighborhood, and self-defense activities). On the other hand, variation in the sexual level victimization appears to the result of a variety of demographic factors (such as age, marital status, employment status, and household income) and a guardianship factor (such as perception towards police work). These indicators provide support for routine activity explanations for personal level victimization in Korea. Additionally, and of equal importance, are the measures that are not important predictors of personal level victimization. As previous research has shown, lifestyle factors are influential in aiding to our understanding of personal level victimization determinants, however, in this study, these factors are not influential in the personal level victimization in Korea. This is of particular interest because it is the contention of routine activity scholars that the effects of a person’s status on his or her risk of victimization will be negated when personal lifestyle characteristics and activities are considered. This research provides strong support for the notion that it is not whom the persons are that determines 48 their chances for victimization but rather what they do, where they are, and with whom they come in contact. In personal level crimes, this study found that the single who is working is more likely to be a victim. However, as shown before, most females are faced on the sexual crime threat, since the employment status, daytime activities, nighttime activities, and other independent variables are statistically significant on the sexual victimization. Most people think that the sexual crime is most occurred at home, but this study shows that the home is the safest place since there was no victimization at home. Interestingly, the big difference between the western society and Korea is that gender is not the significant variable to predict the victimization, while most studies conducted in the western society have shown the gender is the most significant variable to measure the personal level victimization. Although these findings provide for a clear and relatively thorough understanding of victimization risks in Korea, they must be viewed in light of limitations of this study. There are some problems shown in victim survey. First possible problem is cost of large samples. It is indicated that most large-scale public opinion surveys are conducted with sample sized of less than a thousand 49 or two. Victim surveys require such large samples because there are few crime cases shown among the sample. This means that the most majority of respondents are not likely to have been victimized in the past year or six months, it becomes necessary to interview large numbers to get only a few victims. Glaser ( 1978) explains that by using official statistics one must survey ten respondents to obtain one victim. For more rare victimizations such as rape, even larger numbers are needed to obtain a few cases. Also, because sampling error is proportionate to the size of the sample instead of the size of the population being sampled, one often needs as large a sample to estimate victimizations in small or large cities as would be necessary for the entire nation. Second, false reports on the part of respondents may produce erroneous victim data. Some falsity in victim reports should be expected according to Levine (1976), who found that respondents were inaccurate in disclosing behavior with respect to voting, finances, business practices, sexual behavior, academic performance, and other activities. Certainly, one would be overoptimistic in assuming greater accuracy in recall of criminal victimization. Mistaken reporting is another source of error in victim surveys. Thomas’ “definition of the situation” holds that, if individuals inaccurately feel that a 50 situation is real, it is nevertheless real in its consequences (Thomas & Swaine, 1928). A person who has lost something may inaccurately but honestly, believe it was stolen. Poor memory on the part of those surveyed is another potential limitation in surveying possible victims of crime. Memory failure, or recall decay, refers to the phenomenon of progressive memory loss as the distance increase 3 between the time of the event and the time of the interview concerning the event. A principal type of memory fading in victim surveys is telescoping — the tendency of respondents to move forward and report as having occurred event that actually took place before the reference period. That is, a crime that happened two years ago is mistakenly reported as having taken places within the last six months. Overreporting in victimization surveys may be accounted for by the fact that when asked, respondents will report to interviewers acts that they ordinarily would regard as too trivial or unimportant to warrant police attention. Much of the deep, dark figure of crime consists of minor property crime, a good proportion of which would most likely have been unfounded by police (Black, 1970) There is another possible limitation that is shown in this study, since this study is using the secondary data. The major disadva ntages of secondary 51 sources analysis are as follows: First, sometimes the purpose of the original data collection is incidentally related to the researcher’s goals and interests. Specific questions that researchers would prefer to ask may not be included in available data. Second, there is no way that researchers can reconstruct missing data in available secondary data. Data reliability can be affected by the nonresponse and the incompleteness of information, which may be an important limitation. Third, researchers must often speculate about the meaning of phraseology in various documents, and they lack the opportunity of obtaining further clarification from respondents. And finally, researchers must devise codes to classify the contents of documents a nalyzed. If their analyses are conducted over time, it is possible that missing information may exist frustrating their coding efforts. Despite the shortcomings of victim surveys and secondary data analysis that have been elaborated, it should be pointed out the no method of data gathering is perfect. Many of these sources of error are not the sole province of victim surveys, but may apply equally to some of the other techniques of data gathering. Victim surveys are a relatively young endeavor in criminal justice. Much has already been learned, and much has yet to be learned in future methodological analyses. 52 This study tests an important body of theory within victimization research that is commonly accepted but not well supported on the victimized situation in Korea. A strong case has be made a strong case that different opportunity structures exist for personal level victimization and that multi-level analysis reveals the complexity of the opportunity structures of crime events. Also, differences in the opportunity structures underlying the personal level crimes, included larceny, burglary, assault, and sexual crimes, in large part account for differences in the ability of the routine activity theory to explain them. The answers given to the research question in this article raise some meaningful questions for future research. Based on the answers, future research should focus on the effects of heterogeneity in the patterns of routine activities. First, questions about the effects of more detailed indicators of people’s routine activities should be put on the agenda of victimological research in a life history approach. Second, the scope of future studies can be testing more dynamic hypotheses derived from routine activity theory. As some scholars have argued, a individual’s risk of victimization will be related not only to patterns of routine activities but also to changes in these patterns. In conclusion, the findings of this article stress the importance of the 53 developments in criminology toward more studies in criminal victimization in Korea. It is hope that future studies on victimization will make frequent use of the routine activity approach, so that they can provide powerful insights into the causal process behind criminal victimization. Replications will also give insight in whether the results of this study are specific for the Koreans or even for the data setused. APPENDICES 55 Appendix A. Survey Questionrfiire (Korean Version) 235.121 béla‘lfiloilOll no} 524 Malawi? asexiwaaoe oiai 7le ‘tia‘l stair. ‘aa‘loll one mois— oiaoinzi asoiixi oil—a saris 2314:}. xioi fl-‘i’QJOlloir‘E -?— area-oi sum es— ,4 s- an ‘31—‘52] viola-sin aoioi 7§7l32l£i ’13}in t’éa‘lfiloiloll one awa— o—oioir. aisqoi. oi 2.242.:- 199160“ as axis Olall Liieoi axial;- 7:42.; as oiaisoixi ‘ailoll ow Era—g— aoi sari} mugs—s— oi as or— 9.15% Mews oiziioim. some-silo“ trio} allow—s- viasiazi {oi—:- %Z‘il—.% min alt-:94. oi asiioiiA —::— sexioi uiaoi aaoi swim. slow as Aiuiioixia «was as zilfil%17l 449.3. °l-‘f-°litl-.% as om El genesis was: %7lloi.e§ i‘lEIEWI nil—soil 7w 41 9°“ clones- aoi ataxia eta-Hui. so} owl-71am:— €54:le ole-oi assist oioioii—rs sol Ala-sin are $131144. some ass aoioi 419421:- eas— was Bl%ol°il 2r— oia oiai Ales-oi so; #— ai—ts ‘aa‘lfiloll-S- €01.11 ‘aa‘loll :ii a oiai 7le Elois- oiaoin aoioi iota/«i seam, sol aaeoioi air—om oiaqci. Blflflél %-°llE sis-oi Alas Lll°l xioi salon aaoioi so. oii aisioi missile. 19996 5% ‘24. 1351133413 33°35”?! oi aw:— autogxizgzaar-aa aasoisalaoia Eraser :1 alts-HE}. BEAM see-slot oi-E-Aioioi alone QiXil—E—Xl oi are aeoiooi Eli-A171 oiaqui. ass/«imam eases—re (as-oi 02-575-5288) 56 oi sexis— Moi ewes ale—Eli:- 27ll9l sis-2a oi:— oizi olefin. taxi oiat—e oiolsioi swig. an, nave—as- aoiooi 413W cioi a 7le sari oioia season nioioi soioizii °4¥=°l azui aqui. Ea aoioii oi aria 1e soinggaa is 1%1-‘i’-Ei 1998a 12% 3427mm oi oi 7le ‘aa‘li—‘i—Ei mois— ea oioi alt—21°“ oioioi slit-Oi 3.2% flail-3141:}. oi lie—s a—E-Zl 7is—oii £39.: FolOl oi ooi ass—21a— ago; as saw oiaaioi oiiaoii Zi-oioi oil-E- ssaqq. ERR/#61?! so sass—oi moi—:5— so ago] ai-r: a soil soioi ZiZioi easioi uisioi oizioi aim—riot aes- Ea mi oilici. oi ass- aszi 7l—.?:tll £1912: sioi 9.19.01, so 2M sis-ow soloisiwi Rlfltlsi. ciao} semi/oi 2M] oi 73w emission unsioi snag Ell‘%}% oilZFklOi 6l:‘:- 2i- sane. oi ass-oi ciiozi asioi solo} see ‘tia‘l‘ai‘f: sis —?—al/~l as: aasivi asioi iii—EM assign, vista arias-oi oi CiElE Miami meoiooi sma- Biol oioi. {is—oi liege Lioi. 8413144. oi oi oiaiioa- affirm—S.- oioi aoiq 7le6le Dl’tloli “WEE: ‘Z—lfifiialg l 2 3 4 5 6 7 57 .. taxi oi?) Alfilgl 83413901) oioii asioi 9423-9..- oioiooi 13315—145). 1. =rlislie ewiaoii oils iol°l1+ Ill%—.% 2.2; sot—s- so) as; oisnpi? (swizia misioi 5W7) oiaqcii 1) 7); 2) $1? 3) Ola": __ 4) 415': __ 5) Egalfllafl 6) Eltlg __ 7) 4M 8) 7lEl<¥illozlgiz ) 2. rial?) oliZlfsl7loll 2‘le 5928 4lo) oi—alblal Hillel gaging $47) OHM! 9211431 £43977)? __ 1) an) %7lol%tcl 2) 257W} 350W) 3) :8 first} 4) 735:1) 3501):} 5) a?) aismici —— —— —— 3. 416)?) A£7—lf5l7l0ll ili1 93):! Al°l ”931 9.1%:— %Lil9l ‘tia‘lt'a‘ofl $41l7l0l’5’fll 519113131 144L177}? 1) a?“ %7l6l‘iiti 2) %7ltl 38°lCl 3) 111 first} 4) 734:5} 180M 5) Evil Qiol‘zitl —— —— —— _— 4. 716%? s- %‘-°ll*l oi-aioiaioiw 7w 5:417) El‘f: sols sotoiaisa 4321(8) 4474? (wins Kololml -’f—*l7l uiaoici) __ 01) t—t‘fl __ 02) 79E __ 03) 7&2}, *3??? _ 04) £33, 33H __ 05) fill], Ql’tlullull __ 06) EE, inll5<17l __ O7) 47] _ 08) 5333.31)? __ 09) “szull’ii __10) 5123-7-31“, 34% ___11) 73.493 ”133 _ 12) 7lE’r(-_ilill’§.9.i I ) . -.....-. ..... 58 5. 518)?) AHM:— ‘él £17119) 7M5: til—’60" EX) €5.- wll 516):- $113M 518-8—8- 58894? __ 1) t1ll-‘1’- $84 __ 2) lid-51’.- $10M __ 3) :121 :Lfiitl __ 4) 113—131] as FliOICl __ 5) 4181 5%an evil 6. as Aie—as— 4717i soloists- ‘32}11E E-E—Clrt— Ir— s—s— 421:0. 2141—144. ss- aoioi aaoiiaoiioi 4.4.41 3:721:5- ‘tlilfilollOll nioi sol—ss- s:- {is ‘ililtl. sot-o sis—s oioiaiisn. sis—son :iioiviixi 2711—:— $a%9l 2.12s: a *loll 454.142. 