위법수집증거배제법칙

류지영(Ryu Jee-Yeong) 한국법학회 2008 법학연구 Vol.29 No.-

위법수집증거배제법칙은 그동안 학설과 판례로서 널리 인정되어 왔으나 개정된 형사소송법에서는 이를 명문으로 규정하여 법적근거를 지닌 일반원칙으로 작용하게 되었다. 그러나 명문규정에도 불구하고 표제어와 법내용이 상이하여 다양한 해석의 가능성을 가지게 되었다. 적법절차원리는 우리 헌법상에 명문으로 규정된 헌법상의 원칙이고 모든 국가권력이 기속을 받는 헌법상의 일반 원리이다. 위법수집증거배제법칙은 형사소송에서 적법절차의 핵심이라고 할 수 있다. 위법수집증거배제법칙은 미국법에서 유래한다. 이에 필자는 미국, 일본, 독일, 영국의 위법수집증거배제법칙의 운영현황을 살펴보고 우리나라의 경우와 비교ㆍ검토하였다. 신설된 형사소송법상의 위법수집증거배제법칙의 명문규정의 문제점은 표제어와 내용이 불일치하여 실제 해석상에서 위법수집된 증거의 증거능력을 인정하는 범위를 기준에 따라 달리 할 수 있게 되었다. 따라서 신설된 조항이 의미를 가지려면 엄격한 해석을 통하여 적법절차에 위반하면 증거능력을 부인해야 실질적 기능을 하며, “적법한 절치에 따르지 아니하고 수집한 증거”의 명확한 기준을 제시하여 법적안정성을 기할 필요가 있고, 그런 의미에서 비진술증거에 대한 배제법칙의 선언도 필요하며 법적용기관의 노력도 수반되어야 한다. This Paper studies the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Collected Evidence in Criminal Procedure Code, especially in Relation to Revision Criminal Procedure Code §308-2. The Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Collected Evidence is the part of Criminal Procedure Code that it does not admit as Evidence ability of the Illegally Collected Evidence. The Illegally Collected Evidence is constituent in ways of human rights infringement. The administrative problem of permissibility of Evidence ability is based on two ideas: how to achive harmony in mutual contradiction between the free conviction doctrine and the substance true discovery doctrine, or ask of the movement of the enemy safeguarding fundamental human rights. The problem of harmony doesn't solve the conflict between voluntary search and the idea of safeguarding human rights in Criminal Justice. This important problem is widely discussed. Fragmentary and Superficial approachment is not problem solution of systematic, more synthesis and inclusive studies. As a result, It considered in the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Collected Evidence in Criminal Procedure Code in Korea, especially in Relation to Revision Criminal Procedure Code §308-2. It approach how to develop the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Collected Evidence. In Criminal Procedure Code, about evidence ability or recognize of Illegally Collected Evidence, ask of true discovery doctrine and from this point of safeguarding human rights, what point of harmony to constitutional ideas in asking the movements of the Due Process.

군 형법상 상관모욕죄의 객체로서의 대통령과 표현의 자유

류지영(Ryu Jee Yeong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2014 法學論文集 Vol.38 No.3

In the military criminal law act, the superior insult crime is prescribed in the following, Article 64 (Insult, etc. to Superior) (1) A person who insults his/her superior face to face shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than two years. (2) A person who insults his/her superior by publishing a document, a picture, or an image, giving a speech, or openly expressing otherwise shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than three years. (3) A person who defames his/her superior by stating a fact openly shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than three years. (4) A person who defames his/her superior by stating a false fact openly shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than five years. The superior insult crime in the military criminal law act, as compared with the criminal law act, is stern discipline. There are many problems in the interpretation of law. At first, judging from the fundamental right of view, it is possible to infringe the freedom of expression of citizen. In applying this Act, close attention shall be given so as not to infringe unreasonably on the rights of freedom of expression of citizens, and this Act shall not apply arbitrarily for any absolute obedience to superior, the extreme nationalism which deviates from the original purpose. The second, judging from the substantial law of view, it is possible to infringe the principle of 「nullum crimon sine lege」. In Korean the military criminal law act, the concept of the superior is very indistinct, In Korean criminal law Act, Insult cime is prescribed as following, 」A person who publicly insults another shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding two million won.". In Korean the military criminal law act, in order to punish the criminals, it is required 「publicly insults」. But in the military criminal law act, it is not required that conditions. And the concept of the superior is full of ambiguities. The third, judging from the procedural law of view, In order to clarify the criminal fact, it must be verified by the strict evidence. To depend on the statements of the superior may be unfairness and one sided. In conclusion, in this case the accused might be punished not by the military criminal law act, especially the superior insult crime but disciplinary action.

