http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 임보미 ( Bo Mi Lim ) (검색결과 26 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
임보미 ( Bo Mi Lim ) 한국형사정책학회 2012 刑事政策 Vol.24 No.3
Examination of the current status of the Civil Participatory Trial reveals higher appeal rate than regular trials. In particular, the appeal rate by prosecutors is considerably high while the annulment rate at appellate reviews is low. The grounds for appeal set forth in the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 361-5 has remained untouched since the Code`s 2nd revision in 1963, and they need to be re-interpreted to take account of the cases tried through Civil Participatory Trials. Also, in the current context where the prosecutor`s appeal against not-guilty judgements is taken for granted, the Civil Participatory Trials may function as the starting point for prohibiting appeals against not-guilty judgements. Regular trials and Civil Participatory Trials are different from each other in terms of the ideas behind each system and the principle of trial-oriented evidence law. In addition, the appellate reviews of the two systems need to be managed in different ways, as the latter employs a unique procedure in which the defendant and prosecutor determine the fact-finders of his/her own case. The interest in and importance of appellate reviews have recently increased with the adoption of participatory trial system and changes in public trial in the courts of 1st instance. Active and constant discussions are required in order to ensure the appellate trial system to play its essential role of defendant protection while preserving the original intent behind the adoption of the Civil Participatory Trial system.
-
-
임보미 ( Lim Bo-mi ) 한국비교형사법학회 2017 비교형사법연구 Vol.19 No.3
시민이 참여하는 재판은 저마다 크고 작은 차이가 있긴 하지만, 오늘날 다수의 국가에서 행해지는 보편적인 제도이다. 시민참여형 재판은 민주적 정당성과 공정한 재판이라는 측면에서 그 의의를 갖는다. 한편, 상소제도의 본질적 기능은 오판으로부터 피고인을 구제하는 것이다. 이러한 상소의 기능이 경우에 따라 시민참여형 재판의 의미와 상충할 수 있다. 따라서 시민참여형 재판제도의 취지를 훼손하지 않으면서 상소의 본질적 기능에 충실할 수 있도록 양자의 조화를 꾀하는 작업을 모색하지 않으면 안된다. 미국은 가장 적극적인 시민참여형 재판제도를 채택하고 있다. 배심원의 평결엔 기속력이 인정되고 이러한 평결을 존중하는 사법풍토가 자리잡고 있다. 미국 상소체계를 지배하고 있는 이중위험금지원칙은 이와 긴밀한 관련이 있다. 검사는 배심원의 무죄평결 자체를 다툴 수 없다. 더불어 피고인에게도 ‘항소할 수 있는 권리’는 한 번만 주어진다. 항소심에서는 사건 자체를 판단하는 것이 아니라, 원심의 판결을 사후적으로 검토하는 방식을 취한다. 일본의 상소체계는 우리나라의 경우와 유사하다. 우리나라와 같이 3심으로 구성되어 있으며, 검사의 항소가 금지되지 않는다. 그러나 실무에 있어서 일본의 검사항소 비율은 약 1% 내외로 매우 낮다. 일본에서 재판원제도를 도입하면서 상소에 관한 논의가 주요쟁점으로 떠올랐는데, 여러 논의 끝에 현재는 항소심을 사후심으로 구성하자는 견해가 다수를 이룬다. 미국, 일본과는 달리, 프랑스 배심제의 항소심에서는 사건 자체를 전면적으로 다시 판단한다. 마치 1심에서처럼 사실판단을 하고 유, 무죄를 결정한다. 이러한 항소심이 가능한 이유는 프랑스 배심사건의 항소심이 또 다른 배심체로 운영되기 때문이다. 1심보다 더 많은 시민이 참여하고, 평결을 내리기 위한 유효인원수도 더 많다. 더 큰 배심은 1심 판결을 번복할 수 있는 명분을 줄 수 있기 때문이다. 이러한 내용에 비추어 볼 때, 우리 항소심에 시사하는 바는 다음과 같다. 우선 ‘합리적 의심을 넘은 증명’이라는 형사소송법의 이념과 피고인구제라는 항소의 목적상 검사의 항소, 특히 무죄판결에 대한 항소는 제한되어야 한다. 두 번째, 검사보다 열등한 자원을 가진 피고인의 무죄호소는 상소심에서 경청될 필요가 있으므로 항소심에서의 사실판단을 허용할 필요가 있다. A Civil participatory trial system, in spite of the diversity, is widely used in large numbers of countries. The civil participatory trial is significant from the democratic legitimacy and the fair trial. Meanwhile, the essential role of an appeal system is the defendant protection from misjudgments. This role of an appeal system can be in confrontation with the purpose of civil participatory trials in some cases. It is needed to seek for the coordination between the both, in order not to violate the purpose of the trials, but to fulfill the function of appeal systems. U.S.A implements most active civil participatory trial system. The jury verdict is binding and respected. Double jeopardy principle, that rules american appellate system, is closely concerned just with it. It is not allowed for public prosecutors to protest against the jury verdict of not guilty itself. The defendants also have only one 'right to appeal'. Appellate courts are not concerned with finding facts of the case, just review the original trial. The japanese appellate system is similar with Korean one. It consists of three instances and the appeal by public prosecutors is even allowed. In practice, the percentage of appeal by prosecutors is, however, extremely low, approximately 1%. On the introduction of Criminal Lay Judge Trial in Japan, the appellate system came to the fore as a major issue. The argument, in which the second instance is to only law-matters, is encouraged as major among varied opinions. Unlike in U.S.A or in Japan, appeal courts of civil participatory trial in France repeat entirely fact-finding. Jurors and judges find facts and verdict once more just like as in the first instance. It is the possible reason to operate the second instance as another trial that the appeal court consists of also jury system. More persons participate in trial and the valid number for verdict is larger than in the first instance. A larger jury is able to justify reversals of decisions in first instances. These comparative examples suggest how to operate the second instance in Korea as in the following. First of all, the appeal by prosecutors, especially the appeal against a verdict of acquittal, is to be restricted based on the principle of 'beyond the reasonable doubt' and the appeal's aim of 'remedying defendant'. Second, a fact-finding in appeal courts must be allowed, so that the appeal of acquittal by defendants, who have inferior resources to prosecutors, is examined carefully.