032.131 (2)2421 (33:12.1 @oi—i 24x1 sis oiioici Jeni sci orioiui 7i) 2iszioi Xl%il9l esse- is savioi saci __ __ __ _ oi) as His— Aioioii sis—oi aoioixi E-OILl sas saavioi $155) _ __ __ __ oi) won 7157i aasioi ass assimi soiSioi EON sas- neioiavioi $135) __ __ __ __ ai) aoioiixi 5:11)];‘q71, 9217i, 51M as: 'a’Slml EON sas- sioiuiavioi Fifi—fit) __ _ __ __ oi) ’él‘iioilAi 7.124171 aaoioi soy—s 56M E—°l‘-—l sas— oioiavioi sari __ __ __ __ oi) -‘r--’.v_17l°ll7il oioixi E—OlLl xiii—s- Ai7i ear/i4 Fraci __ __ __ __ Ai) soy—.2; o.iz'siooi moi-s.- 1.1-957M) oraci _ __ __ __ oi) oasoioiii Agass— esvioi $12M __ __ _ __ 56-7lLl oi oi oi oi *l oi 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 59 7. Hist-‘5: ‘ai‘ll’loflilf-Ei 713W} 413W) ail-S: Eifilfl $43)) Fifi-3+ €91: 552);- 34 3P3 El 0] 9119—9 Ll 77)? 7)) oioii oi oi oi ibis-viz) 32:11 78):) Li) €£t°lbl jet—30)) 01%Xl%¢l% flilfilflul 5)) jet-E41101) fili‘ot’EJ-é- Qilfilfiifil 3)) Blcliéé- flilfii‘fltl Ill) 1&2} 73%41(51l%.+_)°ll ”18%. “J‘ifififl-‘S‘: flafilflifil oi) oiaraoioioioi ooioioi-s 2131 oioi Ai) °ll~l5~ 2.) asi— :1 soioi oissoioi was #96) czoiq €230qu 8.415%: oioi—g- ciloloiloi i412??? 7lzl31 Citiiliolvi? LESS-7%: 7le31 Emotive): omit} 31211477)? (1271219.) fiololl 2158/49.) _ 0) 7l2l31 141421 tit-EC) __1) 313-747) _ 3) €6.55- __ 5) %%‘°l _ 7) 571%; _ 2) £23110) _ 4) 7l.":-%= __ 6) in} __ 8) 7lE’r(:i‘ii)31—°—i 1__) 9. oioioioii: oioioioio—o-oi Xl/d—S: iiolfl $18M Bio-oi as asil-S- °éUli+ i‘lol’ililvl? 03711231 ®7H=1 @xio— grow 15in Jog-El Haiti Haiti oioi 7)) ‘ailflloll-E- ‘%§77l5’—l 0128 58% IIloll 149.5) Ll) oioii szi oioi7i soioi isoioi aoi El‘dtl oi) oioii aoi oiois oioii Ll7l7l7l or—oioioi :1 col-g— ti—g—gi DlE—Cl oi) ago tass- ail: citixi sis-oi oi) oioiiog— sxi owls—- £le soc-oi oi) oi—r— 01% 41$ 78% oloi sat—s- oil oia‘iiioil €110) Efrain $92.15} Ai) acoiaoiaass— sis.- s— oiaooiioiasoii on.) oioioiri 7-7l Ll oi oi oi oi *l 8 o-oiiii oi oi oi oi oi 222324252627282930313233343536 60 10. allow) 931 21%:— Jgoll 7357) 396W») Eéol is: 71-3-343- 0): 2.15am. 248894? __ 1) O)??- iii—Bl _ 2) 35‘1‘9: 55011:) _ 3) :in :1in) _ 4) 54% 15cm __ 5) ois— oioi 11. Hist-E- 7ll‘217—‘lai 7351+ QE, dziIllilfl, 323-3.). 3&3 594 ‘33)“) Biol—'2'- 9.1% 4541?: Oi}: Zéialil *3Zlol’iltl77l? __ 1) 0H“ iii-El __ 2) 515%:— 180W) _3) 174 :1?ng __4) 54?.- 15°15} _5) O)?- 5&5) .. tiss- oioioi 41301) oioi a: 7in oioi-s oioooi oaiisqoi. 1.713”) ase— $fifl‘4”)? _ l) ‘32} _ 2) 011) 2.?13l9l LlOI—‘r: ‘2} tie]; 9.3 11134147,}? ‘1’} __ xi] 3. 713B) Eé’éfilli? Oluiilqfll? _ l) “)3- _ 2) 713'- %71 __ 3) 7H? €71 __ 4) °l€‘{- _ 5) “ll-‘1”) 4% __ 6) 7lEl(-'ili11319_§. : _____) 1011#12 3 37383940414243 61 4. oioioi aoi 3:). are Alti<7l%)-8- sol-s ooioioi 2% oz Aioioiiioi? 7)) 2041] PM} ‘31) _— ‘5, 011} ”3 15}) 20411-6441] Elli __ ‘3. 011} ‘5' El) 6541] 0H} ‘2le _ ‘5', all} __ ”5' 5. oioioi 45o) $lil‘f: ooioiiioi? 1) mill—’1‘— 2) Allow-94 oH—‘i—Xl 3) Allow-9i 1531311139. £3) 4) HRH-Bl 834l2lolliol53'ii‘at sail) 5) knoll-”159i Zl‘oflnihal'fli’i £8) 6) 7lEi(—'1loll%i.°_ir ) 6. 413)? ‘31)) ”33'— 91113‘: %-Lil°ll*i ‘ta‘utbl Salli 713153)?— 9151471)? (Hi) 7. Wfilflfllkl‘f: 01:17)}1] 1:151; qqflfiqfl}? 1) $3), 733110“ El‘rl 751°] €15) __ 2) 3%‘3—ffl 4) 315-filo?— __ 6) 462)) EH5} 7-1. :1 131471-3: f—Efififlfi-Llfll? %%1 _l) 8. oioiii 4519.— Zl%il(2l7l%. 458%), sob-oi, ooi 5):: ififilfl 215—474? _2) "3&1 3) 5555);?— _ 5) 751%th __ 7) Wit-$1 0H} 3) flit—’5“ _ 4) “WW3 GD 9115} ® 315) 7)) 5:11 __ — Ll) flit—(Eel £3) _ __ 4-7l-(‘EH 7i-(oi) Ll—(ii) Li-(oi) ci-riai) ci-(ool) 5 6 7117-18-7) Li 44454647484950515253545556575859606162 62 < 21913113313- oioixi 9111. 133191 371 > wan-54> 01) 11°51 ‘3! 7i? 19%! 0.1791101 03) 94*). ililelol, 9191*) 05) {ti/Kl 07) 511*) 09) 91591. “3%?! 11) 33871-891 83%?! <93-111BlF-‘b 21) 7l°dill 789954591 0V8 318) 02) cioimoi, 3.1—719 04) zoom, 91*) 06) oiziioi, 5.3/ii, 16H), 73*) 03) 53231 10) 71139, oils-7i. 9.421 12) 7114 11.5-21149734, oioi 5) 22) 91713218) {EFF-($73 °l’z}) 23) fl%%$-fl(%°o”&*1 343, 1131341 5‘72} °l’z}) 24) Ali) 13711] L”?- 25) $918138 01%), 78 9.103 73°13) 26) 1.1.9.331 4‘9?“ 7323—74591 DIE} 31%) 27) 715) 38781311131 <494> 31) 9345-2131144) oioi) 33) 4311321 2111 35) 33> 31 5413931 32) 9111511191493 oioi) 34) 73121 31 5911 35) 2113i 3: so) Alli-to! 37) 5.1913139, 9413), 7331173993), 3.34:, 11¢. 38) 7lEl Alli—2‘1 <99£> 41) 33511)) 89168149} 31%) 43) 1115-41 537191 45) 333. i733 01111.42!» 51) 8413,0191 %9l 215?.) 53) 01:184. 9515:, 59% 55) 31.9131?— %Ale, #91, 73o) <=3=-°l°..l’-‘l> 61) 11150731, 600033 018) 63) ¢%(0.5-173§_, 1500-2999931) 65) 5911:5512), %9’& 67) {115‘— 92 441°94‘19in 69) 7lEl 50131121 <839> m)9439 44) 3111:1199 31 511139 43) 7151 oioioi zoo.) 52) 921111.413 591 599. 54) 11.49.1155 55) 7lEl Aioizzoi Ei-owiosoi 5) 62) %%(1-2‘§51, 3000-5999‘8) 54) 111136.523 31150013 oioi), 3.413 55) 9592i, 03711, 11o), sci—i=9 53) °i—‘i‘- 32 5119 %Ale 71) 4341751) 4°37“) 73°51H5‘31 Ul‘it), *gfl%l%(-’i‘-?J 31 ‘33) 72) $8858 74) 915252), 933:9» 76) Pal—’1’- 81) iii/8 83) 5191018) 85) 131-1931, 9358192) <%%%%> 99) 555561975122 5119! : 73) 733-5", flléfi'? 75) 3:734} (1)133}, 5523131) 77) 715) ”31131 32) 521'- 84) 111-21199) 35) 7lEl 121113.121 ) 63 9. 583132134 71%) 41191-7691 911)) 319% 2121 313-9133Ll77)? 3:210) ”Ml-$81 7351-0)] 1‘? 51:10) fi7l3l°=l 515*)71 Hifi‘vllll. (‘5 81°)le 3133-15312: 93:11) 7)) 3919) 31%) o>omoooaz 10. 719194 E Eff %=-’1‘-°E](’8°‘l%, ill/3.42% % 39w) @0111] 35333-11183. n.8552fi1893MM1918thw __ 1) 2mm; 5:8 £31) _ 2) 314119111 91:“: 73)—$11) __ 3) 941(15-‘11 9141] £131) __ 4) 716167—82; 31ch 41 £131) H.994nw13833135u1333373319omwoqqoémwu1 343994? 553 533 333 l 1")! l l' 'l (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) .. tie-s oioioi 94.199 31 5313 3123011 oioiori oi-iooi 33115—119. 1. 71311:: %E(%§l'€f)°l‘+ 5431—3..- 3131 9164477)? _ l) 1'85} ('3 1-1‘31 %3J£i) _ 2) 917215} (cr 2‘31 {ii-332:) 9-7i 9-Li 10—7i 10—11 11 12 ii 1’ 63646566676869707172737475767778 _-____..._._._ <5e-5—ois 'i.—‘:— 73 - 1-1. 71617711415: ‘i *l°ll 73% 147141 9'2 *1 °ll 71713111 1,) 71)? (9.73/23?) _ 1‘10“ L17) (9.41/95?) __ *lOll 717} 1—2. 53 £15. 56181-59 93h“: 79218— 0): 235391977)? Al 73 2.15 m 1-3. 3178901 Elli—7712) 717) $1811 315: 9881;: 51547-1118: 5191 3.114771? (71%) 559 7:1 3133712111 £88) 5541419.) __ 01) *lLllH-liz. 01%”): _ 02) 3441313: __ 03) ”91511: __ 04) 38511:. 3351—”: _ 05) 73%, Xlfitfi _ 06) 715‘} _ 07) '31") _ O8) 117l3, €354. 331 53'- __ 09) #7571 __ 10) 3°) 4‘35} _11) 7lEl(?illl19_§.: ) 2. oioio: goon so oioioiioi 135—39112? _1) 7’19) 331315) __ 2) 7194 31:10)] FREE} 3) oioi 49313141 5111—1119 _ 4) 33°F} $33141 E—‘ilfiti __ 5) *l’3°l‘vf ‘fllfl’i‘ii’i 73°) 413°) 810] 2.7); 751559121] 93531-1151 __ 6) 713831 416% 9147) $13)“) 93°] %°tulq%‘: 330111} 3. 313113 316(1998L51Ml 9790M film 9;, :98 731757191 £910) 210141 £71091? 21%: 10*) 5131) '9o1l 5012.) 341‘“: 598749.33 0): 78E‘ilbl77l? _ 1) 7191 UH°al _3) fill-1594(1) it}?! “85 _ 2) 899°“ 91?). 53$ _ 4) £501] £19). 235 _5) 91%“) it?! 782 _6)7191 81% __7) 2331 31% 71:3é 1—1 -1‘2 1—3 2 3 123|456|789101112 J l 65 4. oioioi 941411:— oiauggaemi 7ioioi 711—7- 111529719 3599 711—3- oi—oi-s o1 oi 136749.: soioi 215‘- masoioitoioiooioi 731-115 73)-.2.- oi—Cioi; OM] 61113) 1) 3) 5) 7) 24.5—9301) 91‘1“. 0H} _ 2) 91510)] iii-7‘3. 78E 113-4))‘3011 9153—53. 78E __ 4) 67ll%°ll 9151121 785 $154.0“ ’71-‘71?! 23E ____6)7191 31% 73.31) 31% 5. ‘3€°lbl 81711917115 iii-7L} 01% 285. 711% til-$159.91 “11%? ’39) 9.123% 913114171315: El% 53“ 01‘?! £31735 flfilflqfilflfl' 7M8} 415—18)) 91511193) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 614:. £712 5‘18le 9:11:44 4150]») 4% 591 “119% 5374/1713) 9101] 41730] ° 7‘:— a‘rfiifll 94733101 5E5} out-79°) 7H} 5£°l gall 37519151 731734814 7); 7l-3—ril it 4190M 2.1% 797155 £517.19 Olfiié 7315101171) 9161:) 91719141 ‘3‘%3}T‘:‘ 7343314101] 7319-:- 3473171 7lEl<¥71l119i= ) 6. 71111:- 71191199811.)o1 3.1344 4141—3- 371 oioioi 96419.3 aoioi 745- 213-3— 94361114? __ 1) 719) "H93 __ 2) 014190)] 71?). ’85 _ 3) 9269.41 71‘1“. 41$ _4) 1%“) 11‘1". “6‘5 _5) 9130)) ‘3‘?! 7‘35 _6) 719) it?) _7) 73.231 91%} 7. oioi7i 5544 so) oioioi 9.: 121-33.- oiis 734—41 11: oisoio: :45"? 66.- 79191127131- 7ixioi aoioiooi 231.1413) __ 01) 99} 4111114125., via—51¢ __ 02) 711415): __ 0314911115.“. _ 04) 53111:, 591613: _ 05) 751%, zloli—‘i _ O6) 717) __ 07) loMl _ 08) 587), new: ‘81 5- _ 09) 7179.71 _ 10) 9°) E1914 _11) 7151(7711749_£2 ) 4 i 5 6 7 13 14 15 16 17 66 3. r1391 21 iii—7.141 oioioi oioioi 73%: 015912121 gig-SH 71‘) L1'E Blél} a“ 26123-15}, 711215039- 91:— 3%?)9351 1+) 14%”: 91%?! all 4:4: ital? —2—7‘4%}% 513-; 7333.7} '2) 3151.5} oioi 1:1) Ll—E Eli‘s? all 5341511:— 31313} QtoilAlalé 8}‘—;‘_— 739.7} 3;} 911°) zoo: o11oioi oi) Lllc: 64.41 35.3— 7i) 441511121 424953 oi) oiooioio at: “>924959 713194 °lj°c% 0)) EH9} 311—3 3:16“ 515417) uigqq. €019,129; iii XE} E‘E‘E} L1) 01%A}%PY°: ”ENE 7g g]; 2191‘s.- saoioi O B331T71E {11:} 31) 0124954 51114141 9361113: 9o) 6181 2i?— £73 *— H) a °l°i7liflq 584119) 11%534]. ‘3-2 £9101 9356101 41018.14 6125.71 EE‘iJLlCl. 33% @7331 Ila-37‘) 93);} ’3 8101514131 @7331 .1532] 9oi 74171 oioiioi. @1381] @2121 941% o1oioi oioioi i119 13 £4) @3511) @191 94% oioioi aoioi 8-7i1 1.) T L 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 67 @43— noioi @oi-i- :Loiioi @132?“ O 911:: @121 1230114 @uw neg—q 10. C1%% 4161714145— %-L1191 #‘i’iIEPéofl $113 QERJHC}. 7% EMEAII 811% 51%:— 3301] {£142qu 9:417] ufimc}, @661 13532] 9:15} 7}) -?-E'4%Lfl°fl%‘: #9401] 52311717} 43??qu “13173 9.15} L’r) -?-al%-Lil°flr‘:- *1"a‘°l ”$111 91H”: 5‘11 1413161 {E- ‘i’l’flOIUr $1517} 915} 5}) 944184110115- OIEEL #ulfl 33°] 9113} EH $El%-Lfl°ll%‘: EagjfiiLE-Ol 1131‘- 51017‘3 795117} 9.13} $50114 11. €78.- 317} ”3.11 Ill/Wt:- %L1191 73§%%°fl {1?} #4319} 9423—3: ‘2—101iIfl-Z} i1 W. #13194 243% $2431 2.1311915’47] wqc}. CD621] @139] 31‘3“] 931% 9:15} 55°15} 7}) 3‘31 %-L1191 73%1ilirr‘i- €§§%% 1513131 215} __ __ L1) 34:] 73°11 fiflflzflfl ”3413104 ”bl—T’— {EH48 7331:3- éAI %%§ 31°15} __ __ CH ”135144301 “£23104 ”837—11519; 73%h‘3— ‘fi‘fl-g: 7.301% 721°IC} _ _ 12. 4131?: CHE-91 2% 1%?qu EH31“! 0135M] 21131411477}? 7H #:243115— raga—$121 fia‘ifim __ 1) 73119.3. li—flflt} _ 2) lei-9517‘:— 35°15} __ 3) 2X1 1'36} __ 4) 1391612] 941%:— 3501C} _ 5) 351349.: 552132] ‘31—‘35} C3916 xaolq 10— 7} 4". £1. a} 11-7} Ur C} 124+ 2728293031323334 68 @0113?- 1%?51 L1) LH71A1E %-L11—‘:: fifli¥€1 917516111) __ 1) 71131.9; 154111114 _ 2) %—918)—:— $50114 __ 3) :12) :lé'ét} __ 4) 35191612] 91L:— £50114 __ 5) 5512—19.; %-913}21 art—t) CH 3%) 7.21% 21342—115) 03116114 ____1) 9117519.; %~91§}E} _ 2) 15191611:— S5015) _ 3) :21 last} __ 4) %918}21 91%: 55°15) 5) @112; g—qax] ‘31-: .C. .21 :u: 69 * 51%1‘3- 41317} EN} ”533313113- ‘32131-Et11 5293-0] 515% 937121 73% —% {“331 °1¥°1 Eflfi-HE}. 44317} 3161199851) 151 %‘2} EFF} 73% .9. :1 112131110) was) #247) was). 1. 3123(1998k-1) 13 3°30) 416)») 7130) 31342-2 ‘33 7330) 2131472)? __ 1) 21:) (a 1—11). 3812;.) _ 2) 21c) (a 213 38.12:) ~.—-----~----< :11). 3°) alum c1131} 733- > 1—1. 9.2 130121122) 21361 #1142? FE, 2. 2113(1998151) 1L5! 5842101] 3131?: #371017)! 5:01:11 EON 213% 3157M 119121 W471») 216L471)? 725») @533 '31:} 739-1“: 0471011 813511) 93$L1t1. _ 1) 315) (cr 2-11)! 3112;) _ 2) at) (a 3'11 E8123) ~«-~——-—~--< :11) 03°) 91:13). an“) 7.1—?- > 2—1. 1; 301212—33 114361) #31112? __ 1)). 3. 31809986) 1L3. %?l°fl 41317) EMPM 13' 5113101171] 94% 7% $191113). {a {3% %-(Enl%)~% _ 1) 21):} (cr 3—1'111 E31121) _ 2) 81C} (ar 14% XIIIOIXIE) '%*}-‘?-31:, 537's), £173 £394 31 11°] 91—31477)? ‘5 7. I """'"“'"'"< Sled 9°) 314:1. c1311 733- > 3—1. 1; 1110121122) 9133)) Mm? FE: 38394041424344454647 70 =1 51111:— 116121141 2111 111(199811 11; 111—1411 199811 121 31%)1‘11} EVE} ”3334 318110" E11314 015F501 ii‘lfrblt}. 1. ZMUQQSEMI 41619) 7&0] 412611“: 2122191 —‘?——$—%-(7)¢E)laflg, E10101, 911 73 11%, 21%?) 2% —'§—)-% 511111} 140] 31111472)? _ 0) Blsfl%(1}%i}% 3:261:11 all) 9151) _ 1) 9.15) (tr 1-111 11:81.21.) _ 2) 2151 (C7 211 ESdLgi) < :11 11°) 1121 111111 71)—1— > 1—1. 1 110111112) 1111111 1114.12 __ 1). , --------- - 11 11114 111—0114 @127 ~11:- 1£>o1 14111101 21341.1 1» ~--------—- 2. waggstawn 111m 7110) .1211 111:— 111111117111, 11111, 1112). .111 51)-1- 21.) 211 1°) 1111472)? _ 0) 1111101111.» 2111):. 112) 111)) __ 1) 21:) (a 2—11). 1112.1.) _ 2) am (a 311 1112.1) < :111 01012121 CHEW} 753—?— > 2—1. Q 1101911132] 9.1155311 3154:1413? __ 1i ~~~——-—--~~- 1: 3:114!) 