스포츠 승부조작과 형사책임

류지영(Ryu Jee-Yeong) 중앙법학회 2021 中央法學 Vol.23 No.3

스포츠에 환경의 변화는 스포츠가 인간의 기본적 욕구의 충족과 발산이라는 목적을 달성하기 위한 수단으로서 작용하는 것 외에도 현대사회에 있어서 스포츠의 역할의 변화도 한몫한다고 보여진다. 승부조작이 일상화된다면 결국은 해당 종목의 인기를 떨어뜨릴 뿐만 아니라 정정당당하게 훈련하고 경기에 임하는 선수는 물론이고 후속세대 선수에게도 피해를 입히는 결과로 나타날 수 밖에 없다. 결국 승부조작은 페어플레이 정신에 위배되는 반사회적이고 불법적인 행위이고 범죄행위로 치부될 수 있는 정도에 이르렀다. 이에 승부조작에 대한 형사처벌의 필요성이 대두된다. 먼저 승부조작의 경우 직접적으로 경기 결과에 영향을 미쳤다면 사기죄의 성립도 가능하다고 보여진다. 스포츠 선수가 스스로 승부조작을 하여 경기력을 향상시켜 경쟁 선수와 비교하여 유리한 위치에 도달하는 것은 그 자체로서 사기죄의 구성요건을 충족시키는 데에는 무리가 없다고 보인다. 경기의 공정한 승부에 돈을 건 스포츠토토 사업자와 토토 구입자들에게 손해를 입히는 행위는 결과적으로 타인의 배당 확률과 배당금은 낮아지고 결과적으로 토토 구입자와 토토 사업자에게 손해를 끼치는 행위를 함으로써 형법상 사기죄의 성립도 가능하다고 보여진다. 승부조작에 의하여 경기 결과를 인위적으로 바꿔 승부에 영향을 미치는 행위는 공정한 경기 진행과 경기 결과를 신뢰하는 사람(스포츠토토 사업자 포함)에 대한 위계에 해당한다고 볼 수 있고 결국 스포츠토토 사업자는 공정성을 전제로 투표권 판매사업을 하는 사람인데 이 회사의 업무가 방해받는 행위라고 볼 수 있다. 승부조작의 배후세력들이 선수들에게 접근하여 금품을 제공하면서 승부조작에 가담해달라고 요구한 행위가 바로 협박에 해당하지는 않을 것이다. 선수들이 적극적으로 이를 수용했다면 강요당한 행위라고 볼 수 없다. 그러나 조직폭력배들로부터 보복을 두려워하고 불안에 떨었다면 강요죄가 성립하는데 어려움이 없다고 보인다. 이와 같은 상황을 고려한다면 선수들의 실책성 플레이에 의한 승부조작 행위는 의무 없는 일을 한 경우에 해당한다. 승부조작 사건과 관련하여 공갈 행위는 선수들에게 폭력조직의 행위에 대해서 인정될 수 있다. 또한 폭력조직원이 승부조작에 가담한 사실을 알리겠다고 선수를 협박하여 애초 지급한 돈까지도 갈취한 것으로 알려졌다. 이러한 사실은 공갈죄의 구성요건에 해당한다, 승부의 의외성은 스포츠의 본질이다. 선수들은 스포츠를 구성하는 하나의 중요한 요소이다. 선수는 스포츠의 대표상품인 경기를 생산하는 중요한 종사자이다. 프로스포츠는 여러 흥행요소들을 가미하여, 경기 등 선수들을 포장하여 관중 등 소비자에게 상품으로 제공하는 산업이다. 의외성을 의도적으로 조작한 선수들의 행동은 스포츠의 본질을 스스로 부정한 것이다. 스포츠 경기에서 승부조작이 행해졌다고 의심된다면 공정한 경쟁과 스포츠맨쉽이 없는 경기로서 그 스포츠 종목이 멸실되고 말 것이다. 해당 종목뿐만 아니라 스포츠 전 영역에 걸쳐 부정적인 시각이 지배하고 있다면 스포츠 영역 전반이 공멸할 수 있을 것이다. 정부의 엄격한 대책이 필요하지만 선수들의 도덕적 자율성을 강화시키는 것도 필요해 보인다. 또한 그동안의 엘리트 선수에 의한 전문가적인 영역으로 치부되어 버린 스포츠가 선수에 의한 전유물처럼 생각하는 고정관념도 불식되어야 한다고 보여진다. In organized sports, match fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. The most common reason is to obtain a payoff from gamblers, but teams may also intentionally perform poorly to gain a future advantage, such as a better draft pick or, on paper, a less eminent opponent in a play-off. A player might also play poorly to rig a handicap system. Match fixing, when motivated by gambling, requires contacts (and normally money transfers) between gamblers, players, team officials, and/or referees. These contacts and transfers can sometimes be found, and lead to prosecution by the law or the sports league(s). The major motivations behind match fixing are gambling and future team advantage. It has also been linked to corruption, violence and tax avoidance. There may be financial gain through agreements with gamblers. An infamous example of this in North America was the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, in which several members of the Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to fix the World Series. Match fixing is not simple cheating that some policeman, Brokers and athletes carry out for monetary porposees. It can be seen as a problem of entire professional sport. It is important to recover the sprit of sport. It is the intrinsic attribute that the sport event has unexpectation. The sports events are composed of the fairness of players. It is a very important element that consist of the sports events. It is necessary th recognize that not only various education at a young athletes, but also activities related to match fixing which are considered simply by adult athletes can be a major offense.

