현대 복식에 나타난 포스트모더니즘 양식 연구 -90년대 후반 복식을 중심으로-

김희균 韓國衣類學會 2005 한국의류학회지 Vol.29 No.3,4

공판조서는 믿을 만한 서류인가?

김희균 한국형사소송법학회 2015 한국형사소송법학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2015 No.-

증인의 신용성 판단기일의 도입에 관한 연구

김희균 홍익대학교 2010 홍익법학 Vol.11 No.1

국민의 사법참여에 관한 법률의 제정을 계기로 재판과정에 참여하는 일반 시민들의 역할에 대한 관심이 증대되고 있다. 사건의 경중에 따라 5인 내지 9인씩 선정되는 배심원과 실체 판단에 필요한 정보를 제공하는 증인 등이 그들이다. 그들이 얼마나 중립적인 자세에서 주어진 역할을 수행하느냐에 따라 형사재판의 공정성이 크게 좌우되는 현실이다. 종래 참여의 두 축 중 하나인 배심원 선정에 대해서는 많은 연구가 진행되었다. 하지만 다른 한 축인 증인의 신용성을 다루는 문제에 대해서는 별로 관심이 없었다. 실무가들은 위증문제를 끊임없이 제기하고 있지만, 거기에 대한 합리적 해결책으로서 준비기일의 활성화를 제안하는 목소리는 거의 없는 실정이었다. 문제는 별도의 기일을 열지 않는 한 우리 법 상 위증을 다룰 장치가 별로 없다는 점이다. 위증죄로 처벌되는 비율도 미미한 수준이고, 피고인의 성행을 무조건 좋게만 얘기하는 양형 관련 위증은 아예 위증으로 보지 않는 경우도 있다. 게다가 더욱 심각한 것은 증인의 전과기록 등을 문제 삼는 증인신문은 할 수도 없으며, 최근 판례에서 보는 바와 같이 증언 번복의 경우에는 재판의 모든 당사자가 속수무책으로 당할 수밖에 없다. 따라서 미국의 사례와 같은 신용성 판단 기일을 제안하고자 한다. The courts of the United States have experienced so many problems regarding the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. Thus, they have invented or introduced a wide range of measures which are supposed to protect the integrity of the criminal justice. One of those measures is to assess the witness's reliability in the preliminary hearing. Historically the jurors and the witnesses are originated from the same group called “compurgators.” From the origin, they are needed to be impartial and just in finding out the facts offered to the court. That is why the English court has urged the parties to investigate the impartiality of the prospective jurors. This process is called a jury selection hearing. However the problem is that there did not exist any witness selection hearing either in England and the United States. Rather, Americans believed that it would be sufficient to punish the perjury or to exclude some statements which were produced by unreliable witnesses. The result is that these kinds of measures have failed. And lies prevailed. Therefore some practitioners concerned about criminal justice proposed to the opening of the witness reliability hearing. This article will examine the nature and contents of this reliability hearing with a view to introducing it to the Korean court.

『학교폭력의예방및대책에관한법률』에 대한 비판적 검토 - 학교폭력대책자치위원회를 중심으로 -

김희균 한국소년정책학회 2016 少年保護硏究 Vol.29 No.1

Juvenile Justice Law of Korea handles crimes committed by minors. The court cannot impose death penalty and imprisonment for life on minors who were under 18 when committing the crimes. Furthermore, as a principle, all the imprisonment sentences must be indeterminate so the convicts can be released after serving the minimum sentence. All these measures are designed in consideration of the offender’s age. However, the Juvenile Justice Law is not indifferent in defending the victim’s rights. Victims are fully covered under the Law and guaranteed equal right regarding compensation and other protective measures. Moreover, the Law aims at recovery of respect of law. Any act against the Law will be defined as crime and treated as such. Any criminal assault will be booked as crime in the Police record regardless of whether it is minor’s act or that of an adult. In short, under the Juvenile Justice Law, victim’s rights and respect of law will never be ignored as is the case in the Criminal Law. It is not true in applying the Law of Prevention and Treatment of School Violence. School violence is not a crime even though the offending act satisfies all the legal elements of crime. Therefore, the police cannot charge the offender criminally. The matter will be handled by a school commission consisting of teachers and parents of students. Under this system, school violence will be treated as minor delinquency rather than a crime.

