고속축중기를 활용한 도로과적단속 기술동향

권순민,정영윤,이재훈,이경배,Kwon, Soon Min,Jung, Young Yoon,Lee, Jae Hoon,Lee, Kyung Bae 한국구조물진단유지관리공학회 2012 한국구조물진단유지관리공학회지 Vol.16 No.2

피의자를 위한 국선변호인 제도 확대 적용에 대한 검토

권순민(Kwon Soon Min) 한국형사소송법학회 2018 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.10 No.1

The State-Appointed Counsel system prevents human rights violation and ensures the fairness of criminal process. According to Article 12 of Constitution of the Republic of Korea “Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel. When a criminal defendant is unable to secure counsel by his own efforts, the State shall assign counsel for the defendant as prescribed by Act. The State-Appointed Counsel system is used for the defendants at this present time. Exceptively, the state-appointed counsel to a Criminal Suspect are used only for Request for Warrant of Detention and Examination of Criminal Suspect, arrest, and Review of Legality of Arrest and Detention. In the process of Request for Warrant of Detention and Examination of Criminal Suspect, if a criminal suspect subject to examination has no defense counsel, the judge of the district court shall ex officio appoint a defense counsel. And in the process of Review of Legality of Arrest and Detention, when the arrested or detained criminal suspect is not represented by a defense counsel, Article 33 of Criminal Procedure Law shall be apply mutatis mutandis. But this system must promote extended application for the criminal suspect. German and United States are already conducting the State-Appointed Counsel for the criminal suspect. If we introduce this system for the criminal suspect, the right of defendant are ensured and it will be possible to maintain balance with the other rules of Criminal Procedure Law.

연구논문(硏究論文) : 의식 없는 피의자에 대한 혈액채취와 영장주의

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학논총 Vol.35 No.2

Because compulsory investigation may arrogate fundamental human right gravely, criminal procedure law regulates requirement and process to it. Investigation agency and court have to keep to such due process. Especially when drunken driving suspect is fallen into unconsciousness, blood of suspect is important proof. Criminal investigation agency want to extract and use as evidence. In this case, investigation agency need warrant for her search and seizure without her consent. However according to Korean Supreme Court(98do968, 1999), criminal investigation can ask doctor and nurse to extract unconscious suspect`s blood and use as a evidence on the premise of doctor or nurse`s consent, not suspect running article 218 of criminal procedure law. However, this decision soil ideal of warrant principle. In warrant principle, investigation agency present the warrant to deprived person of the benefit and protection of the law because of such investigation. In order to protect suspect`s information, article 218 of criminal procedure law have to be interpreted strictly. Ultimately, legislation for extracting and using suspect`s blood as a criminal evidence is needed.

연구논문 : 국민참여재판의 신청과 배제에 관한 연구

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.4

Application and exclusion in citizen participation in criminal trials perform a function as filter to progress a citizen participation trial. Act on citizen participation in criminal trials guarantees defendant to have right to a participatory trial, as provided by this Act. However such case shall not proceed to a participatory trial, If a defendant does not want a participatory trial. So, A court shall inquire a defendant of an eligible case, in writing or by other means without exception, of whether a defendant desires a participatory trial. and the court shall ensure to assure a defendant of his/her right to a participatory trial to the maximum. A defendant shall submit a written statement, describing whether a defendant desires a participatory trial, within seven days from the date on which a duplicate of indictment is serviced. The Supreme Court admits defendant to submit her desires a participatory trial until preparatory proceedings for a trial are closed, or the initial proceeding of a trial begins for expansion of participation of defendant. It also shall not proceed to participatory trial if a decision to exclude is made pursuant to Article 9 (1) in this Act. According to Aricle 9 in this Act, a court may not decide to proceed to a participatory trial for a period beginning after an indictment is filed and ending on the day after the closing of preparatory proceedings for a trial in any of something cases. However the reasons for decision to not proceed to a participatory trial are so ambiguous. This regulations for decision to exclude should be amended clearly for activating the citizen participation in criminal trial.