양심의 자유로서의 병역거부의 불법성

류지영(Ryu Jee Yeong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論文集 Vol.40 No.2

As for the basic human right, the freedom of conscience is prescribed in Korean Consittution Article 19 All citizens shall enjoy freedom of conscience. And this clause is reconized s source of the freedom of mind. And then look into conscientious objection beoonging to the contents of guaranteeing nonperformance -oriented freedom of conscience realization, from the perspective of Korean Constitution. But there are many problems in the application of the freedom of conscientious objection. The inclusion of the freedom of conscience-realization, especially conscientious objection, in the freedom of conscience could collide with other legal benefits and protections and encroach on other s rights. the approval of the freedom of conscience-realization generates constitutional problems on the principle and limit of its restriction. The core of limit and restriction of the freedom of conscience is to find out the possibility of simultaneous realization of law and consciencs harmoniously. In the case that the freedom of conscience is confined inner sphere, it protects the freedom of form, the freedom th decide, the freedom to keep and the freedom to actulize it and it is protected by the freedom of express. However, in the that if case that the freedom of conscience includes the freedom th actualize it, there are many problems. In Korea, military service is not simple moral duty but the constitutional duty(people s obedience to military duty). For the Korean Constitution not to exist as an abstract standard but to act as a vividly living standard in the reality, accurate answers should be provided to the encountered social problems. The right of conscientious objection to military service could not be allowed in current situation in which North and South Korea are standing face to face. It is because having only the freedom of conscience without fulfilling the military obligations that are about defending the nation implies that there remains no more national community but only the indiviual for whom the premise of guarantee of fundamental rights is isolated, but beceause the individual person lives with the community. In point of view of criminal punishment s purpose, it is not certain that punishing person who refused to serve in military bases on one s conscience is not valid. Deterence is the straightforward, commonsense notion if you do something wrong, you will be punished, and punishment itself will prevent you from doing that wrong thing again. According to this notion, fear of a future punishment dictates the actions people choose. In the point of view of special prevention theory, there may be no effect for conscientious objector to military service. The idea of general prevention theory underpins much of commonsense thinking regarding the way to punish. If punishment is applied to all peoples without partiality, rich and poor alike, without distinction of age, without distinction of sex, without distinction of difference in social position, The effect of general prevention theory would be great. The question whether to introduce alternative military service as the assignment to resolve the future problems even if conscience objection is not admitted under the current system, and the trend of legistration will be examined in order to suggest the harmonious direction of conscience objection and military obligation. In the conclusion, in case of Korea in which there is no Constitutional provision stipulating about conscience objection to military service, the relation between the obligation to defend the nation as stipulated in the article 39 of the Constitution with the first principle of the freedom of conscience and Constitution in the article 19 of the Constitution, suggest that conscience objection to military service could not be allowed.