311101141 3-1. 11 110111112) 111-1) 21114.1? _ 11 ~1~~~W 1 11141 111—4111 @711) 1) 1194) 411M 11) 41 1 _._...-._..._....-.._ 71 4. 216(199811M] 111191 11°11 701527) 1911qu 1111191 71%13- 1°4§617M £28101 &( 1%, $11, 1371—3-11 %)°M 111911—11, 21113175., 2:151, 5311131 %-)% “191 01711 31°] 317M “19101713174 11 31°) 211M711? _ 1) 21c) (cr 4—111 €181.23.) _ 2) 211:} (cr 511 113—8112;) W< :111 101 11:12 11111) 11— > g 4—1. ‘1 110121112) 11111 151142.? __ 11 1- ~~~~~~ «- 1 1.1141 111-01111 47111117194) 11111101 111111 1—W—~ 5. z—}Ls.(199811.)°fl 41611“: 1] 11°13 1.012171% €217), 91-1217) %% 116104 {HQ-I11, $11, 1°r71%11 %-)°ll+ 1111111141, A17)]. 115%), 7111, 714111: %)—.—3: 2110111111 34 0) 317M 11°1qu 19.1} 31°] 21151477)? (11. £83014 111°] 312111 731-1:— O] 1?on1) 8111341) 915L114) _ 1) 9151 (cr 5—111 5:11.21) _ 2) 311:} (cr 611 1819.3) '1 ........... ——< :11 11°) 1114.1 11111 2:11- > E 5-1. 11 11411114 111111 11121.12 __ 11 U1 11141 111—1141 <11) 1.91) 11111101 1114.2 1 6. Z111(19981i)°fl 1111113 711 1101141 7&9!) 7)) $420M £8313- 118101 €011.13, $11. 1°r7}%=a %-)°IL1 Edfié‘é, AMI, 1151‘). 7111, 7M): %)—2— "19173 751°] 2171 1,} $31711 “1111 310191111472)? __ 1) 21:} (:1 6-111 12812;) _ 2) 211:} (cr 711 53312;) -< :11 1°) 21:13. c1111} 22% > 6—1. 9'1 110111112) 211%)! 3.311412? __ '11 ~»——~--~--»—- 1: 11114) 1111—0141 <31?! 71E») 11111101 #114112 11 i .................___....._' 575859606162636465 72 7. 316(1998EMI 11111.- 1171117)) 111.1- 211) 1111121 11111-11 111— 210) 11214 1111111 0.1—2— 1111 110) 1117—42)? 11.11 111014 111111 1111—: «1714 21211101 147) 1111411. _ 1) am (or 7-111 1111.) _ 2) 1111 (a 811 111.11) - < :11 91°] 31:11 111111) 73.1— > _12 7-1. 1 110111141 1111-11 11149.? 11 § ,_ --------- ~11 1.14) 211-4141 <11 11 1111M) 1111101 111451 1 ................... i W< 11% 111-2 41111111 11111511:— 11131321 > s. QEUQQBEMI 11111:- 1171417)) 7111014 1111 21:1 4&1 11 11o) 11714. 1111 11 21o) 1111114»)? __ 1) 1111 (a 8—11). 111.11) __ 2) 211) )“ < .113 1101 111111 111111 731 > 3 1 8-1. 1 110121112) 11111 1114.1 1) g W1 1.1141 111-014 «11111 1.1 11:11->o1 11111101 11149. 1W} < :11- 11012101 11)—1111411 > W *1 110M 1111 111(199811) 1111 11111 1111-:— 111-2- 110) 1111.1 11111111 1214-:- 21 1110)) 41} A1111 1 c1 21411) 01101 1:12) 11111 11711. 1111:1112 11x) 1141.1 11141.11 11 1191 1111211:- 113411 PLAIN] :1 111101 21471 11114:). 110141 11— 119.4) 11111 111) 111171 1142 119. 11 1:11- 4714 11110) 21— 1111111411. 11112) 1.101 cm 1111 111121 242141. 73 < 12%}411 1%?- %%*1 51391473} 2% %%6H°F 5:} $52- > iifl’éfigi {1 —‘?-—5':€.— gflgfligi a Er'wE—MW 235101] ‘13:]; i—‘?—Ei Elan;- 2.1%:— 2101 211431 6H1 ~395le unaswo) 6%:- Ewe—9.1145}. 0471*15 WW} WE @351 3161191 mfg—oil awed 3‘2 7M alfllzm 48%;.- 045,101 35% swam). $3413 $39) ”333011 91811 0431 rd 11161173— 3.1241 Emu/HT:- 7P€J 14.75501] @0119; 94.01} tHz‘sHH mafia} ff—AM Ewan). 3% 0M WW} 346%:- wacm £142“le @3301] 311 ”9313-3 245—0)) EH88 gash“ KEY/33M 5M7];- $959143}. 2PM 3161172} WWII. 3918M 9&8: $33M cw a—E—E’: EH Ear-6H] BMW] twat). 111311 9:19: $5339] L1H? ** fllfififl¥§ —‘?—-E': ** < 1}%7’<} —”F-%- a; > agar/91 2 — 331]o]x] < 7455*} a; > lava/91 4 - 5m1011] < Eiiflfl‘fl 72E > ifiéfl 6 - 73:1]o]z] < $71733} 73E > 111%}:11 8 - 113110le < ”4‘31 ER > HM 12 - 13:310le < EH91 7JE > 51‘3511 14 - 17911°IXI < $33 ‘34 ”$8" > kiwi 18 - 21311011] < *ééa 3! *351%- > 1:11:14!) 22 — 25311011] 74 -----~-—-~---- < z) % 2) 2% %— a E > ¥1?‘5}%‘: $150111“) Xiauggsawn 24%;?) —‘?—%% E‘:} ‘%i 210) 21cm mama—Ha. 2e.) oao) 04a) #1 31% 73%011—Ezk z) qm 9401») 240)) mm was) #247) magma). 1. 7+%2) %’—%-—.% it) 91?} 33% 015135131477)? __ 1) T537} _ 2) 2%) aid—9) $19-11?) _ 3) A139. ”MN: {We} ”WM?! _ 4) %%%‘—i)% _ 5) 7217)“):14???) _ 6) :1 919) £(JFH1342E: ) 2. :1 1424.3- ‘i £0“ @01‘3—3-1477}? _ fl 3. 3- 43°] °-J°)‘E} “21% 5H? g *]%9Jq7l}? (9.75. / 9.593) A] 4.1“)! 5%} ‘2}? ~‘?—%—€’: Ch?)- 525“ 0126 MM)? (137)11‘31 KAREN) %‘-¢J*L9_) __ 01) Qfl’fl __ 02) filial”) _ 03) ENIEH‘QHEH _ O4) 301°), 3.131101 3°10) _ 05) ‘33“) 31 __ 06) 76’9”] ’5‘, 751“? __ 07) ”PH fl _ 08) 74%71} 4:3} 55‘? _ 09) 5% 794% QMW’EI _ 10) ‘41-? 79418- QHflAWJ _11) 7} fizEflafli(£El9_) _ 12) 7lq(?ifl34.9.§: 5. an) E‘rl em #2329: am: @212). cm gum aw»)? {Ha Ms 1 2 3 4 5 75 6. 2 47.1-g- 7340) lam-swam»)? W < mg;- a) 44- > 1) 413335} (a- 6-1‘5, 6-2‘31 'Etégi) 2) 41313”) 9&9}? (Er 6-3?! :‘i-so‘ili) 6-1. (“137—011 EH54“) 733% 01“)??? 3571);: 3))Efi-‘477H __ 1) 41:16 337115 3R] fiflt} __ 2) Z‘ifli 313H%3&% Qflfifl‘l‘i} 3) 317%! “$33M ElisflLH-fié- 49.1mm. 4) 31:33)?! 4:4-3- %—5‘)°1 42129.: 31153)) $31G. 6‘2. ”5151-3- ?)EHE} 73%.}9) Zéiloil Eléfihiiqfi}? 1) O}??- 4:6)414 2) a???) 1501945} _ 3) :12) legs} 4) i‘fléfl $501215) 5) O)??- €‘3éfi‘flq < 4.131%: 3H] 93:": 75”?- > 6-3. 9)) 413.3}11 9J£fifiq747 _ 1) 5113117} 4943”] 9&21’71 “HE-015) __ 2) ”HP—12$ 3H§§E71W1€r°14 _ 3) 535717) 31217) “HE-NC) __ 4) 14% 71240)], 24:14)») fllflfi’dfl “ll—530W} __ 5) @1110] 0P?- Eéili $13”) 94H;- 3‘! QRU] “H—Eflt) _ 6) 73733411‘1 3637)] Q 7)! 93k?) “HE-015} _ 7) ‘39P] 0H:- *)%}°19171 WEI-015) _ 8) 31%01 $3”) 7&3] (‘11? 434% 3V) %3}9EIE} _9)7]E)(:r1ifl14_°_§: ) 6-1 6-2 6-3 It 13 14 15 16 17 76 ~-—-——-—-—-——--~--~ < 21:5:2) @ E > asp-c 21°14 136(19986») x152);- 24 41:1 240) 914 :r. mam-31):). 2a.) 2401 OH) 21 31% 73441—12 2131 4450130114 9141 418114 was) 211-47) 444:). 1. 454%.- 5%} “46.1 324’: 015144472)? __ 1) 2:537) __ 2) 2%) $37494 $15119) _ 3) AM), 11113441 32112) 117R)?! _ 4) 51555744) __ 5) 74712149151} __ 6) :1 4194 517451412423: ) 2. IL 475% ‘fi fl“) ani‘xkfi'qfl)? __ fl 9° :1 42101240141 147.1% EH5) 3'2 A@9414”)? (12.1 / 2.15 ) __ *1 4. :1 fig CH] 3424131477)? __ 1) CH) 3431:) __ 2) 7'72”) %§.‘15’r 5. :1 421—3.- 7341011 4123))14472)? _ 1) 41311114 (a 5111, 5—241 5849.3.) __ 2) 41.113”) 9421:) (cr 5—341 5812;) 1819 20 2122 23 24 77 .-~~--~-—--~-«-~ < 2:11—3- 2) 7.1 9r > 5—1. 41:10)) 41310) @218.— OJHW 32.21%: flail—$1477)? _ 1) 0W?) 35%); 312] 9391):} 2) flfli 511611232294 149131914 3) 3471;) “256W! 318142—3- Qflstit). 4) 74913491 #45: 56%?) 46% 8M8!) Elf-Ric). 5—2. 411%:- flali) 73:99) 357110)) E’léfififi-WI)? _ 1) 015‘— 214319112) 2) 53%?! 55019.15) _ 3) :12) :l'egu} _ 4) %‘&%§} 2101214 5) O)??- %‘fléfi)9at) ~W—-—- < +11%.- z-sv) 922- 73 9r > 5-3. 2)) 41:28)?) 929.2124»)? __ 1) 2.1:). 2:10)) 21%: am 31217) wn—tz—olc) _ 2) 4::— 71244), ammo) 4261217) mi—E-OIE) __ 3) 72210) 449— 2.22); 21312) 91% 7:1 4217) 412—014 _ 4) 432014 41222)) t.) 7;! 4217) nag—01:) _ 5) 21°10) 0):;— 4201217) nag-01c) _ 6) 1240) $424 as) 4112) 421—3- 612) 26min) _7) 7IEH?ill’-‘49~§1 ) 5-1 5-2 5-3 # 78 W--— < 5:571 5:1 ‘2 a E > #1611:— gmw 116(19986») €101] E-f-E-OI 5:: 31°] 91C} 31 mama-14c). :Lifl 24°] 042) 2*). 21% 733—0115 Z]: 7:} Ur%-°fl 201%} 9:10)] tHéfl/‘i 141%sz Era/‘17] $9145}. 1. :1 Ania— 2 21o) «20111—314721? a). 1 421°] 921.01%} ”21% 11H? ‘i *1%?§H”}? (9.73. / 9.3?- )_ *1 N 3. :7. “11 7.9411“: 51%:- ‘£ 416“] 212M344”)? :12) __ 0351+ 04x) =5 4. $101316 gm:— % %~ om aw»)? (2:17pm mam) Max) _ 01) @31816, alum, x12; _ 02) Ma), Bldg 710%} _ 03) A1741, =32) 1:- aga— __ 04) w, 4:11, wwga __ 05) Ul€%, alga} __ 06) 71?, b5331- __ 07) 7%, 21% a1 _ 08) 413%, 91-3- 7:1 _ 09) 712) 711121;)? _ 10) a), 51a) %—2) %’c}% _11) 7IEH-T‘iflz—19—ii 5.310161%.) E01») gal—3.- ?chi r4212), aura: gum gqrz}? 91% 6. :1 421% 782301] ammgqm? 1) 411311113} (cr 6-1‘31, 6-2131 —E8J9.§) 2) 4131811) 94131:} (cr 6—3'fl 57819.9 l 2 3-(‘Eh 3-(0‘1) 4 5 6 29303132333435363738394041424344 79 -——----—-~—---- < 411%.— §} 73 —?— > 6-1. £13101] £88101 73238— 0111112! flail-Si mag—)4»)? _ 1) 01-516 25.2115 312) 93211:) _ 2) 4%)): Eltfl’s‘FJ-g- QQJSRM 3) 2H: ”Him HISHLH%—.% $191619)? 4) aafifl $4172;— %6}°4 411% 31431 ERIC}. 6—2. 4131—3: i131?! @2394 335401] fiéflfi-fiqfl}? __ 1) 0191‘— fiéflflc} __ 2) 121%? 2M2“) __ 3) 111 1%?5} _ 4) 13914??? :5ng _ 5) 01%- E—fiésmic} ~--——~-——---~—— < 4:1 31%— 6}X] 9&9.— % -?— > 6—3. 9“ £31311] figfifi-HW}? __ 1) 3118117} *JZHSM 93317] “HE—015} _ 2) 7H°J3=l£§ 814471434114 __ 3) %‘—717} 21%?) “HE-015} __ 4) 14%.- 7l¥_¥(°41, 3121514)“) flifi‘flfl “HE-015} __ 5) 73%01 0H”- iilE $13M 93% 31 @5017] “115-0114 _6) @241qu 3&7)! E} 7;! QRM "HE-01E} _ 7) “391°! 01%:- *Ha‘°l?\17l 141-3015} _ 8) 13:0] $6134 7:13] 4‘11?! 311:3: 6M %6}‘flt} _9) 7IE}(?ifl’-‘#£§: ) 6-1’6-2 6-3 # 45 46 47 48 80 -.~-..-.-....__..._ < 2157.] 7‘3 ‘2; 7JE > 442)):- 914)2) QEUQQBHM 210)) M7) 21°42) 2:)0) 3):) 3r. mama-qt). :12: 230) 04a) 2:1 a13- 23—221-5 1E3: 442M425 <32) mam was) 2247) 4314:). [\3 O1 0‘) . :1 2mg- a go) war—am»)? __ 2.1 . :1 2)zio) 30):) 2mg— cnér 32 2123411)»)? (gfi/£$) q :1 tr) 242)):- 3-72 a: 4230) 31215-2422)? :12) ran) 042) ‘3 .1 a)! 5333?} 7495: 33?- 9‘2 ‘fiolaisqm ‘32) ‘31) 042) as) .7JE9) 40);:— tHE-‘f ‘fi 4:! 735i iflé‘rqv}? (048) ‘59—.) 739-01)):— 7P‘J 55%! ‘23—?)— r‘a} 430)) WM £11381) 5543413) __ 1) 10:1) _ 2) 20d) __ 3) 30d) _ 4) 4on1 __ 5) 50:)! 0M} _ 6) 7% £24114 . 7&E(%)% 14% '3“ 0151 4%?)474? __ l) 7}; ”-53:11 {1; Hugo”). _ 2) 5:13] 7}{r’_-t1] {r} A}g-o]q. _ $533114 °H?l°lt} _ 4) 317901)) file) %E&' ET‘E 32pm _ 5) 013:7)! 4730111} 6’ ”3°“ 7331) 7193.314) 5&7:- o)))2)e_) 2) «23:1. 2mm 433mm __ 7) ‘£ ‘1”. 7‘35 {Hi 310131.; 21)-3015} _ 8) $162] Eat;— A}%o]c}. l 2 3-(‘#) 3-(0‘1) 4-(3) 4-(0‘1) 5 6 4950515253545556575859606162 81 7. :1 [410)] ”591?: 0N1 $71—E- 23217“) *)%3)fl1’}q77)?($}7txl‘i} KAI) _ 1) $717) 81215) __ 2) in} __ 3) %=(7|'¢-%- SE?) __ 4) %%°] _ 5) 7130771175123 3 ____) 8. :1 EH 7&5?) 3949) (112)-3- 7432mm») 7JZII'5MP. warm)? _ 1) 14¢) _ 2) 0MB) 9. :1 44414401 man-:— 2“:- 7)%% E-‘?- 44211)»)? 51%i ‘8 10. :1 “8°“ 7)é%°l 34% 4194175191 111391“: Eh?- %- 011: Zéiflfi-H”)? __1) 411113491 filfifié 9:11) 93311:) _ 2) 723"?)‘(735‘1 351‘- ”ND _ 3) 538%”) 331‘- 01%) __ 4) AH) __ 5) 7)E)(:r‘i)]349—§ 3_____) 11.1 “H 9401'516 ~321—3: —8— 36“ 0H1 31341477)? (Et7lgzl‘il EARN) 2,523,113) __ 01) @31131751, ”1519., 751% __ 02) 7)”)la}, ”151.9. 7)")la) __ 03) *1741, till) 53- 417314?- _ 04) 76%, $3., %7)%?3 _ 05) ”Ii—‘5: §%% _ 06) 7P7, ”5%- _ O7) %, 34% 7i _ 08) ”4.11%, 91% 51 _ 09) 715} 7HiXfl-E- _ 10) B), 13) %9) %E% _11) 7IEH-"1‘ifli‘19—ii___) 12. :1 2))0) 9110140.) E3) 321—3- 40.; 042)?) 010) 40)») $442)? 0102). 7 ) 8 9 10 11 12 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 82 I """-7'__ q 13. 511011-5- 5fi£flfi $16)):- 0)?) d)%% 4414—42)? _1)'=a<21°)) 030)) $193 What) __ 2) 3121—33 933.0) 423432) 613M _ 3) 31011-5- 3le 9417) 940%?) “3910117) 4232mm __ 4) 421°) @0143). 21%:— 5—21 2325101)) I45- 71330)) @1313qu _ 5) 581% 93a) 01%014 43: 4'39) E—%% gigaau) _ 6) 591215—61 2014.112) mac) __ 7) 1‘2) ‘36)31‘21 9121):) __ 8) 7149211423.: ) 14. 5‘13)7) £5)?! %%°) ‘5”) ”21544) °)‘§7)I E%°l Elflfi-LJW)? _1) filfl-‘S— $11) 94171154215) _ 2) 31131-3- 143.: ‘5—1 3171151215) __ 3) Eli E%°l 511) 91121:) __ 4) ‘3191-2- 745113)“) C) {1 31311-3- 3:19:15) 15. :L 411% 73%“) 4113)fl%q77)? _ 1) flilzflt} (Er 15-1‘31, 15-2‘31 Efiéili) _ 2) ”cl—113W) 941315} (0' 15-3‘i’1 E—SJEE) 13 14 15 75 76 77 83 2 -) 232- > 0)) 0))2)0) 222- 0mm) 222 222—42)? __1) 422 222 22) 22):) _ 2) 2122 22222— 203222) _ 3) 242 222M 24242—2 magic). __ 4) 212201 242- 2200) 421—2 2))22) 22):). 15—2. 411—2 24312} 23219) 52210)) 21%6W2b171)? _1) 0)’ misfit) __ ”15):! 33012114 _ 3) :in 22):) _ 4) 221221 5501214 _ 5) 0)??- 22222:) -—~-—-«-—--~— < 2131—2- 2) 2) 22 2 2 > 15—3. 9)) 21:17.22] 93.9.4124”)? _ 1) 3113117) 4146M 21217) 21532015) __ 2)?)1‘211—122 8112217) 21)—3°16) _ 3) 22717121217) 2115—0111) 4) QE- 712342), 1221514)») 4118M)?! “HE—OW) _ 5) 73210) 0P?— 22.215 216%) 92% 31 2317) 21)—301C) _6) 73210114) 21217)) 2) 7A4 4217) 2115—015) _ 7) 21910) 0H:- A)%°l‘217) 21)-50W) _ 8) 2.220] $212) 413) 41312 4142- 232) 222:) _9) 712(2212132; ) 7)E 15-1 15-2 15-3 # .-.—-—--~—--—---— < EH <21 QE > 432)):— 21212) 235(1998k-‘1M 7:) 20))2) 4.21217). 2217). 221712- 2)?) 31°) 31):)?— mafia—2141:). :21 21°) 042) 2). 212 220))2 7H1 420)) 21212 20)) 42121 422)) 22m 224:). 1.3 421% 01510114 9401):) ZERJLJ”)? _01) 73 EL?) __02)§)31L’r 2472-) 03) All}. “1135};8, ”a”?! % 04) €33°IL¥ $2115? -‘§- 8517)?) 05) €78. 04% ’59) 88°43)“. 06) {212527251} @221 55 747-13) 07) 361340114 °l=9191 {MW} 9’: O8) 113)§, “13:, '31") %94 Ell-$5415 25?.) 