-
-
-
임보미(Bo Mi Lim),기보민(Bo Min Ki),최정현(Jung Hyun Choi) 大韓環境工學會 2009 대한환경공학회지 Vol.31 No.10
이 연구는 담수 퇴적물에서 주되게 일어나는 탈질(denitrification), 철 환원(iron reduction), 메탄 환원(methanogenesis) 반응이 퇴적물 유기물 분해에서 차지하는 중요도를 파악하였다. 탈질률, 철환원률, 메탄환원률 모두 식물이 존재하지 않는 Site A, 새섬매자기 군락이 서식하는 Site B, 갈대 군락이 서식하는 Site C에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였고(P<0.05), 퇴적물 깊이에 따라서는 메탄환원률만이 유의한 차이를 보였다. 유기물 함량은 Site A, Site B, Site C 순으로 식물의 존재와 밀도 증가에 따라 증가하였다. Site A가 가장 낮은 유기물 함량을 나타냄에도 불구하고 가장 높은 탈질률과 철환원률을 나타내었고, 메탄환원률의 경우 Site C에서 가장 큰 값을 나타내었다. 유기물의 혐기성 분해가 주로 탈질, 철 환원, 메탄 환원에 의해 일어난다고 가정한다면, 한강하구의 경우 탈질이 유기물을 분해하는 가장 주된 반응임을 알 수 있었다. This research investigates the importance of the microbial metabolic pathways such as denitrification, iron reduction, and methanogenesis, in the degradation of organic matters of the sediments. There are statistically significant differences(P<0.05) in the rates of denitrification, iron reduction, and methanogenesis according to the location: Site A has no plant, Site B is dominated by Scirpus, and Site C is dominated by Phragmites. Among them, Site C showed different methanogenesis rate depending on the sediments depth. The organic matter content increased from Site A to Site C. Site A had the smallest organic matter content whereas it showed the largest denitrification rate and iron reduction rate. Site C had the largest methanogenesis rate. Denitrification is the dominant pathways based on the assumption that anaerobic degradation of organic matter is mainly carried out through denitrification, iron reduction, and methanogenesis.
-
이른바 “계속적 위험론”에 관한 비판적 고찰 -미국 판례 분석을 중심으로-
임보미 ( Bo Mi Lim ) 한국비교형사법학회 2014 비교형사법연구 Vol.16 No.1
A prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal on the ground of mistake of fact represents not only an extended opportunity for the prosecutor to prove the defendant’s crime, but also an opportunity to remove the weaknesses of his/her arguments at the trial. This is tantamount to shifting the his/her own responsibility of proving the defendant’s guilt to the judges of the 282appellate court, which causes considerable suffering on the part of the defendant. In South Korea, the theory commonly cited for justifying a prosecutor’s appeal against not guilty ruling is the ‘continuing jeopardy’ theory, which means ‘a prosecutor’s appeal against a not guilty ruling does not constitute double jeopardy, as the jeopardy continues until the decision is finalized. The continuing jeopardy theory originates from the U.S. case law, but it had failed to be recognized as convincing argument for a long time. Decisions based on the theory did not appear before the 1980’s. The theory, however, was mainly cited for the purpose of determining whether a new trial held after a guilty ruling or a suspension of trial is against the double jeopardy rule. Prohibition of appeal against an acquittal remains unaffected by the theory. An acquittal judgement, including verdict by the jury, is the most definitive and strongest ground for ending the first jeopardy. Furthermore, in the context of South Korean appellate system where the prosecutor is allowed to change the written arraignment or submit new evidences, the jeopardy at the appellate level can hardly be considered as ‘continuation of the jeopardy that had originated from the trial.’ Appeal against an acquittal based on the continuing jeopardy theory is also against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Green case that the purpose of the double jeopardy rule is to prevent ‘anxiety and insecurity’ due to ‘embarrassment, expense and ordeal’ suffered by the defendant, as well as the principle of speedy court proceedings under the Korean Constitution. To the contrary, considering the status of the continuing jeopardy theory within the U.S. case law and the finality of (at least) an acquittal verdict by the jury should be considered as ending the first jeopardy.
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