증거결정의 근거와 이론 ― 논증도식과 합리적 사실인정론 ―

김희균 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2010 서울법학 Vol.18 No.2

Proving the absolute truth in a criminal case is hard to achieve considering the limitedness and the incompleteness of human intelligence. We are just trying to reach to some point in which we may conclude that the suspect has killed the victim with the probability of 95% or 99%. Beyond that is not our concern even though we sometimes make mistakes in trying criminals. All we have to do for now is to give as much as possible evidence to the fact-finders who are no less capable than us in assessing that. The problem is that we should not offer some of that evidence to the court. Some may be regarded as irrelevant and some inadmissible because it is hearsay or that it is a fruit of a poisonous tree. The result is that we should go to the truth with very limited resources, in other words, with less and less evidence. To make it worse, the Federal Rules of Evidence set forth a rule which gives a great amount of discretionary power to the judge in deciding the admissibility of evidence. The evidence needs to be also neutral and concise to be admitted to the fact-fing process. Thus, it is rather natural to lose a substantial portion of evidence which shows a clear way to the truthful conclusion and which is not legally inadmissible. However, proving the truth is in the territory of a probative science. The admissibility and the relevance of a certain evidence are not scientific terms. To do a scientific research we must begin with drawing an argumentation scheme which shows the possible ways from the evidence to the truth. If we find, for example, a statement evidence in one of those ways, it should be regarded as relevant and admissible even though it seems to be cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. To throw it away is not a good option from the viewpoint of a scientist.

CCTV를 본 증인의 진술의 증거능력

김희균 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울법학 Vol.20 No.1

Suppose that there was a witness who had seen a crime scene through CCTV. Even though he was too far from the crime scene, it may be said that he has eye-witnessed the crime as it was. It is just as to say that a witness may be regarded as having seen the crime scene through a telescope. Watching an accident through real-time CCTV is not different from eye-witnessing it. How about watching a recorded tape in a CCTV? In our case, police officers and the CCTV operator could not eye-witness the crime in real time. They rewound a video-tape and identified the offender in it. If the prosecution called them as witnesses in a public trial and they reported to the court what they have seen in that CCTV, must be their statements considered a hearsay statement? Is it applicable the rule against hearsay to them?The rule against hearsay is a rule handling a statement, which must be based on the statement of a hearsay declarant regarding material facts in issue. In other words, there must be two kinds of statements in the situation where the rule against hearsay operates. One is the statement of witness, the other is that of a out-of-court declarant. In consequence, the statement of a witness having watched a recorded tape of CCTV is not hearsay in nature because it is not based on another statement. 우리 법이 전문법칙을 선언하고 있다고 해서, 미국 법상 전문법칙의 개념 정의나 해석론 등에 크게 괘념할 필요는 없다. 전문법칙이 미국 법의 전유물이 아니기 때문이다. 하지만 최소한 우리 식의 전문법칙을 주장하기에 앞서 전문증거가 왜 문제가 되는지에 대해서는 미국 법이든 영국 법이든, 여러 텍스트를 참조하면서 생각해 볼 필요가 있다. 본 판례분석에서는 후퍼의 법칙을 참조해서 전문증거가 왜 문제가 되는지를 살펴보았다. 그 결과 전문증거는 본질적으로 진술이며, 그 진술의 신용성을 반대신문을 통해서 높일 수 없기 때문에 전문증거는 원칙적으로 증거능력이 없다는 점을 확인할 수 있었다. 하지만 법제에 따라서는 전문증거임에도 불구하고 폭넓게 예외를 인정할 수도 있다. 우리 법이나 미국 법이 그런 경우다. 또, 전문법칙 자체를 느슨하게 적용할 수도 있다. 영국 법이 그런 경우다. 하지만 법제가 아무리 달라지고 전문법칙을 대하는 태도가 아무리 달라져도, 진술을 포함하고 있지 않은 CCTV에 진술이 포함되어 있다고 주장하고, 그 CCTV에도 전문법칙이 적용된다고 말할 수는 없다.