09) 71%)9’1, “135-51012 13'— 10) :1 F319) 5%(5‘111319—33— ) 2. :1 82129: ‘i Q“) QJOIRESHU)? __ Q 3. :1 460121012) 4111-5—3- EHEf 3‘2 4152021142}? (9.73. / 23);) 2] 4.114101) "19171714 94013121 EH) 2212: 41.0.2 r4219); c322 0244),} 21),)72)? 21%! 5. :1 421-3: 732310)) flflsmfiqv)? 1) {1113313) (cr 5-1'1’1, 5-2‘31 :‘i-QEE) 2) 4116M 9391C) (2r 5-321 5219.2.) 85 _-.__.-._.....__ < 21 :12 2.) 2 ~2- > 5—1. 41:10)) 220) 24212— 422) .222 222-142)? __ 1) 0)-2-2 .222 2)2) 22):) _ 2) 2122 222422 201222) __ 3) 242 222W 24242—2 20122:). 4) 242221 242- 2200) 4212 2))22) 22):). 2- 2M?) 7512194 25.71)“) 222)22x42)2 _ 1) °)%‘- ‘fléfihxlq 2) 21%? 53101215) __ 3) :11) 1215) _. 4) 291%?) 15°)215) __ 5) °)-’1‘- 221%?)215) ------—--—~- < *1 :12 ER) 92% 73 2 > 5—3. 9)) 616%) 219.2247)? __ 1) 31817) 4148M 21217) 42°12) _ 2) 71211422 8112217) 21)—12°15) _ 3) 2717) 21917) 21)-2°12) _ 4) CR2 7121(0)), 22312)»)! 4137.2)217) 21)—ENC) __ 5) 732°) °)2"— 32.215 212R) 9&2: 7:) €217) 21)—52°15) __6) 7321014) 41217)) 21 7;! 21217) 21)-2°12) _ 7) t221°) °)2:: 424217) 21)-34):) __ 8) 22°) $212) 216') 413121 41212 2H) 222:) _ 9) 71149211422: ) 18 19 20 21 86 mum... _-.-—--u 22)):- 20))2) 242(19982)0) 2:) 20))2) 222—2 22.) 20) 22):). 4222242. 22 20) 042) 2 212- 2-20)): 3) 2 420)) 2012 020)) M2) 422)) 22m 4242). 1. :1 2))12 0)c)<>)2) 22).) 2°12»)? 01) 02) 03) 04) 05) 06) O7) O8) 09) 10) ’2) £12) #3112) 7479 Alla), ‘21)?)78. QM) 13'- 2-830112) 222))? % 53‘ 27:1, 211:1 559) 31221.4: 21%7213') 2‘24 ’5- 727W») 21%)) °)9)9) 2175)?) 32- 21222. ”L41, 23*) 59) CH 712)?) 61.222121 2 £1 2)?) §'c(?i))34_9.§_: ) {517134 \— %m% 4‘46.) 2. :1 ”+211": ‘2 20)) 210121-3221”)? _% 3. :1 2):)0) 20):) 2)2._)-.°_— m2 2 212-2142)? <22/22) 4 4. :1 a) 735-2: 51.1):— 2 2431-242? 224— 22) 0)2) “6‘ 5. 7359) 4°12”: CH2) ‘2 ’2) “JEE 1316-1477)? (043) ‘22 733-0))5- 7%) 915%! 9121—3- 2} 432°)! CHIN E33213) 42*)2) __ 1) lot) _ 2) 20a) __ 3) 303)) _ 4) 40:1] _ 5) son) 0M) _ 6) 21 2.2.212) 3 4142)) 4-Ufl) 5 22 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 87 6. 7&E<%:)€- g— 2:; om Awem)? __ 1) 7): 7)~&c)l f2} 4730):) __ 2) 73%) 71'3““ z) 4%») _ 3) are») °H°J°ldr __ 4) 21330)») we) %—3 242% 2mm _ 5) °l%’él 4%“1‘4 6) 7}§°IL) $173), 731?, 51*} %i%‘: OWN)?! 7% °€31 XILH‘Ei 4%015) 7) ‘fi ‘31 “35 Elk} 751°] 21%:- 4‘3015} _ 8) 7516) £25 A}.Fg~o]c}. 7. :1 [41°11 ‘fi‘ilu‘i- 019E). 513-71-3- :ii-QML} *}%3)fl€-L4W}? __1) $717]- 31%1'4 __ 3) %‘(7)'—’5-%‘ 3E?) _ 5) 7IE’r('—11*"519.§ : _1):1€é5’r ------------- ~ < 0:12)?) CHEW) 9152*)?— > 8. :1 anon 7JE7) as); 7);)sma7m 7mm): isms-L472)? _ 2) own) __ 2) E _ 4) %%~°1 ) 9. : anon sash) 21a— MM mam—:- 14% %— 0): Zéifii-é‘rqn}? __1) fliflafl 311811—3- $11) 3mm _ 2) %‘-%(flil 3%— 011)) 3) may) 33?— 0191) _ 4) 7IE)(?i))349_;: 10.1w!) III‘BUIHL) 9.101% @014 gas- :na) gum am»)? ‘4)? ‘3}?! 114131115: 25))? Mon 416m 1) 93:). aw. :33») 2111.011210] alflfi-Hv)? 1) 31%;) 2) 31215) 6 7 8 9 10 11 33343536373839404142 88 12. €01 3181);: "3”? 4%”) 31%1477)? _1)9.1‘4 _2) 315} 13. man—:- %s)e).x) 4%)): 0m). nag—es; swam)? _1)%91011 _ 2) “391% _ $143113- _ 4) 421°] __ 5) 5:31;} EH31) ‘39—: £11323)?in "JEN fifififill} $9.515} on11] 937] $43”) ”8‘30“?“ *P‘éfi‘i‘it) QOWJ— 91%: %fi’l 73%.}0114 QE- 7133°ll 0121mm 2.5.131 01-53-01") the: 429) E%% 3%?)935} _ 6) fiflgi—ELE) 5037):)» emu} __ 7) :1‘2) %8)119l 3131):) _8) 713(‘7'ifl7-‘42.§: ) 14. 4):?)7) an.) 0)%0) '5”) mm) 0W7)! E—g—o) warm)? _ 1) mang- az) 9&7) 5121):) _ 2) ms);- cu: a 0.47)) 2min) __ 3) a: 5%0) sax) emu) _ 4) rag—g z)—I)0)0) 51% man—:- 04210) 15. :1 AME—.9; @2301) finflflfiqv}? 41319th (cr 154?), 15—2td ESJSLE) final) emu) (a 15—3?) {Dcaégy __1) 2) 12 13 14 15 43 89 -...........__.___ < 41 31%- i) 7a) —‘)’— > 15-1. {31°11 £11304 73%)?- °1u1§ 2.521% aim-$01472)? __ l) °)-‘i’-€i ii); an] eggs} __ 2) 4135}; 511311’2}%% 34916))”5114 __ 3) 247:) “J-E-E'SM 4444-4 4210mm. __ 4) 313-31)?! #43 8.6)“) 443% 8117531) @2113). 152. 4131-3- ifilfl 734.19) 337110)) E’Eéflflfilfl)? __ 1) O}??- ‘ilés‘rflq __ 2) 2'14??? 15012114 __ 3) :12) :Legq _ 4) S—‘fiéfl $012114 _ 5) O)??- i‘fiéfl‘flq ~-------—~---- < 0L) 31%- SM 93% 78 —?— > 15-3. 9)) 813V) 932418)”)? __ 1) 5116117) 4:11)?)1) 98217) [11)—301C) __ 2) 7))?l7-‘13i 449217) all—3°15) _ 3) 9235717) 81217) nag-0):) _ 4) I448: 718(0)), 18310)») 4137.3)9317) “HE-0M __ 5) 73410) 0P} 2,572]; 446)!) 93%. 31 @217) Wig-OM __ 6) 737901101 414M) 8 as 41217) “HE-016) _ 7) E11910) 0H:- 4801917) 14151-016) _ 8) 133:0) $613) 4B) 831% 034% 8V) i—fiflt) __ 9) 7136121131251: ) 15-115-215—3 # 47 48 49 50 90 --------- < % a) 24 43)) > 43)—:2 2401141 gauggsw 483—g- w 2401 3141 EH swig—qt). 2:1 24.01 04a) re). 21% 734011;;— 7p¢ 34,541 24.01% <20) 416115 was) #471 144144. 1.1 46% 01'4le 92301:} 33%]‘474? _ 01) was) 7:9 _ 02)?)31149] 7Q _ 03) ’31-’11‘4 7313194 44 _ 04)’—‘~1’3’°1L} 34'3- __ 05) $49014 0433 % _ 06) 1|fi§°ll+ “if: %- EH%‘*E%- 4:?! LR _ O7) *}%%°l 3°] CHI-E QHEIL} *IZJ _ 08) *}%’%°] $0] 4‘42] 9%”: {321% _ 09) ¥3~l°l4 °F9191 1331?} 51- __10) 7IE}(-?2‘)17-‘19_§: ) 2. :1 423?: ‘i €01] 24.01%1’3‘1477}? _ fl 3. 2 4230104013 24219.- 44 g Ala-w»)? < 22:1 / 2.4:) A] 4. as); 483%} 4:14—3— 2}? a %°lfl€r‘47}? ‘32) can) an) as 5. :1 4%}91 L+017“: CH? ‘i ”$2 “351 E‘i‘lfi-qv}? (0431 ‘59. @9415- 7P‘J 915$} QQ-é- ii} ARM] EH3HH EH???“ 43*151) __ 1) 10C“ _ 2) 20‘3“ __ 3) 3013] _ 4) 40'1“ _ 5) 50C!) 01% _ 6) 7% £37115} 1 i 2 3 44%) 4-(04) 5 5152535455565758596061 91 6. 416%: $3311} *)%‘(%)€- 13- % OWE Mau‘filqfl}? __ 1) 7}; 7}-3-fil 1"} *Hawlc’r _ 2) 731%) 7}£-Hl ('1 46°15} __ 3) $13“! °H?l°lc) __ 4) 3460114 5147-94 %3 E'E ”#40114 __ 5) 01%72 46°15} _ 6) ”$011+ $134, $1?,§11~}%-fir‘3 OHM?! 7% 9:131 1MP.) 436015) ._ 7) 'fi ‘3'). 78E 91% 751°] 21%”: 4%0114 _ 8) 761731 Elli-E- 4%“)? 7.1 416°] OPE 41.9.3 283% 813361477}? __ 1) @3710: egaq _ 2) {gag Irma} _ 3) a}: an} _ 4) 9111-25-9] 71¥§ amt} _ 5) 1:1, 545—015- #151215} _ 6) 5, 51630111) 13.9.; magic} __7)%%39h+%§flflq ___&7WH?flflgg: ) 8.511311% r313}:— ‘EZJOII $1317} 7% <33). 31%:- g—fiq 731—}, oflqlo] flflfiqy}? __ 1) 9.13114 _ 2) 31211:]. 9. 1‘4) €01 31811-3: ‘5“? 4%“) 91-31477}? _1) 315} _ 2) 3113} 10. :1 [4101]?)3}7}?J€: 41561311) 3113115- C)% '6‘- 011: Iggaagqn}? _ 1) 41311191 11181123- 9411933112} _ 2) 736(4)?!) 36‘— U121) 3) %"2}(7fli) 35?- 01%) 4) 7)E}(:Ili))3?).°_§: ) 6263646566 92 11. 511311-2- %3}‘3.*) 33H: 0H1 Ell-3% 31935147}? 1) ‘69P“ V413“ 1219.; EH3J3REIE} 2) @9129; “—Jib‘l 91%?)311} 3}?)‘4 3) Wisflé 3:31) 937) $13)“) ‘35)?1011711 *P‘éfi‘l‘ifi} 4) 421°] ‘E—JOILHV— 31?: lei-‘2} 73%.}01L} 14:2: 71%“) filiaflfi} 5) 384% élai °lu°c°1‘+ 14% 469) E%% fijfififliq 6) fifl£§¥~a 56%-111} #935} 7) 1‘2} %‘8}31‘i} 319615} 8) 7151(711134231 ) 12. 713W} 53?} 33%”) %’~) ”#352011 01367)! E%°l 5121—3147)? 1) 51131153 9J1) $74] 51215} 2)5113H% CH: 6 $171] 51315) 3) fig E%°l 517‘] 94215} 4) ‘fifl-fi- 1}%3104 131%} HRH-E: 34215} 13. :L ARE-.9: 73230)) ”Hilfi’xifiqfi}? 1) 4131335} (CY 13-1‘31, 13-2‘31 53739.93) 2) ”3313”) 9391):} (CT 13—325 E73921) ll 12 13 67 69 93 ~--------—-«- < 41 31%.- 1'8 a —°r > 13-1. anon 416104 78518 01:42:) 358% 31311-64477)? __ 1) 01-53-23. 2.2212 ax) emu _ 2) 7513:): mswfig—g 4216mm __ 3) an: )9an maHLw—g— 4216mm. _ 4) Zia-Z121 44% 561°) 421-2: was) #214. 13—2. 4131—2:- flalt‘e} 6519) 352101] fiéfififiqv}? _ 1) o}??- fiéfl‘flt} _ 2) {1%le 84.01%”) __ 3) :11) 31985} _ 4) Er‘zléfl 5501215} _ 5) 01—7- €fiéfi‘flt} ~-----~---— < t) 31% 3) 1] 98x9: 73 1°- > 13—3. 91) 4137.812) 939.41%‘47/1? _ 1) $113117} ”8113M 93217] “HE-015} _ 2) 7119175152.; 8H€§317l “HE-01C} _ 3) %7']7]’ 81217] “HE-01C} __ 4) CH? 7133(0)], ELIE-314M) 4131612317) “HE-015} _ 5) 651°] 01-?- 35315 $1611] 93% 7A @217] “HE—015) _6) 733301141 3&7)! Q 7;! @317] “1153415) _ 7) $3810] 01%: 44011471 “HE-011:} _ 8) iii—OI $3434 7&3] 4.131% ”824:9: 812) %6)flt) ___m7WH?flfl£ii ) 13—153-21343 # 70 71 72 73 W < 41% a 22 Ag 5) 33. > as»: 24414 waggstaw 7J7JOM 43244 EE— 451% a— cm 24°) 317M, r42) "322} 24°) 21cm unaswa—q 5). own?) 7:51-30“ wan—€547) HWHE}. 0) 411—3-3— 042 :2.— 0112119} 33343412). 1. :1 423% CH3- % 011: 3101914.?‘474? (‘5‘?! 31°] 21%:- 319: 3%:- E41) @Jfiéfi} (27°qu 7}) Adz—19.3. giH3Wil+ 5191- ‘:1 “:1. 91-8: 95‘21‘4 __ __ 1+) ¥E7PE¥H %€rfi§}% RE“ 31°] ° ‘3} _ _ 5}) 43% 371% 415419) Q-fiL-E-é- {Hat} _ _ EH %% 7J1); 93%]7131 7)%°ll+ %‘%‘°l-§: {Hit} _ _ 0)) 7&2“; 71.41%.- 3Hfl'4 _ __ “H *371-3- @523. {Hit} __ __ AH 7Jflli *33394-3- 3LT”) flab} Qlflfimifi) _ __ 0)) {hili ‘3339453 flail?) _ __ ., 24449.; $10)) 2M?) 0431 421 new) URL”) 7n) 42mm. We) Mama a 44mm a 2; 2144c). aw. Muggsva) 5512’} ole) 1:) 421% <42) )2). raw.) Maia 7n: 412)?) 4210)) mam 0mg as; 594] 3&3?!) #47) 494:). 2. :1 424.9: oiqow 94.01% 421L472)? __ Ol) 3’13”] ’S __ 02) ”all”! ’3 _ 03) 731-7“) 721319] El _ 04) ZJ’aWIL} 5H7— __ 05) “I?! %-°~l é‘fl‘dfi: _ 06) $338 539] 19r%%li _ O7) “if—L} Zlfifi ‘2} _ 08) Zlfi’a, E1013 EEQ 11L“ _ 09) ‘EWHSMILF *I’E} _ 10) 213)}. __ ll) #41}? __12) a-élg-NL} €713] _ 13) %%§}’&@ _ 14) %L%°ll+ °F9191 @3113} 5’: V _15) 71307141131233 7}51-7} L} E} E} D} u]- A]. o]. 2 95 3. :1 4213— 3: gen 940111-314»)? a 4- 51 45°] $101k} ‘13:?- “H? g *IZEQJLJW}? (.9—75‘1 / 9.5?) A] 5. $33.13- E'?‘ % @olflgqy}? ‘31} ‘53} “111' 93‘ 6. ‘3)?!91 L+01%? CH? g *a} “353 iflfi-H’l}? (0131 ‘fifi 73341-6: 7175} 315% qgé- fl 41%”)! E1131“) EVEN) ERNIE) __ 1) lOEH _ 2) 20‘3“ __ 3) 30:1) _ 4) 40:11 __ 5) SOEH 0W _ 6) 73 513—1111;} 7. ‘fifl(%)€- 111% ‘3“ 01051 4116311477)? 1) 71% 719:6] {I} 41%014 2) >3de 713-13)] '1} 41%}01‘4 3) 731-1114 °H31°151 _ 4) ZJZJ°ll+ @3191 1&3 55%:— 42141015} __ 5) 01%78 41%01‘4 __ 6) 71%014 73131, 731?,31141 %‘fi%‘: OMAR!) 7% 03:1 2mm *}%°IE} 7) ‘£ *3). “35 {hr} 110131;:— A}%o]c} 8) 4161 232%: Awom, 8. :1 H1101) ‘33‘21(%)% 4131-3- 015117!) 91‘35171‘4 £3331flfil47l}? __ 1) $4fi°ll+ 51533—2..- 713121-‘5 941315} __ 12)-9481710: '12; fiasmq 3) %’é}711+ alga-9.15} 4) 6.9-i “1181714 211 315} 5) QOIL} @713 94%?)9513) 6) $.10“) @7133- *)%3}°4 3153361215} 7) 7151(:11ifl31£§.2 ) 3 4 5-(‘a*) 5-(01) 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9. .1 “11°11 $011+ %6% “HUME 31%11’3‘1471)? __ 1) 19115} _ 2) 01145} 10. 3181—:- 12181—12 @1141 41617) 21 «21:11 211-: 15234 711—11, 01°10] 9.1313147)? __ 1) 319m _ 2) mm 11. 41°) 3181-2: 2111 A111101 121-34721? — 1) ‘31“) __ 2) 311:) 12. 11181163.- 518115.41 7161;:— 01111 cH-3-% 819131477)? _ 1) 16910)) c131 12123. GISJE‘SHRE) __ 2) 691% $191 $1381.12) 81311:} _ 3) 3116112 312) 91171 $18104 4103011711 41233135161 _ 4) 412.101 $011431. 31%:— %91 73231014 B18.- 7147—1011 413181315} _ 5) 191% €131 01%011—1 EH}:- AHM E%% 3538121151 _ 6) 6912:3745) 291713121 6131:} __ 7) L113t 68131121 $12M __ 8) 7151(741175123: ) 13. 41317121411} 33%” ra”) ”251°“ 013971) E-S-Ol 51316—1477)? __ 1) ”131% 9:11] 94171151215} __ 2)313H% 5H: a $171) 512111} _ 3) ”£1 E%°l 511] 3119113} __ 4) $1913: 11%3104 131%} 51131135} 11215} 14. :1 4121-3: ‘5”?1 1910)] :1 141%"3- l11'1”!) 7)] 111%! “£111 °l°171312i€-‘4”}? _ 1) 71%(163, 8321)) __ 2) $174 011% __ 3) 816%; __ 4) 4193: _ 5) 732101] 41:11 _ 6) 71519511171121: _ 7) 0151101] HIE $1311] $3114 910111121314 232425262728 97 15. :1 418% 7333:2101] 4131311161471)? 1) flfl’i‘lc} ('3' 15-1'?l, 15-2‘31 ESJSLE) 2) 4131311] 933114 (E? 15-3'31 E‘ségi) - < 4131-3 1'11 738— > 15—1. 413101) £16104 7323-3 our)??? 2.21-3- 61316—1477)? _ 1) 01—3—41 352); 8121 93211:) _ 2) 415): £12228- 2191812161 _ 3) 2143 “233—6101 WIN-8% 2121313114. _ 4) 34%4491 $41-3- 8—6101 4121—3— tflaz‘sfl #215). 15-2. ”11.31%:- iialfl €33.19) 528101] 314314161471)? _ l) 0191‘- ‘i'léfl‘iiq __ 2) 11%? 35012151 _ 3) :111 1331:} _ 4) S—‘fléfl 15012111} __ 5) 015‘- 542.1%319615} - < («131% 31x1 egg— 73 4- > 15—3. 911 41316174 939.41%?»171)? _ 1) £11817) 41213111 812171 “1153—0114 _ 2) 7H°JZflgg 31144171413014 _ 3) 93717) 31217) [4153—0111) _ 4) C18: 7121M], 2123:1464] 4131612171 “HE-011‘) _ 5) 733.101 01-?— ?MIE #1612) 92-8- 31 72217) 4130):} _6) 73801141 4151711 Q 71* 42217111113015) __ 7) 391°) 01%:- 41301217) “HE-01C} _ 8) 12°) $6121 418) 411% 4321-3 61%) ¥6121£1 _ 9) 715167314421: ) 15 15-115-215—3 # 29 30 31 32 33 98 ———< 25.4121 711114121 > 4 0) 1115—8: 215213131 L141 334121—301 71211611:— 3.3411461 ~42 1. 3541:1142 11911341t11’2 7131171 913121 3111;)21 5143 _1) i801é94 91%} “1% __ 2) 36°1é91 ”3?:153’3 $5“le _ 3) ENE) 572% 71761 *S-é _ 4) E1491 63%?! 