최근 수면시간이 수면인식에 영향을 미칠 수 있다

차정인,권형민,이상형,남현우 대한수면연구학회 2009 Journal of sleep medicine Vol.6 No.2

Background: Paradoxical insomnia is a disorder where complaints of insomnia occur without an objective evidence of sleep disturbance. It is presumed to be related to the disordered sleep perception. So far, two factors are regarded to be associated with to the sleep perception. One is the sleep stage and the other is the presence or absence of insomnia. We performed this study to find out factors affecting sleep perception and to confirm the significance of insomnia. Method: We performed sleep EEG in 178 subjects. Sleep was maintained 5 minutes after the onset of the stage 2 sleep. We divided them into two groups depending on the difference of subjective and objective sleep time. Then, various aspects of demographic and sleep-related characteristics were compared between the two groups. Factors we analyzed include gender, age, accompanying disease, recent total sleep time, recent sleep latency, presence of insomnia, severity of insomnia, sleepiness scale before and after EEG, sleepiness scale difference, sleep latency during EEG, time of the day of the EEG, time from the last waking-up to the EEG, and the total sleep time during EEG. Results: Among many parameters, only the average sleep time in the recent 2 weeks is significantly associated with the sleep perception. The shorter it is, the lesser subjects think they slept during the test. Insomnia does not affect the accuracy of sleep perception in our study. Conclusion: Accuracy of sleep perception depends on the actual sleep time in recent days but not on the presence of insomnia

출판저널칼럼

차정인,Cha, Jeong-In 대한출판문화협회 2001 출판저널 Vol.311 No.-

책다움에서 출발하는 실험적 표현

차정인,Cha, Jeong-In 대한출판문화협회 1999 출판저널 Vol.256 No.-

[변호사시험 사례형(논술형)대비/형사법] 강도 공모 후 공범자의 초과실행, 공동피고인의 증인적격, 공범자의 자백과 보강법칙

차정인 고시계사 2013 考試界 Vol.58 No.9

무죄판결의 이유를 다투는 상소

차정인 법조협회 2011 法曹 Vol.60 No.11

이 논문은 무죄판결의 이유를 다투는 ‘피고인의’ 상소가 상소의 이익이 있는가에 대하여, 그동안 “무죄판결은 법률적․객관적으로 피고인에게 가장 유리한 재판이며 아무런 법익박탈이 없으므로 상소의 이익이 부정된다”고 해온 통설적 견해(대법원 판례도 같은 결론)에 대하여 의문을 제기하는 논문이다. 이 논문의 전형적 문제상황은, 절도사건에서 피고인이 절취 사실을 부인하였는데 법원이 “절취사실은 인정되지만 절취 당시 피고인이 정신분열증(심신상실) 상태였으므로 무죄”라고 판단한 경우에 피고인이 절취사실 없음을 인정받기 위하여 상소할 수 있느냐의 문제이다. 이 논문은 먼저, 형사판결의 이유 부분은 민사재판의 판단자료가 되므로 법익박탈이 있고, 문제 상황에서 피고인은 ‘도둑’이며 ‘정신병자’라는 사회적 평가를 벗어날 수 없으므로 명예법익의 객관적 박탈이 있다고 보았다. 다음으로, 범죄체계론상 구성요건해당성의 의미 내지 비중에 비추어, 구성요건해당성 판단을 생략하거나 구성요건해당성이 없다는 피고인의 주장을 배척한 원심판결에 대하여는 피고인에게 상소권 있음을 논증하고자 하였다. 다음으로, 헌법상 재판청구권의 차원에서 형사소송법 규정을 헌법정신에 부합하도록 해석‧운용하면 피고인의 상소권을 인정하게 되며, 실정법상 상소 금지 규정이 있는 것이 아니므로 위헌법률심사에서 ‘가급적 합헌으로 판단하는’ 방식과는 달리 생각해야 한다고 보았다.

항소심의 제1심 국민참여재판 판결 파기

차정인 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.1

The defendant was indicted for ‘death resulting from bodily injury’(Criminal Act, Article 259) by a public prosecutor. The court of first instance pronounced “not guilty” by judgment on the grounds that the evidence of the criminal act is insufficient because the only witness's statement, who is named Mr. Jo, is unreliable. On the other hand, the appeal court vacated the above judgment and pronounced “guilty” by judgment on the grounds that the only witness's statement is reliable. But there are several important issues in the appeal court's examination and judgement. First, from the viewpoint of the principle of public trial, while a witness examination in the court of first instance is exemplary, the appeal court overruled the original judgment without a witness examination. Furthermore, the main issue of the appeal court is how reliable the witness's statement is. It is impossible to judge reliability of witness's statements only by reading documents without observing witness's attitude in person. Moreover, the judgement of the appeal court can be considerable in reversing the “not guilty” judgement to “guilty” one. Thus, the judgement of the appeal court is not matched to the procedural condition that is required in vacating the original judgment. Second, concerning to the structure of appeal court or its character, an influential scholar opinion says that it is not desirable for appeal court to examine a new or same evidence because the main function of appeal court is to judge whether the judgement of the court of first instance is proper or not. This opinion is totally right because its fundamental policy is ‘centralism of the court of first instance’. According to ‘centralism of the court of first instance’, in order to overrule an original judgment about reliability of witness's statements in appeal court, the court have to find out ‘enough, convincing and notable reasons’ that make one not to consent to the judgement of a court of first instance(the Supreme Court 2007. 5. 11. pronounced, 2007do2020 Sentence). By the way, so far as reliability of witness's statements is concerned, it is impossible to find out these ‘enough, convincing and notable reasons’ without witness examination. In this case, the appeal court delivered a decision that there are ‘enough, convincing and notable reasons’ without witness examination. I think that this decision is unilateral. Third, I want to bring up a question as ‘de lege ferenda’. In this case, the judges in the court of first instance accepted the “not guilty” of jury's verdict and delivered the “not guilty” judgment, but the appeal court delivered the “guilty” judgment. Criminal facts shall be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt(Criminal Procedure Act, Article 307). In this case, seven jurymen and three judges had reasonable doubt, and then their doubt should be regarded as reasonable one in the appeal court, too, because the charge of the defendant is same. In Anglo-American jury system, when the jury gives a verdict of “not guilty”, the prosecutor is not allowed to appeal the case. Because I think the main reason of that system is based on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. From the viewpoint of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, we had better amend our jury system in future. If a jury gave a verdict of “not guilty” and a court of First Instance pronounced the same by a judgment, it should not be allowed for a public prosecutor to appeal the case.