라인업 절차의 합리적 운영 방안에 대한 연구

권순민(Kwon, Soon Min) 한국형사법학회 2009 刑事法硏究 Vol.21 No.4

Lineup is one of the criminal identification procedures. Criminal identification procedure means an activity of the police justice to identify a suspect. There are two ways of identification. The lineup is the process that the witness confirms the identification of a suspect after viewing a display of several individuals including a suspect. Sequential lineup and simulation lineup are two ways of lineup. Identification of a suspect among a display of several fillers by witness can confirm neutrality and high reliability. However, if the process is conducted in such a manner that decreases fairness and objectivity, for example, through unjust suggestion, the reliability of the statement obtained by lineup would be reduced dramatically. The complexity and inaccuracy of human memory must be considered regarding lineup. The memory process of human is consisted of three stages, such as acquisition or encoding ofinformation, storage or retention, retrieval and communication to others. Considering the recognition procedure and the possibilities of fallacy, the lineup should be conducted in a objective and just procedure. Also, The Supreme Court has decided that in a procedure where there was a cue from the administrator or there hade been noticeable lack of objective identiers, the credebility of the witness be denied. The guidelines by Supreme Court that the case law presented could be supplemented. These are my suggestions; The guarantee of participation of suspect and counsel, rational composition of fillers, rational inquiry, and protection of witness.

사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문조서에 대한 법정책과 대법원의 해석 방향에 대한 검토

권순민(Kwon, Soon-Min) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2018 法學論叢 Vol.25 No.1

여기에서는 사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문조서에 대해 매우 엄격하게 증거능력 인정 하는 것과 검사 작성의 피의자신문조서와 차별을 두는 형사소송법 규정과 당해 피의자는 물론 피의자와 공범관계에 있는 자에게 까지 이러한 차등을 연계하여 인정하는 대법원의 해석의 합리성에 대해 검토하였다. 사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문 조서의 증거능력을 다루고 있는 우리 형사소송법 제312조 제3항은 그 증거 가능성을 매우 제한적으로 규정하고 있다. 그것은 사법경찰관 그 자체의 불신이라기 보단 수사기관 입 장에 몰입된 수사편향성과 인권침해적 위험성을 염두에 둔 것으로 보인다. 같은 수사기관 임에도 검사작성의 피의자신문조서의 그것과 비교하여 더 염격한 이유는 검찰 그자체에 대한 법적 신뢰라기 보다는 인권옹호자와 객관 의무를 전제로한 차이를 반영한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 그런데 영상녹화제도와 조사자 증언제도의 등장한 이러한 기존의 법체계와 대법원 해석과 곳곳에서 충돌하고 있다. 이러한 충돌을 기존 체제에 다소 무리하게 도입된 이 두제도를 중심으로 혹은 전제로 해서 해석하기 보다는 인권침해 소지를 줄이고 지나치게 수사전략에 매몰되지 않는 입법적 정리와 법정책이 요구된다. I searched in to interpretation and legal policy and case law of supreme court about protocol of interrogation prepared by judicial police officer rules the admissibility very limitedly. According to Korean Criminal Procecdure Law Protocol concerning interrogation of a criminal suspect, prepared by any investigative institution other than a prosecutor, shall be admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method and the defendant, who was the suspect at the time, or his/her defense counsel admits its contents at a preparatory hearing or a trial(Article 312 (3)). This is applied to Protocol of accomplice interrogation prepared by judicial police officer according to Supreme Court judgment. It seems that it is rather minding the risks of human rights abuse as an investigative agency. Existing legal system appeared in Video Recording of criminal Suspect s statements and testimony by interrogating police officers are conflicting with the Supreme Court judgment occassionally. Rather than interpretating these two systems which are introduced by force or presupposing, reducing violation of human rights possession and it also requires legislative order and legal strategy which do not overly buried into the investigation strategy.