55311191 _ 5) EH???— 015’115—‘311 _ 6) E4194 ”21°32”? 133317} _ 7) 5’49] 3%!7‘191 _ 8) 7151(7311312i: ) 2. 32414412121 713—3331 381 _. 1) 13%??- _ 2) 0321—3-51 _ 3) CHM—’69! _ 4) 313(52- 0161) 013112. __ 5) 312163 012) 013111: _ 6) 7)E1(?i117:1.9.§.:___) 3 3561332 _1)t573 _2) 3132171211 __3) 12811 4 2'21) @355 ____ 1) 49 ____ 2) 5? ____ 3) 3) 5. $1411 $51—01) -8-%11}7} 51131123 3196113131 E11332} 231712161477}? _ 1) 311;} __ 2) 8151 5. (13131318171 11415101 211-: 733—) 1:341 513—21 31145.13 215.31 11312101 41133131 2161121? _1):133u1 _2) o111c1 _3) 1118112 7. 3::— 23114121 324111: 421111.43— .3331: 3.313141: _2_34_A1_—3——3-e1_3_93_2~1_3—2121 2342121 : __ AVE __ 341/31 _ I3/11 12341567 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 99 Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire (Enflsh Version) Victimization Survey in Korea This questionnaire contains two parts; Yellow and White. First, to analyze the data, we would like to ask some questions including your lifestyle. We also would like to aske how many times you were victimized during the last year (Jan, lst, 1998 to Dec, 3lst, 1998). These questionnaires are printed on the white color paper. Please try to answer every question. Second, this part is the additional questions for whom there was an experience of victimization during the last yeat. This part is printed on the yellow paper, and please answers the question if you have an experience of victimization in the last year. "It Do not fill out under this line. 31911311 @E'fliflg l 2 3 4 5 6 7 100 * Following questions are on our societies crime phenomenon. 1. How do you learn about or hear the news of a crime? (Please select only ONE item.) __ 1) Family 2) Friend 3) Neighbor _ 4) Newspaper 5) Television 6) Radio __ 7) Magazine _ 8) Other(SpecificallyI ) 2. What do you think of the rate of total crime occurrence rate in Korea recently? __ 1) Increased rapidly __ 2) Increased __ 3) No much difference _ 4) Decreased _ 5) Decreased rapidly 3. What do yo think of the crime occurrence rate in your neighborhood recenUy? _ 1) Increased rapidly _ 2) Increased _ 3) No much difference __ 4) Decreased _ 5) Decreased rapidly 4. What do you think is the most problematic crime in Korea? (Please select only ONE item.) __ Ol) Homicide _ 02) Robbery __ 03) Rape/Sexual harrassment _ 04) Assault __ 05) Ransom/Slave trade _ O6) larceny, pick-pocket __ O7) fraud _ O8) embazzlement, misappropriation __ 09) cornering and hoarding _ 10) corruption, bribe _ 11) juvenile delinquency _ 12) others(specifically1_) 1 2 3 4 8 10 ll 12 101 5. How do you feel when walking alone in your neighborhood at night? _ 1) Very scared __ 2) Scared __ 3) Neutral 4) Not so scared __ 5) Never scared 6. Everyone fear that they would become a crime victim themselves. This question asks about the fear of crime you have in your routine life. Check the rate after reading the sentences on the left. CDstrongly®moderately®moderate1y@strongly disagree disagree agree agree a) Afraid of auto or auto part thefts. _ _ __ __ b) Afraid of houshold theft when the home is empty. __ _ _ __ c) Afraid of household theft accompanied by threatening or assault. _ _ __ _ d) Afraid of theft outside(including pickpocket, snatching, and shoplifting) _ _ _ __ e) Afraid of theft outside accompanied by threatening or assault. _ _ _ __ f) Afraid of fraud __ __ _ __ g) Afraid of assauld _ _ _ __ h) Afraid of sexual attack or harressment _ __ __ __ 513-714 121 a1 n1 414101 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 102 7. Have you ever tried anything below to protect yourself and your house from crime? @Yes ® No a) Lock the doors and windows before going to bed b) Double-lock the windows and the entrance c) put iron bars outside the windows d) put the video camera or CCTV e) set up the emergency line or bell which is directly connect to the police office or police box f) install the private security system g) concern about the neighborhood security when you move to other place 8. Do you have(carry) any self-defence utilities? If you do, what is it? (Please select only ONE item.) __ 0) Don't carry any _ 1) whistle _ 2) pepper spray _ 3) flash light _ 4) pepper gas gun _ 5) control bat __ 6) knife __ 7) pistol _ 8) others(specifically I ) 9. How often do you act as below to protect yourself from crime? @never®some-®often@always times a) avoid specific areas in fear of crime b) don't walk alone at night c) postpone a plan scheduled at night because of fear of crime d) don't carry much amount of cash e) don't take a cab alone at night f) ask a neighbor to look after your home while your away g) volunteerly join the community crime prevention program 103 10. How much do you feel the probability that your house will be robbed? _ 4) low _ 1) very high _ 2) high __ 3) neutral __ 5) very low 11. How much do you feel the probability that you will be the victim of the crime such as robbery, theft, assault, pickpocket, and sexual assault? 4) low _ 1) very high __ 2) high _ 3) neutral _ 5) very low * Question on Personal Information 1. What is your gender? __ 1) Male 2. What is your age? 3. What is your marital status? 1) Single (never married) _ 5) widows _ 3) separated __ 2) Female 2) married __ 4) divorced 6) other(specifically I _) 10 ll 37 39 4O 41 42 43 104 4. How man are there in your family including yourself? a) Under 20 years old Male , Female b) 20-64 years old Male , Female c) 65 or more Male , Female 5. What is your position in your family? _ 1) householder _ 2) spouse of the householder _ 3) parents of the householder(including mother-in-law &father-in-law) _4) siblings of the householder(including brother-in-law & sister-in-law) _5) children of the householder(including daughter-in-law & son-in-law) _ 6) other(specifically 2 ) 6. How long have you lived in the present address? (years) 7. What is your educational level? __ 1) never been to school _ 2) elementary school _ 3) middle school _ 4) high school 6) 4-year university 5) community college 7) graduate school 7-1. Did you finish the above educational level? _ I) graduate _ 2) drop out of school _ 3) attending school 4) no category 8. Do you or your family own vehicles?(including car, van, truck) Q) yes Q) no 7)) yourself Li) family(including yourself) 441-1111571401) L146) 11401) 01—113) 01-101) 5 6 7 7-1'3—71 L1 105 < Job Categories 1 The answer for Question in the next page) (Professional - technical Job> 01) Engineer 02) Professor, Researcher 03) Medical Doctor, Dentist, Herbalist O4) Veterinarian, Pharmacist 05) Nurse 06) Accountant, Judge, Prosecutor, Lawyer 07) Teacher 08) Religious 09) press member 10) Entertainer, Athlete, Artist 11) Crew (Ship, Airplane) 12) Others(translator, institute teacher) 21) CEO(More than 5 employees) 22) The executives of a enterprise 23) High rank officer 24) The executives of NGO 25) Professional soldier (a major or higher rank), Police (higher rank) 26) CEO (company related to the clerical work) 27) Other administrator (Desk work> 31) General desk worker(at least the chief of section position 32) public officer(at least an assistant junior officer position) 33) NGO staff 34) cashier, paymaster 35) Communication 36) Postman 37) Soldier (lower rank), police(lower rank), firefighter, correctional officer 38) Other 41) Whole seller or retail seller (less than 5 employees) 42) Sales clerk 43) Reality dealer 44) Salesman 45) Stailman 46) Others 51) Owner (Restaurant, Beauty salon, motel, etc) 52) Employee (Restaurant, Beauty salon, motel, etc) 53) Hair stylist, Cleaner 54) Janitor, housekeeper 55) Security guard 56) Others 61) Rich farmer 62) Middle class farmer 63) Small farmer 64) Poor farmer 65) Farmer 66) Daily farming, orchardist 67) Ship owner, fish-raising industry 68) Fisherman 69) Other (productive industry> 71) Production company owner (less than 5 employee), Production director 72) Technician 73) Apprentice 74) Worker 75) Diver (Auto, heavy equipment) 76) Minor 77) Other (non-worker) 81) Student 82) Housewife 83) Soldier 84) Unemployed person 85) Retire 86) Other 99) Cannot classification(Specifically I ) 106 9. What is you and your householder's occupation? If you are the householder, check the same one.(See the table of occupation category) 3) your occupation: b) householder's occupation: 10. How much in your average monthly income? (including bonus & special income) a) personal income I won IJr) household income I won 11. What kind of house do you live in? 1) own(including family owned house) _ 2) deposit basis(not including monthly payment) _ 3) lease(including deposit based lease) _ 4) others 12. How do you think your social level? (1=lowest, 7=highest) lowest midddle highest I I l l l l l (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) * Question on your daily life and surrounding environment. 1. Do you commute? _ 1) yes (W go to question 1-1) _ 2) no (W go to question 2) 9—71 9—11 10-71 10-11 11 12 11 i 1 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 3 107 l-l. -...__-...--..__.__ 1-2. 1-3. (Please select only ONE item.) _ 01) urban bus, village bus __ 02) seat bus __ 03) cross-country bus _ O4) commute bus/school bus __ 05) subway __ 06) train _ 07) taxi _ 08) car, RV or van __ 09) bicycle _ 10) walk 11) other(specifically1 ) What time do you go to work and what time do you back home? go to work at (AM/PM) back home at _ (AM/PM) How long does it take to work (school)? hour(s) minute(s) What kind of transportation do you take? 2. Where do you spend your time during the day? __ 1) almost at home 2) almost at school _ 3) work at the office 4) work in a factory or the site __ 5) at markets or department stores where there are many people _ 6) move around meeting buyers 3. How often did you go home late (after 10 pm) after work, school, or a get together with friends last night? _ 1) almost everyday __ 2) once in a two or three days _ 3) once a week _ 4) once in 15 days _ 5) once a week _ 6) hardly ever __ 7) never ”219. 1—1 12 1-3 2 3 123|456|789101112 2 | | 108 4. How often was your house completely empty? __ 3) once or twice in two or three months _ 5) once or twice a year 7) never 1) more than once a week 2) once or twice a month 4) once or twice in half year __ 6) hardly ever 5. What do you do to keep your house safe when you leave the house for a day or two? (please select ONLY one item) __ 1) nothing _ 2) stop milk or newspaper delivery 3) disguise somebody in the house _ 4) ask a neighbor to take care of the house _ 5) ask a relative to take care of the house _ 6) notify the apartment security guard 7) use the private security company _ 8) other(specificallyt 6. How often did you go shopping last year (1998)? 7. What community? (please select ONLY one item) __ 01) rural bus, village bus _ 3) once a week _ 5) once a month 1) almost everyday _ 7) never __ 03) cross-country bus __ 05) subway __ O7) taxi __ 09) bicycle __ 11) others(specifically: 2) once in two or three days _ 4) once in 15 days _ 6) hardly ever transportation system do you use when going out apart from 02) seat bus 04) commute bus, school bus 06) train 08) car, RV, minivan 10) walk 13 14 15 l6 l7 109 8. Please answer according to your situation. CDstrongly®moderately®moderate1y@strongly disagree disagree agree agree a) I prefer to dress casually rather than formally when I go out. _ _ __ _ b) I dress gaudily rather than plainly when I go out. _ _ __ __ c) I wear outstanding and sumptuous accessories. __ __ _ _ d) I spend much pocketmoney. __ __ _ _ 9. This is a question on your neighbors. Please mark on the appropriate answer. ®strong1y®moderately®moderately©strongly disagree disagree agree agree a) Our neighbors help each other through in difficult situations. __ _ __ __ b) Our neighbors know each other quite well. __ _ __ __ G) Our neighbors lend or borrow each other's possessives. _ __ __ _ d) Our neighbors share information on the neighborhood. _ _ _ _— e) Our neighbors cooperate and join in various neighborhood events. __ _ __ __ a} 181920212223242526 110 10. This question is on your neighborhood. Please mark on the appropriate answer. CDstrongly®moderately®moderately©strongly disagree disagree agree agree 3) There are trash disposed carelessly in our neighborhood. b) There are vacant houses or land in our neighborhood. c) There are many dark and secluded places in our neighborhood. (I) There is a specific place with delinquent juveniles on our neighborhood. 