식이 및 타액분비가 백서치아우식 발생에 미치는 영향에 관한 실험적 연구

한성훈,김종열,Han, Seong-Hun,Kim, Jong-Yeol 대한치과의사협회 1980 대한치과의사협회지 Vol.18 No.8

기업의 감독책임의 명확화와 그 기준에 관한 연구

한성훈 ( Han Sung-hoon ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.2

우리나라의 경우 법인처벌은 양벌규정에 의해서 이루어지고 있다. 그리고 이러한 양벌규정과 관련하여서는 법인처벌의 근거(과실책임인지 여부), 과실의 인정 방법(과실의 추정) 등에 대하여 상당한 논란이 전개되었다. 과실책임 여부에 대하여는 헌법재판소가 일련의 결정을 통하여 법인처벌의 근거는 선임감독상의 책임이라고 교통정리를 해 줌으로써 이제 예전만큼 관심의 대상이 되지 않고 있다. 이는 2007년 헌법재판소가 보건범죄단속에 관한 특별조치법상의 양벌규정에 대한 위헌 선언을 하면서 그 이유로서 동법상의 양벌규정에 업무주 처벌이 무과실 책임의 형태로 되어 있어 책임주의에 반한다는 점을 제시하였기 때문이다. 한편 그 이후 면책규정이 없는 양벌규정에 대하여 줄줄이 위헌 결정이 내려지고 거의 모든 양벌규정에 면책규정을 도입하는 법 개정이 이루어 졌다. 그런데 문제는 업무주의 면책요건으로서 ‘감독의무의 이행’을 인정하기 위한 구체적인 요건과 기준이, 개정된 기업처벌규정에 명시되어 있지 않다는 점이다. 따라서 종업원의 위반행위를 방지하기 위하여 업무주가 어떠한 내용의 감독조치를 어느 정도 이행하여야 “상당한 주의와 감독을 게을리 하지 않은 경우”에 해당 하는지와, 상당한 주의와 감독의 내용이 무엇인지를 명확히 해야 한다. 왜냐하면 업무주의 감독의무의 내용이 무엇인가를 밝히는 것은 감독의무의 이행여부에 관한 입증 및 면책 결정과 밀접한 관련이 있기 때문이다. 다시 말해, 법인의 감독의무위반행위가 발생하더라도, 개정된 기업처벌규정상의 ‘상당한 주의와 감독’의 내용과 그 기준이 무엇인지가 명확히 규정되어 있지 않아, 기업은 자신의 면책을 증명하기 어려운 문제가 발생하기 때문이다. 이러한 점에서, 개정된 기업처벌규정은 형법상의 기본원칙인 명확성원칙의 문제를 낳을 수도 있을 뿐만 아니라 동시에 불완전한 입법이라고 할 수 있다. 본고에서는 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위한 일응의 기준으로서, 법인의 감독의무를 명확하게 하는 관점에서 미국에서 발전하고, 최근 우리나라에서도 도입·확대된 준법프로그램을 검토하고자 한다. 이러한 검토를 통해 준법프로그램이 기업의 감독책임의 내용의 명확화와 기업의 면책을 위한 일응의 기준을 될 수 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. In the case of Korea, corporate punishment is made according to the provisions of the two-way rule. In relation to these two rules, there has been considerable debate(Whether it is a liability) on the grounds for corporate punishment and on how to recognize negligence(estimation of negligence). The Constitutional Court has made a series of decisions about the liability of negligence, and the grounds for corporal punishment are not as much of a concern as it has been given by the government as the responsibility of the senior director. For this reason, the Constitutional Court in 2007 declared the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Special Measures Act on the Criminal Control of Health Offenses, as the reason for that is that the state penalties are in the form of irrelevant liability. And since then there has been a series of amendments to the principle of non-compliance with the amendment to the principle of non-compliance. However, the problem is that specific requirements and standards for recognizing the fulfillment of supervisory obligations as a duty-free exemption requirement are not specified in the revised corporate penal regulations. Therefore, in order to prevent violations of employees, it is necessary to clarify what kind of supervisory measures the employer has to carry out and to what extent he / she is "not careful enough to supervise and to supervise". This is because it is closely related to the verification and exemption decisions on whether or not the obligation of supervision is fulfilled. In other words, even if a violation of the obligation to supervise the corporation occurs, the corporation has difficulty in proving its immunity. This is because there is no clear definition of what the "considerable caution and oversight" in the revised corporate penal regulations and its criteria are. In this respect, the revised corporate penal regulations may not only lead to the issue of the principle of clarity, which is the basic principle in criminal law, but also to be imperfect legislation. In this paper, we will develop the US in terms of clarifying the obligation to supervise the corporation as a standard for solving these problems, and review the compliance program introduced and expanded recently in Korea. This review confirms that the compliance program can be a benchmark for the clarification of corporate supervisory responsibilities and for corporate immunity.