소송구조와 합리적인 형사소송의 방향

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 한국비교형사법학회 2008 비교형사법연구 Vol.10 No.1

형사소송법상 조사자증언제도의 합리적 운영방안

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

The investigation authorities`s statement in criminal procedure has made an entrance under the subject as for the principle of trial-centeredness. Realization of the principles of direct and oral proceedings is the core trial-centeredness and this principle has become the kernel directing post throughout the course of current criminal justice reform in Korea. However, practice of the trial has already become formalistic and skeleton. The protocol which contains a statement of a suspect prepared by public prosecutor or judicial police officer(investigation authorities) can effectively program the conviction of judges in advance. If the investigation authorities`s statement is used as one of various information(evidence) and is controlled by legal procedure that helps the judge convict, it can rather contribute to the formation of a rational conviction and ensure a fair trial. But I don`t think this system can make rational criminal justice. I don`t think this system can make rational criminal justice in our times, because in criminal procedure the investigation authorities`s statement can possibly cause problem that the defendant`s statement conducted in front of investigator can be as a evidence without difficulty. Besides devices to control this system is weak. Devices to check and control the investigation authorities`s statement are required to be strengthened beforehand and afterwards in criminal procedure.

아동 피해자 보호를 위한 국제규범의 형사절차법적 수용과 합리적 이행방안 -UN 아동권리협약과 아동 피해자,증인사법지침을 중심으로-

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 한국비교형사법학회 2013 비교형사법연구 Vol.15 No.2

The Convention on the Rights of the Child carries legal binding force to member nation and Republic of Korea ratify the treaty. UN guidlines on justice in matters involving child victims and witnesses of crime were adopted by the UN in 2005 for children who have been harmed by crime. Article 12 of UN convention on the rights of the child and UN guidlines on justice in matters involving child victims and witnesses of crime were created sure that children who have seen others harmed are protected and treated fairly in criminal procedure. Children victimized and harmed may asked to say what they see before police officer and judge. The most of children are worried and frightened during their testimony. These international regulations demand to help protect children when they go to talk police, lawyer, social worker. children victim has the right to be informed, to be heard and to express views and concerns, to effective assistance, to privacy and to be protected from hardship during the justice process. It is important to protect the child from any possible danger in criminal process. Korean criminal process includes legal programme that protects for children victim before, during and after the criminal justice process. Children victim and witness should have access to assistance provided by professionals. These assistances include support service such as legal, consultative, testimonial. It is allowed the court to order the use of closed-circuit television, if the judge finds that the child is unavailable to testify in open court and the electronic recording of statements. However I think these programme for children victim and witness concentrating in field of sexual crime have to dispread any other crime related children victim and witness.

취재원보호와 기자의 증언거부권

권순민 ( Soon Min Kwon ) 법조협회 2009 法曹 Vol.58 No.4

우리나라는 현재 취재원보호에 관하여 규정하고 있는 언론관계법령이나 직접 관련된 판례가 없으며 언론의 핵심 윤리와 실정법(해석) 사이에 커다란 간극이 벌어져 있는 상황이다. 그런데 최근에 이루어지고 있는 독일, 미국, 일본 등에서의 취재원 보호의 확대를 위한 법제도적 개선 노력 또는 법원의 태도 변화는 취재원보호와 기자의 증언거부권에 관한 우리의 문제를 다시 돌아보게 한다. 법 제149조의 증언거부권을 취재원과 기자 사이에도 적용시키는 것이 가능하다면 언론의 취재원보호는 획기적으로 강화될 수 있지만 다수설은 형사소송법에 증언거부권자로 규정된 업종은 제한적으로 열거된 것으로 보면서 이 직업군에 기자는 배제되는 것으로 이해한다. 그 이유는 증언거부권이 인정되는 직업군이 유추적용을 통해 넓어질수록 형사사법의 진실발견 기능은 현저히 약화되기 때문이다. 취재원 보호를 통해 실현되는 취재의 자유 또는 국민의 알권리 보호도 중요하지만 공정한 형사재판의 실현이란 이익도 역시 중요하며 보호받아야 한다. 두 가지 상충하는 이익을 균형있게 보호하는 방안이 모색될 필요가 있는데 이를 위해 구체적인 사실에 비추어 비교형량을 통해 증언거부권 인정 여부를 결정하는 것이 합리적일 것이다. 장기적으로는 입법적인 해결방안이 모색되어져야겠지만 그 이전이라도 법 제150조와 제161조 제1항의 적극적인 활용이 요청된다.