11. This question is on police activities. Please mark on the appropriate answer. G)strongly®moderately®moderately@strongly disagree disagree agree agree a) The police in our neighbor is doing patrol very well. LI) I think the polich are immediately sent when I report the accident. 51') If I report the criminal situation to the police, they should arrest the criminal. 12. What is your opinion on these comments? 3) Our community is safe from crime. 1) strongly agree 2) moderately agree 3) neutral 4) moderately disagree __ 5) strongly agree 107* Ll Cl a} 11-7} 1+ Cl 12-7} 2728293031323334 111 b) Our neighborhood is safe from crime. c) My house is safe from crime. 1) strongly agree 2) moderately agree 3) neutral 4) moderately disagree 5) strongly agree 1) strongly agree 2) moderately agree 3) neutral _ 4) moderately disagree _ 5) strongly agree Ltqtt 353637 4 112 * This following questions ask you a few experience to help you think about the criminal victimization you have experienced. Please limit the experiences to one year (1998). 1. Have you or your family experienced a traffic accident during last year (1998)? _ 1) Yes (I? go to question 1-1) _ 2) No (W go to question 2) -...-._.-..-.... < If you answered YES. > 1-1. How many times? times 2. Have you experienced fraud during last year(1998)? (exclude 7JE91- 2:153. for this question.) _ 1) Yes (W go to question 2-1) _ 2) No (I? go to question 3) -----—---~——~- < If you answered YES. > 2-1. How many times? __ times 3. Have you offered bribe to police or public officer during last year (1998)? __ 1) Yes (I? go to question 3-1) 2) No (W go to the next page) -......_...-_ < If you answered YES.> 3-1. How many times? __ times 38394041424344454647 113 * The following questions ask the criminal victimization you have experienced last yeat (from 1/1/98 to 12/31/98). 1. Did you experience auto-part (car stereo, tires, engine, car accesories, etc.) last year? __ 0) do not own a vehicle _ 1) Yes (W go to question 1-1) _ 2) No (W go to question 2) -...---........ < If you answered YES, > 1-1. How many times?? __ times m“: Please answer the questions for in the yellow sectionfi 2. Have you experienced car (car, van, mini-van, truck) theft last year (1998)? _ 0) Do not own a vehicle __ 1) Yes (I? go to question 2-1) _ 2) No (K?P go to question 3) -~---~------ < If you answered YES, > 1 2-1. How many times?? times I 1’? Please answer the questions for in the yellow section it ....———... 3. Has a thief intended or completed theft of your house-hold possessivesGewelry, audio, TV, computer) or money (cash, check, stock) last year?(Do not include threatening and assault.) __ 1) Yes (I? go to question 3-1) _ 2) No (I? go to question 4) .,___.....-_ < If you answered YES. > 3-1. How many times? __ times m-.. 1? Please answer the questions for in the jEIIOW section {I 1 1-1 2 2-1 3 3-1 484950515253545556 114 4. Has a thief assaulted or threatened your family members and/to steal money or house-hold possessives last year? _ 1) Yes (‘3‘ go to question 4-1) _ 2) No (I? go to question 5) , Mum"... < If you answered YES, > __....«-._._.._.......~...~_..-_...._.,; l I 4-1. How many times? _ ________ times 3 fr Please answer the questions for < house-hold larceny> in ___ ,,,,,,,,, _J the yellow section a"! r a l l L..__...... 5. Have you experienced pickpocket, snatching, shoplifting outside your home and lost or nearly lost either money or possessives (jewelry, watch, bag, handbag, cassette player) last year? (Do not include threaten or assault.) _ 1) Yes (W go to question 5-1) 2) No (W go to question 6) ......-»~—~~— < If you answered YES. > 5-1. How many times? __ times ., it please answer the questions for in the yellow section m‘r Lu .m—ga—m 6. Have you ever been threatened or assaulted and lost or nearly lost either money or personal belongings outside last year? _ 1) Yes (W go to question 6-1) _ 2) No (W go to question 7) ~ --------- - < If you answered YES, > 6-1. How many times? __ times 1? Please answer the questions in yellow A section V 575859606162636465 115 7. Were you injured or nearly injured by an assault last year? (Please do not include burglary from the previous question.) _ 1) Yes (W go to question 7-1) _ 2) No (W go to question 8) ...__...._....m < If you answered YES. > "4..." 7-1. How many times? __ times it Please answer the questions for < assault and bodily A injury> in yellow section. V r-.................... W< The following questions are only for females > -W 8. Have you ever experienced or nearly experienced ragI sexual assaulted or sexual harassment last year? 1) Yes (Cr go to question 8-1) _ 2) No I..._.........~—..- < If you answered YES.) l 8-1. how many times? __ times 1‘: Please answer the question for in yellow section 131 -~—~3 ** If you answered 'yes' to the above questions asking your experience of crime during 1998, please answer the questions in the yellow section. If you have no experience in crime last year, your questions are over. Thank you for your cooperation. 116 < How to answer in Yellow part questionnaire > Contents of Victimization ** Answer-Part ** < Auto-Part Theft > Yellow part p. 2 - 3_ < Auto Theft > Yellow part p. 4 ~ 5 < Household-level Burglary > Yellow part p. 6 - 7 < Household-level Robbery > Yellow part p. 8 - 11 < Personal-level Larceny > Yellow part p. 12 - 13 < Personal-level Robbery > Yellow part p. 14 - 17 < Injured by an assault > Yellow part p. 18 - 21.-..-- < Sexual assault and harassment > Yellow part p. 22 - 25‘ 117 _....--......._...__. < Auto-Part Theft> You answered yes to the questions on auto-part theft in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. Where was the place of crime? __ 1) Household area _ 2) Business district _ 3) Near department stores and markets _ 4) Public parking lot _ 5) Temporary parking __ 6) other (specifically I ) 2. The month of the crime I 3. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 4. What was the part you got robbed? (please select only one item) __ 01) engine __ 02) carburetor __ 03) battery __ 04) tire, spare tire __ 05) back mirror __ 06) indicator, light bulb __ 07) hub cap _ 08) repair kit __ 09) exterior accessories __ 10) interior accessories __ 11) car stereo _ 12) other (specifically I ) 5. How much was the approximate value of the item? WOI'l 719. 1 2 3 4 5 118 6. Did you report the incident to the police? __ 1) Yes (0' 6-1, 6-2) _ 2) No (C? 6-3) -— < Reported > --~ 6-1. What was the police reaction to the report? __ 1) No reaction was conducted. _ 2) Verified the damage by phone. __ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. __ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 6-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? __ 1) Very satisfied _ 2) Satisfied _ 3) Neutral _ 4) Not satisfied _ 5) Not satisfied at all -—-~-~----———-—- < Not reported > ~—-"~~- 6-3. Why didn’t you report the incident? _ 1) Because the loss wasn't serious. __ 2) Because the incident was solved personally. __ 3) Because there wasn’t any proof. __ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). _ 5) Thought the police would be little help. __ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. _ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. _ 8) Fear of revenge. _ 9) other (specifically I ) 6 6~16-2 6-3 # 13 14 15 16 17 119 ------------ ~— < Auto theft > You answered yes to the questions on auto theft in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. Where was the place of auto theft? __ 1) household area _ 2) business district _ 3) near department stores and markets _ 4) public parking lot __ 5) temporary parking _ 6) other (specifically 1 ) 2. The month of the crime I 3. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 4. Did you find your car? __ 1) Yes _ 2) No 5. Did you report the incident to the police? __ 1) Yes (Cr 5-1, 5-2) _ 2) No ('3r 5-3) 1819 20 2122 23 24 120 _-._..-......——-.— < Reported > 5-1. What was the police reaction to the report? __ 1) No reaction was conducted. __ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. _ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 5-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? _ 1) Very satisfied __ 2) Satisfied _ 3) Neutral _ 4) Not satisfied __ 5) Not satisfied at all _..__.-_.......- < Not reported > 5-3. What was the reason? __ 1) Found the car before reporting. __ 2) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). _ 3) Thought the police would be little help. _ 4) Thought the police would be inquisitive. __ 5) The criminal was acquaintance. _ 6) Fear of revenge 7) other (specifically I ) 5-1 5-2‘5—3 # 25 26 27 28 2 121 --~--—--——~ < Household- level burglary> You answered yes to the questions on household burglary in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. The month of the crime I 2. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 3. How many persons were in the house at the time? male(s) and _ female(s) 4. What did you get robbed? (Please select only one item) _ 01) TV, audio _ 02) camera, camcoder _ 03) jewelry such as watch, ring __ 04) cash, check, stock _ 05) art pieces, antiques _ 06) furniture, folding screen __ O7) clothes __ 08) food _ 09) other electric appliances _ 10) agricultural products like rice _ 11) other (specifically I__) 5. How much was the approximate value of the item? W01] 6. Did you report the incident to the police? _ 1) Yes ('3' 6-1, 6—2) _ 2) No (CT 6-3) 1 2 3-(‘EH 3-(°‘l) 4 5 6 29303132333435363738394041424344 122 -..._..._.-........- < Reported > 6-1. What was the police reaction to the report? _ 1) No reaction was conducted. __ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. __ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 6-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? _ 1) Very satisfied _ 2) Satisfied _ 3) Neutral _ 4) Not satisfied __ 5) Not satisfied at all —~—-~---~-—~- < Not reported > 6-3. What was the reason? __ l) The damage was not very serious. _ 2) The crime was solved personally. _ 3) There wasn't any proof. __ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). __ 5) Thought the police would be little help. __ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. __ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. 8) Fear of revenge. 9) other (specifically I ) 6—1i6-2'6-3 # 45 46 47 48 3 123 - ---------------- ~ You answered yes to the questions on robbery in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. The month of the crime I 2. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 3. How many persons were in the house at the time? __ male(s) and _ female(s) 4. How many robbers were related to the crime? male(s) and __ female(s) 5. What was the approximate age of the suspect? (If several, answer based on the main suspect) 1) 105 __ 2) 205 _ 3) 308 _ 4) 405 5) over 503 6) could not identify 6. Who were the suspects? __ 1) family member _ 2) relative __ 3) friend or lover _ 4) colleague or boss _ 5) neighbor _ 6) close acquaintance 7) acquaintance (met once or twice) _ 8) totalstranger 1 2 3—(‘El) 3-(01) 4-(‘El) 4-(°4) 5 6 4950515253545556575859606162 124 7. Did the suspect carry or use a weapon? (please select only one item) _ 1) no weapon __ 2) knife _ 3) pistol (include pepper gas) __ 4) bat _ 5) other (specifically I—) 8. Did the suspect attempt to rape or actually raped a female? _ 1) Yes __ 2) No 9. How many family members got physically injured? total I 10. What was the extent of the injury? __ 1) were not physically injured _ 2) slight injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or less) _ 3) serious injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or more) __ 4) killed _ 5) other (specifically1_) 11. What did you get robbed? (please select only one item) _ 01) TV, video, audio _ 02) camera, camcoder _ 03) jewelry(e.g., watches, rings) __ 04) cash, check, stock _ 05) art pieces, antiques __ 06) furniture, folding screen __ O7) clothes _ 08) food __ 09) other electric appliances _ 10) agricultural product like rice 11) other (specifically I ) 12. How much was the approximate value of the item? W01"! 