아마추어 스포츠 규칙과 적법절차

류지영(Ryu, Jee-Yeong) 중앙법학회 2022 中央法學 Vol.24 No.1

일반적으로 적법절차원리는 공권력(입법 · 행정 · 사법권)에 의한 국민의 생명, 자유, 재산의 침해는 반드시 합리적이고 정당한 법률에 의하여 정당한 절차를 밟은 경우에만 유효하다는 원리고서, 영비법의 나라에서는 인권보장의 가장 핵심적인 헌법상의 원리고서 기능하고 있다. 우리나라 헌법에서도 인신보호를 위한 헌법상의 기속원리로 채택함으로써, 특히 공권력에 의한 부당한 인신권의 침해로부터 국민을 보호하고자 하는 규정이라고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 비록 아마추어 스포츠의 활동이 비정부적이고 사적인 영역에 있다고는 하나 헌법의 적법절차원리는 아마추어 스포츠 영역에도 필요하다고 보여 진다, 모든 스포츠의 경우 고등학교 스포츠 활동이든 대학간의 스포츠 활동이든 간에 헌법적 가치아래 적용되어야 할 분야로 볼 수 있다. 특히 국가의 보조금이 지급되거나 국가의 교육목적의 범위안에서 학원스포츠가 운영된다면 특히 헌법적 가치인 적법절차원리는 적용되어야 한다. 적법절차원리가 적용되는 자유의 경우, 상급학교나 프로에 입문하는 과정으로서 아마추어 스포츠의 일정한 부분을 이수하는 것은 필수적 조건으로 한다면 적법절차위반이 성립할 수 있다. 선수들에게 일정한 의무를 부여함으로써 선수자격여부를 심사한다면 의사의 자유에 의하여 계약을 성사시켜야 하는 계약자유를 침해할 수 있으며 직업선택의 자유와도 연관된다. 경기단체의 규정은 비록 경기단체에 가입하는 기관에 직접적으로 적용된다고는 하나 학생들은 간접적으로 영향을 받을 수밖에 없다. 전문선수들은 장래의 직업에 관련되는 중요한 문제로서 경기단체에서 주관하는 코치나 감독 등 일정한 자격을 부여하는 과정을 이수해야만 하고 그리하여 관련 종목에서 지도자로서 활동할 수 있다면 협회의 징계조항이나 자격요건에 대한 규정은 해당 선수나 코치들에게 우월한 지위에서 일방적으로 적용될 가능성도 있다. 아마추어 스포츠에서 적법절차원리가 특히 필요한 것은 감독이나 코치의 판단에 따라 선수의 기용이나 배치, 훈련 등의 지침이 우월한 지위에서 일방적으로 적용될 가능성이 높고, 또 스포츠 연맹과 그 소속기관으로서 고등학교나 대학의 스포츠 기관은 상하관계에 놓여지고 일방적 의사전달이 될 가능성도 있어 이에 대한 이의제기나 의사표시의 방법이 제도적으로 보장되는 것이 필요해 보인다. 私人간의 사적인 법률관계는 원칙적으로 사적자치의 원칙에 따라 각자의 임의에 맡겨지는 것이지만 모든 일을 사인 상호간의 임의에만 맡기면 정의와 형평에 어긋난 일이 생길 수 있다. 아마추어 스포츠도 사적인 법률관계로 본다면 적법절차원리가 적용될 여지는 없겠다. 그러나 모든 사인간의 법률관계가 기본권과 아주 무관할 수 없다. 만일 기본권이 사회공동체의 동화적 통합을 달성하기 위하여 꼭 실현시켜야 되고 존중되어야 하는 객관적인 가치를 헌법에 규범화한 일종의 질서의원리라고 한다면 아마추어 스포츠의 규칙에 있어서도 당연히 지켜져야 하며, 스포츠에 고유한 질서라고 적법절차원리를 무시하는 논리는 성립할 수 없다. Although the action of a private (nongovernmental) entity-especially amateur institution or associations-is not subject to constitutional limitations, action that is private in form may be treated as the state action in substance. In this fashion, the courts have treated high school and national athletic associations and conferences or leagues as if they were government agencies for purpose of constitutional law. Because these interscholastic and intercollegiate organizations exercise such pervasive influence in the field of amateur athletics, most of the field is governed by the constitutional limits applicable to the state and its political subdivisions and officials. Among other governing principles, the Constitution prohibits the state-and thus athletic associations, such as the Korean Sports & Olympic Committee, exercising state power-from violating the due process rights of students and coaches. In suit th vindicate the due process, a student or coach-or a school or college on behalf of the constitutional right holder must establish the existence of liberty or property interest within the meaning of the Constitution. It is arguable that the liberty lf students is implicated by termination of athletic eligibility because of thd effect of such action on opportunities for higher education or the opportunities for a professional career in a sport. Both students and coaches would often have property claim a based on express or implied contracts or on the state law that age often takes the form of regulations of the Korean Sports & Olympic Committee or other regulating agency. For students, the liberty or property claim might apply either to participation in sports or to retention of scholarship. The distinctions between affected interests represented by hierarchy of judicial protection is clearly relevant to procedural due process cases, but these distinctions should influence the extent of procedural protection available rather than whether any protection at all will be required by the Constitution. At a very general level, one can say that the court indicate that due process requires notice of the existence of the rule prohibiting particular conduct and penalty a violation might entail and also notice of the violation charged and opportunity for the accused person th defend against the charge. Generally, the opinion dealing with sports cases have reflected a view consistent with the usual constitutional pattern, which requires a greater opportunity to defend as the potential loss is greater. Similarly, these opinions have recognized that the opportunity to defend will be significantly affected by the presence or absence of factual issues. In general, the educational institutions that offer students education in exchange for athletics and the collective like the Korea University Basketball Federation that regulate educational institutions directly and students indirectly. One can often detect in a court’s opinion a nervousness about being drawn into this world of amateur athletics in which so much money is involved. One can detect in these opinions, too, an element of condescension about sports. Yet, whatever one may think about the influence of gargantuan amateur athletics or the integrity of the educational process at the institutions involved, it is hard not to take seriously the fate of the individuals who often have such a big stake in this enterprise.