진영지역 학살과 진실규명

한성훈(Han Sung-Hoon) 역사학연구소 2011 역사연구 Vol.- No.21

It is shows that the following characteristics on the truth of JinYoung slaughters. First, as we can see in the fall of the house Kim SeongYoun, killed Kim JeongTae and Kang Seonggab, residual forces of served in the Japanese colonial occupation have been tweaked authority and supremacy(hegemony) by removing nationalist (independence activists) and christian social reformer. Second, the emergency task force exhibited committee in war time had led to the slaughters JinYoung area. The police station Gimhae ordered murder of the number of BODO league, but it was the center of this organization to the executive. Third, although a very partial to compare the scale of massacre of civilians this area, murders of JinYoung slaughters were rarely prosecuted through the military court. Fourth, survivors activities after 4·19 revolution were a great turning point to reveal the truth of slaughters but the following year the military coup concealed the truth. Rather survivors were received the adjutant repression from Park Chung-hee regime. Fifth, for the 21st century, victims were able to its glory of exhibition of genocide and the military regime to check illegal through an official investigation of national institutions, Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

길이진동을 이용하는 PZT계 세라믹 공진자의 온도안정성에 관한 연구

한성훈(Seong-Hun Han),임대관(Dae-Kwan Lim),이개명(Gae-Myoung Lee) 대한전기학회 1999 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.1999 No.11

국민참여재판제도의 개정안에 관한 비판적 고찰

한성훈 ( Han Sung-hoon ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.24 No.4

국민참여재판제도는 우리나라 사법역사상 처음으로 주권자인 국민이 형사사법에 직접 참여하는 최초의 제도라는 점에서 매우 의미 있는 제도라고 할 수 있다. 현재 시행되고 있는 국민참여재판은 약 5년간 시범적으로 실시한 후, 그 결과를 바탕으로 우리나라의 사법환경에 가장 적합한 최종적인 형태를 결정하도록 되어 있다. 이는 입법과정에서 사법 개혁위원회가 우선 2008년-2012년(제1단계)간 국민사법참여제도를 고안하고 실시하여 그 성과를 분석한 후, 2013년(제2단계)에 우리에게 적합한 국민사법참여제도를 최종적으로 설계하여 시행하려는 취지에서 시범운영방식으로 시행되고 있기 때문이다. 주지하다시 피 현재 시행되고 있는 국민참여재판은 시범운영적 성격으로 시작된 결과, 지난 5년간의 시범적 운영기간을 거치면서 다양한 문제들이 야기되었고, 이를 개선하기 위한 노력들이 함께 이루어져 왔다. 특히 시행 5년차이던 2012년 7월에는 국민사법참여위원회를 구성 하여 국민참여재판의 최종형태 결정을 위한 논의를 시작하게 된다. 이후 국민사법참여위 원회는 2012년 7월부터 총 7회에 걸쳐 회의를 개최하여 그동안의 시행성과 등에 관한 분석과 논의를 하였고, 2013년 3월 6일 제8차 회의에서 공청회 결과를 일부 반영한 최종형태(안)를 확정 의결한바 있다. 한편 국민참여재판의 최종형태(국민사법참여위원회 안 과 법무부 안을 포함)의 주요내용을 비교하여 다음과 같은 차이점이 있다는 것을 확인 하였다. 즉, 대상사건의 축소, 개시요건, 배제결정과 배제사유, 배심원 평결의 효력, 검사의 재의견진술권 등이다. 이를 비교한 결과 그 어떠한 안(案)도 국민참여재판제도의 기본이 념과 제도 도입취지 및 목적에는 부합하지 못하고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 한편 국회에 제출된 국민참여재판의 최종형태에 관한 정부안이 19대 국회 임기 말료로 폐기되었다. 따라서 국민참여재판의 제도의 정착과 활성화에 있어, 국민적 공감대를 마련할 수 있는 마지막 기회가 주어지게 된 셈이다. 이러한 기회를 통해 국민참여재판의 본래의 취지와 목적에 맞는 한국형 사법참여모델을 구축 할 수 있게 되길 기대해 본다. The jury trial system which is participated by citizen, aims at the realization of national sovereignty and participatory democracy in the judicature. By improving the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the judiciary, it is introduced and implemented for the purpose of establishing a system that is trusted to the people, since January 1, 2008. Despite the unfamiliar system and short term, the jury trial system which is currently being conducted, showed the possibility of supplement and development to meet our country situation. From this point of view, I critically reviewed about the final form of the jury trial system that focused on Reduction of the target case, The Initiation requirement, Decision to Exclude, reason of Exclusion, verdict of juror, effect of verdict, reopinion of procecuter etc. which are submitted by the National Judicial Partictipation Commission(draft) and the Department of Justice(draft). I hereby checked, those drafts like the act on citizen participation in trials now in effect, the National Judicial Partictipation Commission(draft), the Department of Justice(draft) etc which are not complied with basic principles and intent, the purpose of introducing the jury trial system. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to try to confirm the purpose of the jury trial system. It is a very important issue that "how will determine the final form of the jury trial system". Because it influences the fundamental structure of our country criminal justice system. 65) Meanwhile, the final form of the jury trial system which reflected results of enforcement was submitted to National Assembly in June 12, 2014. by Government. But the National Assembly did not consider about this legislation. The legislation was discarded with the National Assembly along with the 19th term expired. Therefore, it is given a last chance to prepare a national consensus about the jury trial system. If that sufficient discussion and consultation is done, we should take this opportunity to a new starting point for criminal justice. I think through this process, it will be able to build a new model that fits the intent and purpose of Korean judical participation trial.