636465666768697071727374 125 13. What was your reaction to the attack? __ 1) Resisted by force. _ 2) Threatened with words. _ 3) Pleaded for less damage. _ 4) Reported to the police or other authorization during the attack. _ 5) Asked neighbors or other people for help. __ 6) Tried to escape from the robber. _ 7) Suffered the attack. _ 8) other (specifically I ) 14. How did your reaction affect the attack? _ 1) Caused no damage. _ 2) Caused less severe damage. __ 3) Caused not much difference. _ 4) Overreaction caused more severe damages to the victim. 15. Did you report the incident to the police? 1) Yes (0' 15-1, 15-2) 2) No (0’ 15-3) 13§14 15 75 76 77 126 »-—--—---—-~— < Reported > 15-1. What was the police reaction to the report? __ 1) No reaction was conducted. _ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. _ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 15-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? __ 1) Very satisfied _— 2) Satisfied __ 3) Neutral __ 4) Not satisfied __ 5) Not satisfied at all --—--—--—~-~——-—- < Not reported > 15~3. What was the reason? __ 1) The victimization was not very serious. _ 2) The crime was solved personally. _ 3) There wasn't any proof. __ 4) Reported to another authorization (ex., insurance company). __ 5) Thought the police would be little help. _ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. _ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. __ 8) Fear of revenge. _ 9) other (specifically I ) 711:. 15-1 15-2 15-3 # 127 . 1‘ ~~~ You answered yes to the question on personal-level larceny in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. Where was the place of the incident? __ 01) near home _ 02) school or workplace _ 03) market, department store, __ 04) public authorization such as post office and bank _ 05) bars and motels _ 06) streets like allies _ O7) park or retired (quite) places _ 08) public transportation such as bus, taxi, and subway _ 09) train station or bus terminal 10) other (specifically I ) 2. The month of the crime I 3. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 4. What is the value of the item or the amount of cash you got robbed? won 5. Did you report the incident to the police? _ 1) Yes (0' 5-1, 5-2) __ 2) No (CT 5-3) 128 ....—--.——~---- < Reported > 5-1. What was the police reaction to the report? _ 1) No reaction was conducted. __ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. __ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 5-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? _ 1) Very satisfied _ 2) Satisfied __ 3) Neutral __ 4) Not satisfied _ 5) Not satisfied at all - -------------- ~ < Not reported > 5-3. What was the reason? _ 1) The victimization was not very serious. __ 2) The incident was solved personally. _ 3) There wasn’t any proof. _ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company) __ 5) Thought the police would be little help. _ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. _ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. _ 8) Fear of revenge. __ 9) other (specifically I ) r5-1’5-2é5—3 # 18 19 20 21 129 ___._ You answered yes to the question on personal—level robbery in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. Where was the place of the incident? _ 01) near home __ 02) school or work place _ 03) market, department store, store _ 04) public authorizations such as bank and post office _ 05) places of amusement (ex, bar, motel..) _ 06) streets like allies _ 07) park or retired (quite) places _ 08) public transportation such as taxi, bus, and subway _ 09) train station or bus terminal _ 10) other (specifically: ) 2. The month of the crime I 3. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 4. How many robbers were related to the crime? male(s) and __ female(s) 5. What was the approximate age of the suspect? (If several, answer based on the main suspect) 1) 10s 2) 208 _ 3) 305 _ 4) 40$ __ 5) over 505 _ 6) could not identify 1 2 3 4-(‘El’) 4-(0‘1) 5 2223242526272829303132 130 6. Who were the suspects? __ 1) one of the family members _ 2) one of the relatives _ 3) friend or lover _ 4) colleague or boss _ 5) neighbor _ 6) close acquaintance other than family or friend _ 7) acquaintance (met once or twice) _ 8) total stranger 7. Did the suspect carry or use a weapon? _ 1) no weapons _ 2) knife 3) pistol(include pepper gas) 4) bat _ 5) other (specifically 2__ ) W—— < Females only > 8. Did the suspect try to rape or assult you? 1) Yes 2) No 9. What was the extent of the injury? __ l) were not physically injured _ 2) slight injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or less) __ 3) serious injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or more) _ 4) other (specifically: ) 10. What is the value of the item or the amount of cash you got robbed? won 11. Was a friend, colleague or lover on the site of the incident? _ 1) Yes __ 2) No 657l8 33343536373839404142 131 12. Did you have companies when you victimized? 1) Yes 2) No 13. What was your reaction to the attack? _ l) Resisted by force. __ 2) Threatened with words. _ 3) Pleaded for less damage. 4) Reported to the police or other authorization during the attack. 5) Asked neighbors or other people for help. __ 6) Tried to escape from the robber. 7) Suffered the attack. __ 8) other (specifically 1 14. How did your reaction affect the attack? _ 1) Caused no damage. _ 2) Caused less severe damage. 3) Caused not much difference. _ 4) Overreaction caused more severe damages to the victim. 15. Did you report the incident to the police? __ 1) Yes (0' 15-1, 15-2) __ 2) N0 (‘7 15-3) 12 13 14 15 43 45 46 132 ............ a < Reported > 15-1. What was the police reaction to the report? __ 1) No reaction was conducted. _ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. _ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 15-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? __ 1) Very satisfied _ 2) Satisfied __ 3) Neutral _ 4) Not satisfied _ 5) Not satisfied at all -------------- - < Not reported > 15-3. What was the reason? _ 1) The damage was not serious _ 2) The incident was solved personally __ 3) There wasn’t any proof __ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). _ 5) Thought the police would be little help. __ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. _ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. _ 8) Fear of revenge __ 9) other (specifically I ) 15-115—215—3 # 47 48 49 50 133 -.__....__..._._._ < Injured or nearly injured by an assault > You answered yes to the question on assault in the previous section. If you have several experiences on this kind of crime, please answer the following questions based on the most current incident. 1. Where was the place of the incident? __ 01) your place __ 02) the suspect’s place __ 03) friend or relative's place _ 04) work place or school _ 05) bar or motel _ 06) inside public transportation _ 07) the crowded place (ex., market, department store.) __ O8) uncrowded places (ex. the byway) _ 09) park or retired (quiet) places _ 10) other (specifically I ) 2. The month of the crime I 3. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 4. How many persons were related to the crime? male(s) and female(s) 5. What was the approximate age of the suspect? (If several, answer based on the main suspect) _ l) 103 _ 2) 205 _ 3) 305 4) 403 _ 5) over 505 6) could not identify 1 2 3 4-(‘El’) 4-(01) 5 5152535455565758596061 134 6. Who were the suspects? __ 1) one of the family members __ 2) one of the relatives __ 3) friend or lover _ 4) colleague or boss __ 5) neighbor __ 6) close acquaintance other than family or friend __ 7) acquaintance (met once or twice) __ 8) total stranger 7. How did the suspect assaulted you? __ 1) holded or shaked __ 2) slapped with hands _ 3) kicked with feet _ 4) hit with furniture like chairs and tables __ 5) waved bats or knives __ 6) hit with rock or metal _ 7) threatened or shot a gun __ 8) other (specifically: ) 8. Was a friend, colleague or lover on the site of the incident? __ 1) Yes _ 2) No 9. Did you have companies when you victimized? 1) Yes 2) No 10. What was the extent of the injury? __ 1) were not physically injured _ 2) slight injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or less) __ 3) serious injury(complete cure after 3 weeks or more) 4) other (specifically: ) 6263646566 135 11. What was your reaction to the attack? .— 1) Resisted by force. 2) Threatened with words. 3) Pleaded for less damage. 4) Reported to the police or other authorization during the attack. 5) Asked neighbors or other people for help. 6) Tried to escape from the robber. 7) Suffered the attack. 8) other (specifically I ) 12. How did your reaction affect the attack? 1) Caused no damage. 2) Caused less severe damage. 3) Caused not much difference. __ 4) Overreaction caused more severe damages to the victim. 13. Did you report the incident to the police? 1) Yes (CT 13-1, 13-2) 2) No (I:r 13-3) 11 12 13 67 69 136 -..-.._....__......._ < Reported > 13-1. What was the police reaction to the report? __ 1) No reaction was conducted. __ 2) Verified the damage by phone. _ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. __ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 13-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? __ 1) Very satisfied __ 2) Satisfied __ 3) Neutral _ 4) Not satisfied __ 5) Not satisfied at all ‘----~~~—~--~~ < Not reported > 13-3. What was the reason? _ 1) The damage was not serious __ 2) The incident was solved personally __ 3) There wasn’t any proof __ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). _ 5) Thought the police would be little help. _ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. __ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. _ 8) Fear of revenge __ 9) other (specifically I ) 13-113—2313—3 # 70 71 72 73 137 -. .- n“. .. -.........-..._ < Sexual assault and sexual harassment > You answered yes to the question on sexual assault and sexual harassment in the previous section. Please answer the following questions. This section is for females only. 1. What was the actual incident? (please check every item you are included) 71') heard bad/insulted word about sex L‘l’)experience to get a obscene telephone call from someone 51') hold hand or touch somewhere on my body al) bodily stick by force, and touch my hip and breast t'l') kiss by force ‘31-) touch my genitals Al) Try to sexual relationship by force, but failed °H Do sex by force @Yes @No * Generally, option 1) is regarded the most serious, and 7) is the least serious. If you experienced several incidents shown above, please answer the below questions based on the most serious incidents you experienced. 2. Where was the place of the incident? 01) your residence __ 02) suspect’s residence O3) friend or relative's residence __ 04) work place or school 05) accommodation __ 06) places of amusement 07) bus or subway 08) subway station, bus terminal, or train station __ 09) department store or market _ 10) underpass _ 11) parking lot __ 12) alley or street _ 13) public restroom _ 14) park or retired (quite) places __ 15) other (specifically I__) an; 1-7l Ll El E} D} a} A} o}- 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 5 138 3. The month of the crime I 4. What was the approximate time of the crime? (am/pm) 5. How many persons were related to the crime? male(s) and __ female(s) 6. What was the approximate age of the suspect? (If several, answer based on the main suspect) __ 1) 105 _ 2) 203 __ 3) 308 _ 4) 405 5) over 505 _ 6) could not identify 7. Who were the suspects? _ 1) one of the family members _ 2) one of the relatives __ 3) friend or lover __ 4) colleague or boss _ 5) neighbor _ 6) close acquaintance other than family or friend _ 7) acquaintance (met once or twice) _ 8) total stranger 8. How did the suspect(s) threaten or assault? __ 1) did not threaten or assault __ 2) threatened with words _ 3) holded or shaked _ 4) slapped with hands or kicked with feet _ 5) threatened with knife for a weapon __ 6) assaulted with knife or a weapon _ 7) other (specifically 2___ ) 3 4 5-(‘el) 5-(01) 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 139 9. Did you get robbed? _1) Yes _ 2) No 10. Was a friend, colleague or lover on the site of the incident? 