스포츠에 있어서 도핑의 형사책임

류지영(Ryu Jee-yeong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2021 圓光法學 Vol.37 No.1

스포츠가 현대사회에 들어오면서 신체활동을 통한 경쟁적 유희활동으로 변화되고 신체활동과 경쟁 및 놀이의 요소를 포함하여 이제는 규칙의 적용과 게임의 특성을 갖게 됨으로써 공정한 조건과 규칙의 적용이 필요하게 되었다. 도핑은 사회적 환경의 변화에 따라 경제적인 유혹과 명예를 위하여 기능의 향상과 이로 인한 경제적 부의 획들을 위하여 시도되게 된다. 도핑은 그 자체로 직접적으로 형사책임을 묻기에는 상당한 어려움이 있다. 도핑이 스포츠윤리에 반하다는 것은 확실하나 형사책임을 물을 때는 행위자의 주관적 측면에서 검토해야 하고 행위자에게 무엇을 근거로 사람에게 비난을 가할 수 있는 것인지에 대한 판단이 이루어져야 한다. 따라서 선수개인에 대한 신체적 침해를 유발하는 행위뿐만 아니라 재산적인 분야에 대한 침해에 대하여 형사책임을 물어야 할 당위성이 요구된다. 도핑물질로 인하여 선수의 사망이나 상해가 발생하는 경우, 자기도핑의 경우에는 자손행위가 되어 형사책임을 물을 수 없겠지만 타인도핑의 경우, 도핑물질 투여자에 대한 형사책임으로서 상해죄의 구성요건은 완성된다고 보여진다. 스포츠 선수가 도핑을 하여 경기력을 높이고 그것으로 인하여 경기결과에 영향을 미쳤다면 경기의 공정한 승부에 돈을 건 스포츠 토토사업자 및 구입자들에게 손해를 끼친 행위가 되고 그것은 스포츠 사기에 해당할 수 있다. 스포츠 승부의 결과는 공정한 경쟁에 의하여 발생하는 것이 아니라 결과적으로는 조작된 승부라고 볼 수 있기 때문이다. 업무방해죄의 성립도 가능하다고 보여 진다. 스포츠 토토의 경우 공정성을 전제로 판매사업을 하는 것이기 때문에 회사의 업무를 방해하는 경우에 해당한다고 보여 진다. 국민체육진흥법이나 마약류 관리에 관한 법률 위반, 약사법 위반의 경우 도핑을 한 선수에 대한 처벌도 염두에 두고 있지만 그 배후세력에 대해서도 엄중한 처벌의 필요성에 의하여 그 법의 적용이 이루어진다고 보여진다. The criminal liability of doping in sports activity Generally Dope means any thick liquid or pasty preparation, as of opium for medical purposes, of grease for a lubricant , etc., and in popular meaning signifies opium derivative, ranging from harmless concoction to most powerful narcotics containing heroin or opium as ingredient. On the ground of NATIONAL SPORTS PROMOTION ACT Article 2 (Definitions), The term doping means ingesting or using forbidden drugs or methods listed and announced by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism for enhancing players physical capabilities. Generally at the least in the sphere of amateur sports, doping material possession and sale were virtually unregulated. But with the development of professional sports and sports’ commercialization, The doping is the main subject of the unfair competition. In the top class sports player’ level, There is no the difference of competency among the top class level. For the economic object or honor and distinction, the player was easily leaded into temptation of doping material’s addiction. Today, The abuse of these long popular doping has caused concern not only Korea but also worldwide. In the 20th century, scientific advances changed the properties and potencies of long-used doping such as stimulant and anodyne. The new forms of these drugs are more potent, they are more addictive and pose a greater health threat. Controlling the doping requires global efforts. Sports has a common rules and common organization, there is no room to adapt rules of individual nation. Illegal use of some doping material harms the sports community in several ways. The economy of sports community is hurt because businesses leave doping-infested neighborhoods. The link between doping and crime is complex. The use of some doping material is illegal, and violators are subject to criminal sanctions. Doping itself might not be controlled by rules of individual nation, the effect of doping is the sphere of domestic Acts. The doping could be punished under Inflicting Bodily Injury, Fraud, Interference with Business, and infringement of the NATIONAL SPORTS PROMOTION ACT and NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT, PHARMACEUTICAL AFFAIRS ACT.