재발척수염을 동반한 크론병

차정인,김수현,안석원,성정준,이광우 대한신경과학회 2009 대한신경과학회지 Vol.27 No.4

Crohn’s disease is one of the inflammatory bowel diseases and is characterized by the involvement of the entire depth of the intestinal wall from the anus to the mouth. Neurological complications rarely occur in Crohn’s disease and recurrent transverse myelitis has not yet been described in association with it. We report a 50-year-old man with Crohn’s disease accompanied by recurrent transverse myelitis. Inflammatory bowel diseases and demyelinating disorders may share an autoimmune pathophysiology. Crohn’s disease is one of the inflammatory bowel diseases and is characterized by the involvement of the entire depth of the intestinal wall from the anus to the mouth. Neurological complications rarely occur in Crohn’s disease and recurrent transverse myelitis has not yet been described in association with it. We report a 50-year-old man with Crohn’s disease accompanied by recurrent transverse myelitis. Inflammatory bowel diseases and demyelinating disorders may share an autoimmune pathophysiology.

2004, 책으로 사는 사람들-아티스트북을 만들며 산다는 것은

차정인,Cha, Jeong-In 대한출판문화협회 2004 출판저널 Vol.348 No.-

변호사시험 형사법 기록형·통합사례형 문제 출제방향

차정인 부산대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학연구 Vol.53 No.3

로스쿨 형사법 교육이 대법원 중심의 기존 법조의 의견을 맹목적으로 추종하는 법조인을 양성하려는 것이 아니라면, ‘포섭의 자동판매기’를 양산하려는 것이 아니라면, 대형(great) 법조인의 싹을 소중히 여긴다면, 형법이론학에 기초하여 이론과 판례가 균형을 이룬 교육을 해야 하며 자칫 학문성의 결핍 현상이 발생하지 않아야 한다. 그러므로 변호사시험에서도 형사법 이론과 법적 논증 능력을 평가해야 하며, 단순한 판례지식 평가가 되지 않도록 유의해야 한다. 형법과 형사소송법의 비율(6 : 4)과 형법총론과 형법각론의 비율(6 : 4)이 존중되어야 한다. 기록형 문제의 형사소송법 부분에서, 증거능력 판단 뿐 아니라 진술의 신빙성을 중심으로 하는 증명력 판단을 중점적으로 평가하여야 한다. 형사소송실무에서 소송의 승패를 좌우하며, 양 당사자가 집중적으로 다투는 부분이기 때문이다. "견해 대립이 있는 경우에는 판례에 따라 변론하시오."와 같은 유의사항은 판례 중심의 학습을 조장할 우려가 있으므로 아무런 지시를 하지 않는 편이 더 좋다. 기록형 문제에서, 죄명별 배점을 표시하는 것이 바람직하다. 공소사실의 요지 기재와 정상변론은 평가제외사항으로 하여 법적 쟁점에 대한 평가에 주력하는 것이 좋다. 통합 사례형 문제에서, 형법과 형사소송법의 논점이 유기적으로 결합되는 것이 좋지만, 단순 통합 방식이라고 하더라도 무방하다. 문제에 중요 논점을 너무 많이 내포하면 깊이 있게 공부한 응시생도 ‘간략한 요지’ 위주의 답안 작성을 강요받게 되므로 ‘학습의 깊이에 따른 변별력’을 확보할 수 없으며, 때로는 ‘속필능력 평가’의 성격마저 띄게 되어 결과적으로 공정성을 저해하게 된다. It is undesirable to be given too much emphasis on teaching precedents in criminal law, even though it is still important to teach a criminal litigation practically in law school. Academic status should be held fast to the education in criminal law in the school as well as practical one should. So, it is not desirable to evaluate a simple and superficial knowledge of precedents for the bar exam. Under the bar exam, the question ratio of criminal law to criminal procedure (6:4) should be maintained. The ratio of the general introduction of criminal law to its detailed treatise (6:4) should be maintained, too. In the question of documentary record type, the judgement of evidence value should be evaluated by mainly focusing credibility of statement as well as the judgment of admissibility. Because the outcome of a criminal litigation can depend on the evidence value mainly focusing to credibility of the statement. It is desirable that a summary of charge and a reason of considering circumstances should be ruled out the evaluation of the exam. If there are too much important issues in the question, the bar exam can be degenerated into ’test for the ability how to write fast’ because of the lag of time.

형사법(제2회 모의시험)

차정인 고시계사 2012 考試界 Vol.57 No.11