1) Yes _ 2) No 11. Did you have companies when you victimized? 1) Yes _ 2) No 12. What was your reaction to the attack? 1) Resisted by force. 2) Threatened with words. 3) Pleaded for less damage. 4) Reported to the police or other authorization during the attack. 5) Asked neighbors or other people for help. 6) Tried to escape from the robber. 7) Suffered the attack. 8) other (specifically I ) 13. How did your reaction affect the attack? 1) Caused no damage. 2) Caused less severe damage. 3) Caused not much difference. 4) Overreaction caused more severe damages to the victim. 14. Who did you tell the incident to right after it happened? 1) family (parents, sibling) __ 2) friend or lover 3) colleague _ 4) counsellor 5) police _ 6) other (specifically I ) 7) didn’t tell anybody 91min 121314 23 24 25262728 140 15. Did you report the incident to the police? __ 1) Yes (CT 15-1, 15-2) _ 2) No (LT 15-3) 15-1. What was the police reaction to the report? _ 1) No reaction was conducted. __ 2) Verified the damage by phone. __ 3) Verified the damage by an actual visit. _ 4) Solves the crime through active research. 15-2. Were you satisfied about the police reaction? __ 1) Very satisfied __ 2) Satisfied _ 3) Neutral __ 4) Not satisfied _ 5) Not satisfied at all — < Not reported > 15-3. What was the reason? __ 1) The damage was not serious _ 2) The incident was solved personally __ 3) There wasn’t any proof _ 4) Reported to another authorization (e.g., insurance company). _ 5) Thought the police would be little help. __ 6) Thought the police would be inquisitive. __ 7) The criminal was an acquaintance. _ 8) Fear of revenge _ 9) other (specifically I ) 15 15-115—215-3 # 29 30 31 32 33 141 Appendix C. Approval of the Universig Committee on Research involving Human Subject (UCRIHS) MICHIGAN STATE U N l v E R s l T Y December”. 2001 TO: Shelia Royo MAXWELL 560 Baker Hall RE: IRB' 00-803 CATEGORY: 1-E EXEMPT RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: December 17. 2001 TITLE: VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN KOREA‘ CHARACTERISTIC OF ViCTIMIZATION ON PERSONAL LEVEL CRIME IN KOREA The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL RENEW”: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be rermd with the geen renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the gran renewal form. To revise an approved protocoi at any other time dur'ng the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHS@piIotmsu.edu. OFFICE OF mm S‘WW AID GRADUATE m we...“ .. Ashir Kumar. MD. M mm UCRIHS Cha'r than rum Michiwl Stat: UerSly 246 mm Bulldim Eu Using Horton 98944095 AK: kb Sir/3552130 . “517/353—2976 CC. JURSCOD MOON Web: ”1154.06th 3012 Sam Houston Ave, Apt. E emu WW Huntsville, TX 77340 Die W m: M w 5 E‘Sfllm Diversity Ext-lam nAaim. microfilm new; atrium 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY 143 Aldrich, J. & Nelson, F. (1984). Linear Probagilitv. LogitI and Progit Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bebbett, T., & Wright, R. (1983). Burglars perception of targets. Home Office Research Bulletin, 15, 18-20. Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1978). Residential Burglary and Urban Form. Urban Studies, 12, 273-284. Brown, 3., & Altman, I. (1981). Territoriality and residential crime: A conceptual frame - work. In P. Brantingham & Brantingham, P. (Eds.), Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1995). Criminal Victimization in the United States. Washington D. 0.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Clarke, R., Ekblow, P., Hough, M., & Mayhew, P. (1985). Elderly Victims of Crime and Exposure to Risk. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 24, 1-9. Cohen, L. (1981). Modeling Crime Trends: A Criminal Opportunity Perspective. Jo_urnal of Research in Crime and Delingueng, 18, 138-162. Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1981). Residential Burghry in the United States: Life — style and Demographic Factors Associated with the Probability of Victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinggencv, 17, 113— 127. Cohen, L. E., Cantor, D., & Kluelgel, J. (1981). Robbery Victimization in the U. 8.: Analysis of a Nonrandom Event. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 644 - 657. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach. Americanfi Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Cohen, L. E., Kluegal, J., & Land, K. (1981). Social Inequality and Criminal Victimization. American Sociolggical Review, 46, 505-524. 144 Copes, H. (1999). Routine Activities and Motor Vehicle Theft: A Crime Specific Approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22, 125 - 146. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag. Corrado, R., Roesch, W., Glackman, J., Evans, J., & Leger, G. (1980). Lifestyles and Personal Victimization: A Test of the Model with Canadian Data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 129— 139. Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avary, D. (1991). Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary. In Clarke, R., & Hope, T. (Eds.), Coping with burglapy. Boston, MA: Kluwer- Nijoff. Doemer, W. G., & Lab, S. P. (1998). Victimology. Cincinnati; OH. Anderson Publishing Co. Eck, J. (1994). Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case- Control Study of the Spatial Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland. Eck, J., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Felson, M. (1987). Routine Activities and Crime Prevention in the Developing Metropolis. Criminology, 25, 911-931. Felson, M. (1983). Ecology of Crime. In S. Kadish (Ed.), Engclopedia of Crime and Justice. Felson, M. (1986). Linking the Criminal Choices, Routine Activities, lnforrnal Control, and Criminal Outcomes. In Derrick Cornish & Ronald Clarke (Eds.), The @soning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Ofingpg. NY: Springer - Verlag. --------. (1995). Those Who Discourage Crime. In John Eck 8. David Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 145 Garofalo, J., Siegel, L., & Laub, J. (1987). School - Related Victimizations Among Adolescents: An Analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) Narratives. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 321 — 338. Glaser, D. (1971). Social Deviance. Chicago; IL. Markham Publishing Co. -----------. (1978). Crime in Our Changing Socieg. New York: Holt. Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical Methgis for Socia_l_§cientists. New York: Academic Press. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M. R., Dunn, C. S., & Parisi, N. (Eds.) (1977). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics — 1976. GPO. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of Persona_l_ Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Karmen, A. (2000). Victims of Crime: Issues and Patterns. In Sheley, J. (Eds). Criminology, (pp. 165-189). Wadsworth, Thomson Learning. Kennedy, L., & Sacco, V. (1997). flme Victims in Cpntext. Roxbury Publishing Company; Los Angeles; CA. Kim, J., Shim, Y., & Cho, J. (1991). WE“ is t_he victiflization sprvey (Written in Korean). Seoul; Korea. The Korea Institute of Criminology. Koichi, Miyazawa (1996). The Introduction of Victimology. (Translated in Korean by Chang, K. W., 1998). Cho-Sa-Yeon-Ku. Tokyo; Japan. Kurian, G. (1987). Encyclopedia of the Thill World. MA: Facts on File, Inc. Lauritsen, J. L., & Quinet, K. F. D. (1995). Repeat Victimization among adolescents and Young Adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 143 - 166. 146 Lee, H. (2000). From Victim Compensation Schemes to Reparative Justice. Korean Journal of Victimology, 8, 402 - 429. Letkemann, P. (1973). Crime g Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice — Hall. Levitt, S. D. (1999). The Changing Relationship between Income and Crime Victimization. Economic Policy Review. 87 — 98. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Lynch, J. P. (1987). Routine Activity and Victimization at Work. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 283 — 300. Lynch, J. P. (1991). Victim Behavior and the Risk of Victimization: Implications of Activity — Specific Victimization Rates. In Kaiser, G., Kury, H., & Albrecht, H. J. (Eds.), Victims and Criminal Justice: Theoritical ReseaLch (pp. 543-566). Freigburg, Germany; Eigenverlag Max-Planck-Institut. Lynch, J., & Cantor, D. (1992). Ecological and Behavioral Influences on Property Victimization At Home: Implications for Opportunity Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinguency, 29, 335-362. Markides, K. S., & Tracy, G.. S. (1976). The Effect of the Age Structure of a Stationary Population on Crime Rates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 67, 351-355. Maxfield, M. G. (1987). Household Composition, Routine Activity, and Victimization: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 301 -320. Messner, S. F., & Tardiff, K. (1985). The Social Ecology of Urban Homicide: An Application of the ‘Routine Activities’ Approach. Criminology, 23, 241 — 267. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. (1990). Opportunity, Choice, and Criminal victimization: 147 A Test of a Theoretical Model. Journal of Research in Crime apt; Delingpency, 27, 243 — 66. (1994). Crime and Its Social Context: Towardfiana Intagrated Theory of Offenders, Victims. and Situations. Albany: State University of New York Press. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. 0., Long, J. S. (1987). Social Differentiation in Criminal Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theories. American Sociolpgical Review, 52, 184 - 1 94. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting Risks of Larceny Theft Victimization: A Routine Activity Analysis Using Refined Lifestyle Measures. Criminolmy, 36, 829-857. . (1999). A Routine Activity Theory Explanation for Womerfs Stalking Victimization. Violence Against Women 5, 43-62. O’Brien, R. M. (1985). Crime Facts: Victim and Offender Data. In Sheley, J. (Eds.) Criminolpgy (pp. 56-83). Wadsworth Thomson Learning Pursley, R. (1994). Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place. Criminolpgy, 27, 27 - 55. Stefford, M. C., & Galle, O. R. (1984). Victimization Rates, Exposeure to Risk, and Fear of Crime. Criminolpgy, 22, 173-185. Tremblay, M., & Tremblay, P. (1998). Social Structure, Interaction Opportunities, and the Direction of Violent Offenses. Journal of Research in Crime anc_l_ _Delingpency, 35, 295-315. The Korean Supreme Prosecutor's office. (1998). The White Book in Crime. Seoul; Korea. Thompson, C. Y., & Fisher, B. (1996). Predicting Household Victimization 148 Utilizing a MuIti-Level Routine Activity Approach. Mrnal of Crime apd_ Justice, 14, 49-66. van Dijk, J., Mayhew, P., & Killias, M. (1990). meriences of Crime across the World: Key Findings of the 1898 Interaatiofl Crime Sgrvey. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer. van Dijk, J., & Steinmetz, C. (1984). The Burden of Crime in Dutch Society. In Block, R. (Eds.), Victimization gig Feagif Crime: World Perspectivaa, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. von Hentig, H. (1948). The Criminal and His Victims: Studies in the Sociobiolpgy of Crime. New Heaven: Yale University Press. Walklate, S. (1989). Vi_ctimomy: The Victim and the Criminal Justice Process. London: Unwin Hyman. Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1994). Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-Ins. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Weisburd, D. (1997). Reorienting crime preventign research and policy: from the causes of criminaliy to the context of crime. National Institute of Justice Research Report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. 149