위법수집 증거 배제법칙의 법적 문제에 관한 연구

류지영(Jee Yeong Ryu) 중앙법학회 2004 中央法學 Vol.6 No.2

증거법칙의 엄격성과 증거능력

류지영(Jee Yeong Ryu) 중앙법학회 2011 中央法學 Vol.13 No.4

To precisely define hearsay is extremely difficult. In general, We may sat that "hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offerd in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted". Another definition of hearsay might be a statement made out of court that is not made in the course of the trial in which it is offered and that is offered for the truth of the fact asserted in statement where there is no opportunity for cross examination and without testimony. Korean Criminal Procedure Act article 310-2 provides that Except as provided for Article 311 through 316, any document which contains a statement in the place of the statement made at a preparatory hearing or during public trial, or any statement the import of which is another person`s statement made outside preparatory hearing or at the time other than public trial date, shall not be admitted as evidence. The Korean Supreme court said that criminal investigation reports including the accused`s statement is the written statement, therefore that report should be obedient Article 313. The Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Collected Evidence is the part of Criminal Procedure Code that it does not admit as Evidence ability of the Illegally Collected Evidence. The Illegally Collected Evidence is constituent in ways of human rights infringement. This rule commands that where evidence has been obtained in violation of the privileges guaranteed by Korean Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act, the evidence must be excluded at the trial. Evidence which is obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure is excluded from evidence under the Criminal Procedure Law Article 308-2 The problem of harmony doesn`t solve the conflict between voluntary search and the idea of safeguarding human rights in criminal justice. This important problem is widely discussed. Fragmentary and superficial approachment is not problem solution of systematic, more synthesis and inclusive studies. In criminal procedure code, about evidence ability or recognize of illegally collected evidence, ask of true discovery doctrine and from this point of safeguarding human rights, what point of harmony to constitutional ideas in asking the movements of the due process In this case, The Korean Supreme court said that the seized article without the warrant for seizure and during the suspect`s absence is Evidence Illegally Obtained, therefore shall not be admitted as evidence, conclude that criminal investigation reports including the accused`s statement is the written statement, and written statements have been held inadmissible under the rule excluding hearsay evidence when the form is judical or relates to judicial matters.