한국형 사법참여모델 구축에 관한 연구

한성훈(Han, Sung-Hoon) 한양법학회 2013 漢陽法學 Vol.24 No.2

Public participation trial system has been introduced and performed since in January 1 2008 to realize popular sovereignty principle and participatory democracy and also to establish a system improving trust by considering democratic legitimacy and openness of jurisdiction. Public participation trial system used to be estimated that the system is right to be abolished because of unexpected structural result of the system in the initial stages. But the system has been settled successfully in a short time by showing that public who don’t have expertise can judge a criminal trial through the analysis and enforcement of public participation trial system for the past 4 years. Public participation trial system has been implemented for four years and five months, now we need to determine that the final model. So we are being asked to make diligent effort to redesign the system that suit our purpose of introducing the new system through positive method for the problem of public participation trial system in implement. As part of that effort is presenting the improvement plan by examining the way people conduct of the trial, issues related appellate structure, problem related the jury’s advisory verdict, all directly related to the existence of a public participation trial. I hope these efforts create fruits that judical system of the people, by the people, for the people. Meanwhile, supreme court of korea gather opinions from the prosecution, the field of law and academic world to have final decision to choose the form of public participation trial system after arranged the regulation have contents of installing public participation committee and implemented legislation notice on march 23. I think this is really desirable thing. But most important things are public participation can be said of the trial subjects and attention. I look forward the our public participation trial system suitable for my own country.

거창사건의 처리과정과 남는 문제

한성훈(HAN Sung-Hoon) 한국제노사이드연구회 2007 제노사이드연구 Vol.1 No.-

This study tried to clarify the process and the remander subjects of Geochang massacre. It focused large-scale civilian massacre occurred in Geochang area during the Korean War in February 1951. Since massacre is not a simple revenge or result of battle, it analyzed operation orders of subjugation of the 11th Division and the 9th regiment that brought civilian bloodshed. Foundation of 11th Division was to suppress red guerillas and the people’s army once occupied Geochang-gun ruling Shinwon-myun. 3rd battalion of the 9th regiment tried to recover Shinwon area by an operation order that was remained as un-reclaimed area. Massacre of Geochang was exposed at the National Assembly during the Korean war and the Assembly pressured Lee Seung-man government with the authenticity of Geochang incident. At the time, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Home Affair, and the Ministry of Justice investigated individually as well as jointly and the army executed report of the 11th division commander and investigation of the provost marshal headquarters. However, the truth of the civilian massacre was not cleared up and Lee Seung-man government even concealed and manipulated the truth. So the National Assembly formed a special investigation committee for Geochang incident to start investigation. However, the army disrupted the spot investigation of the Assembly. The army camouflaged as red guerilla and tried to shoot the members of the Assembly who were heading to the site of slaughter. As a result, the investigation committee gave up the spot investigation and finished the investigation with testimonies from related people. At the end, Shin Seong-Mo, the Minister of Defense, resigned and the people related to this matter were prosecuted as a result of full-scale investigation. After a military trial, some commanding officers were sentenced imprisonment. This study looked into dealing with process of Geochang massacre focusing on the remander subject. Especially, the first argument is the date of massacre. After It occured in February 1951, the beginning date is 8th or 9th February and the end of date is 11th or 12th February 1951. The fact that is aroused a controversy. The Second argument is pictures, which are taken of the very spot where the massacre took place. The pictures is to be sure at that time and during the military trial. But now days, I do not know the pictures where to be.