영미법 상 불능의 항변

김희균 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울법학 Vol.22 No.2

Criminal attempt is criminal act so the actor should be punished even though, sometimes, it is possible to lessen his criminal liability. As is regulated in the Korean Criminal Law(hereinafter “Law) Article 25. It states that “(1) When an intended crime is not completed or if the intended result does not occur, it shall be punishable as an attempted crime” and that “(2) [t]he punishment for attempted crime may be mitigated than that of consummated crime.”Among criminal attempts, there are different kinds which are not governed by the above rule, and that is called “impossible attempt.” Article 27 of the Law provides that “[e]ven though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted.” In other words, impossible criminal attempt must be punished by the society because of its dangerousness. Traditionally, in the Common Law, impossible attempts are divided into two groups: one is factually impossible attempts and the other legally impossible attempts. These two groups of impossibility defense may be raised by the defendant but the court exempts only legally impossible acts. Therefore there is an established rule, regarding impossibility defense, that law forgives legal impossibility but not factual impossibility. Article 27 of the law does not distinguish these two defenses and just states that “the punishment [for impossible criminal attempts] may be mitigated or remitted.” The purpose of this article is thus to think about any possibility that a defense of legal impossibility is also applicable in reading the Article. 영미법 상 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능의 구별론을 검토해 보면, 몇 가지 깨닫게 되는 게 있다. 첫째, 결과 발생이 불가능한 경우에도 어떤 행위자는 처벌할 필요가 있고, 어떤 행위자는 처벌할 필요가 없다. 혹은 그렇게 보인다. 영미법에서는 이를 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능으로 구별한다. 반면에 우리 논의에서는 구체적 위험과 추상적 위험으로 나누어서 검토해 보았다. 둘째, 추상적 위험과 구체적 위험이라는 구별법에 따라 처벌을 달리할지 여부에 대해서는 의견이 분분하다. 그러자는 견해도 있고, 그러지 말자는 견해도 있다. 둘 다 일리가 있다. 구체적으로 위험한 행위와 추상적으로 위험한 행위에 대한 평가는 형법에 대한 이해와도 맞닿아 있다. 특히 추상적으로 위험한 행위는 행위자의 계획이 위험했던 것이지 결과는 별로 위험하지 않다고 봐서, 무죄를 선언하거나 형 면제를 선언할 수도 있다고 본다. 영미법 상 법률적 불능과 그런 면에서 통하는 점이 있다. 셋째, 그렇다면 우리가 영미법에서 본 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능의 구별법과 구체적 위험, 추상적 위험의 구별법이 이름만 다르지 사실은 같은 구별법이라고 볼 수 있을까. 그럴 거라고 믿고 이 연구를 시작했다. 결과 발생이 불가능하지만 위험성이 있는 행위를 둘로 나누어 가벌, 불가벌로 처벌 수위를 달리한 거라면, 영미에서 보는 시각과 우리가 보는 시각이 결국은 같은 게 아닐까 라고 생각한 것이다.

2015년 미연방증거규칙

김희균,대검찰청 검찰미래기획단 번역 대검찰청 2015 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.48

형사증거법의 재조명Ⅱ : 크로포드 이후 전문법칙의 미래

김희균 韓國刑事法學會 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

Why do we conduct a comparative research on the subject of law or legal principles? I believe that is because we would like to understand to which point we are going to in comparison with other developed nations. If we find out that we are proven to be more effective in protecting a criminal defendant's rights than others, we will have a chance of giving some guidance to them. However, if we are far behind of them, we have to try to change our practices and reality for keeping pace with them. In 1961, we have imported the rule against hearsay to our criminal procedure law which was known to be based upon civil law system. That is because we wanted to ameliorate our criminal justice system by introducing one of key adversarial factors developed in the common law tradition. Some commentator have even boasted the fact that we have promulgated the rule against hearsay for the benefits of a criminal defendant. 'We guarantee the Confrontational right or cross-examination opportunity to all the defendants.' They said that we did our best for a fair trial by excluding some testimonial evidence which was gathered in ex parte situation. However, as a matter of fact, the rule that we have imported and kept continuously is not a rule worth of adoration. It is “an old-fashioned crazy quilt made of patches cut from a group of paintings by cubists, futurists and surrealists.” Moreover, it does not guarantee the fairness in a criminal processing because there are so many exceptions to it. Thus, the Supreme Court of America has begun to re-consider why the rule had been established by conducting a comparative research between the past and the present. The final report of it is Crawford v. Washington.

6월의 교회학교/총동원의 달 교회교육 : 교회학교 소식들 ; 어린이들에게 배우며

김희균 장로회신학대학교 기독교교육연구원 1996 교육교회 Vol.- No.236