거창사건의 정치사회학적 분석 -기억의 정치와 학살의 승인

한성훈 ( Sung Hoon Han ) 한국사회사학회 2006 사회와 역사 Vol.0 No.69

This study focused on the causes of the Geochang massacre, focusing on the operation orders of the 3rd battalion. Especially, the fact that the residents of the hostile area where the slaughter took place were considered as the enemy raises that the operation of 11th division. The 5th operation order that resulted in the sacrifice of the residents was executed in a manner that did not distinguish between enemy or resident, regardless of alteration and became an opportunity to voluntarily judge who were the ones assisting the enemy. Considering the fact that majority of the resident victims died in great misery, the site was concealed and manipulated, and the incident was a slaughter that happened independent of the result of the battle. Geochang massacre displays the characteristics of obedience to an illegal order given by an army commander and sanctioned massacre. Soldiers did not have guilt since they were obeying authority, did not take any responsibility for their actions, and were used simply as a tool that executes the order of a chief. The Massacre was also related to manipulation and distortion of memory. The Military regime hid facts related to the slaughter in order to maintain its power, thus intervening in the politics of memory. Those responsible for the slaughter within the Lee Seung-man government were not properly punished. This is due to the limitations of a military trial as well as the recognition on the massacre of Lee Seung-man government. Moreover, all the major commanders who were convicted for their involvement were pardoned and reinstated in less than one year and returned to their original positions. Therefore, GeoChang massacre became a political authorization for that kind of use of force under the Lee Seung-man government and succeeding similar civilian massacres could not be prevemted.

리튬폴리머축전지 특성분석을 통한 도시철도차량시스템의 안정적 운용방안

한성훈(Sung-Hun Han),강승욱(Seung-Wook Kang) 대한전기학회 2020 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2020 No.10

부정청탁금지법의 적용대상범위 확대에 관한 소고

한성훈 ( Han Sung Hoon ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

청탁금지법은 “공직자 등에 대한 부정청탁 및 공직자 등의 금품 등의 수수(收受)를 금지함으로써 공직자 등의 공정한 직무수행을 보장하고 공공기관에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 확보하는 것”을 목적으로 현재 시행되고 있다. 하지만 입법 발의시부터 시행되고 있는 현재까지 동법에 대한 위헌론이 제기되고 있다. 이에 헌법재판소는 시행전 이와 관련한 내용들에 대해 합헌결정을 내리게 된다. 한편 청탁금지법의 위헌성 문제를 촉발하게 된 주요원인은 동법 적용대상자 범위를 사립학교 교직원과 언론인으로 확대한 것 이다. 모든 법률이 그러하듯이 청탁금지법 또한 법 적용대상자의 범위를 특정 하는 것은 매우 중요하다. 그러므로 현행 청탁금지법과 같이 사립학교 교직원과 언론인을 공직자에 준하여 처벌하기 위해서는 명확하고 일관성 있는 기준이 제시되어야 한다. 그러한 점에서 볼 때, 청탁금지법의 적용대상인 사립학교 교직원이나 언론인의 경우에는 경제적 파급력 및 사회전반에 미치는 영향이 공무원과 다르므로, 이러한 사적영역에 형벌을 부과하는 것은 책임과 형벌간의 비례원칙에 위배된다고 생각된다. 따라서 언론인과 사립학교 교직원 등을 동법의 적용대상에서 제외되어야 한다. 향후 청탁금지법을 보완하는 입법이 진행된다고 한다면, 법규정의 적용대상과 그 범위에 관하여 보다 타당하고 세밀한 규정을 할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. The Anti graft Law is currently being implemented with the aim of ensuring the fair performance of public officials and ensuring the public`s trust in public institutions, by prohibiting in principle the improper solicitation and graft to the officials. However, from the time of the legislative initiative, until now, this law has been raised for unconstitutionality and the Constitutional Court has made constitutionality decision. The cause for this controversy was the expansion of the scope of the application of law targets to private school staff and journalists. As with all laws, it is very important that the Anti graft Law also specify the scope of subject to application of law. Meanwhile, like current Anti graft Law, in order to punish private school staff and journalists in accordance with public officials, clear and consistent standards should be presented. From that point of view, journalists and private school staff should be excluded from the subject to application of this law. In the case of private school teachers or journalists subject to the ban, economic impacts on the economy and the influence of society are different. It is believed that imposing penalties on these private areas violates the proportional principles of responsibility and punishment. Therefore, it will be necessary to exclude journalists and private school staff from applying to the subject matter of the Anti graft Law. If legislation is enacted to supplement the anti graft law, it is deemed necessary to make more relevant and detailed regulations concerning the subject matter and scope of the law.