스포츠 상해 유형에 따른 형사책임 면제범위

류지영(Jee Yeong Ryu ) 중앙법학회 2015 中央法學 Vol.17 No.3

The area of the law of sports that has received the most frequent judicalanalysis, and that has produced a correspondingly large body of decisional authority, is the liability that may result from injuries sustained in sports activities. The central technical questions raised by the liability cases are actually not very broad, and the questions presented by any given case are quite likely to fall within a very narrow range of applicable legal principles. While this might be viewed to indicate that a discussion of injury liability could be easily, and succinctly, presented, that is, unfortunately, not the case. The most direct type of liability resulting from sports activity is that which arises as a consequence of the injuries suffered by participants. Such injuries may be the result of the zeal of competitive activity at close quarters, but will more often be the product of other forces that are not an ordinary competent of the sport. When a participant seeks to recover for his or her injuries, the most frequent allegation, and claim for relief, will be that the person from whom recovery is sought was negligent. The negligence is conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. But in sports activities, it is demanded other principles. The sports activities essentially has the risk for the zeal of sports activities itself. In the sports activities, there are 4 types. The first is, for example boxing, wrestling, judo, etc. a combat sports, where one by express consent relieves another of an obligation to exercise care for his or her protection and agree to take the chance of injury from a known or possible risk. The second is where one enters a relationship with another that involves a known risk, The clearest example of this is in sports is the case of the game of ball, like football, baseball, etc. All participants was limited the liability within the rules. The third occurs when one explicitly aware of risk caused by the potential negligence of another, and yet proceeds to encounter it voluntarily. Such assumption is made, for example, by athletes when they participate in athletic contest. Finally, One may proceed to encounter a risk that is so unreasonably great as to render the party guilty of contributory negligence, so that recovery is barred both by assumption of the risk and contributory negligence principles. In such type, the players enjoy sports without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper th adapt the theory of consent of the victim. The general rule of sport activities will inapplicable where the injuredparticipant can establish that the injuries were either the result of other than good faith competition or the product of risks that are not ordinary or inherent in the sport in question. Such factors may be present in several principles. Rules of sport activities, safety regulations, social reasonableness, consent of svictim, tolerated danger, objective duty of care are the principle of exemption of the injuries in sport activities. The negligence in sports activities, the objective duty of recklessness can be derived from the statues, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or judical precedent. However in a sport activities, the rules of sport activities may be the most important source of objective duty of recklessness. As the rules of sport activities enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sport activity, participant’s act against the rules can be treated the breach of objective duty of recklessness. But unless the injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of sport activities beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found th breach objective duty of recklessness. The rules of sport activities differ from type to type. In so called the type of combat sports, the rules of sport activitie

약식명령에 대한 정식재판의 청구와 공소장변경의 한계

류지영(Jee Yeong Ryu) 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.4

A summary indictment is a simplified criminal procedure that imposes a fine, penalty, or confiscation on the defendant only through a written examination and without formal trial proceedings. In the case of the precedent subjected for this study, the defendant claimed for a formal trial for the summary indictment that he received and during that trial, the arraignment was adjusted. While only the pecuniary punishment can be sentenced in summary order, the prosecutor requested the arraignment to be changed to a crime that had only imprisonment as its applicable punishments. This raises a question whether prohibition of reformatio in peius had been violated or not. It is prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Law that for the case where the defendant has claimed for a formal trial, the court cannot sentence a punishment that is worse than that of in the summary order. On the other hand, because arraignment adjustment system was created to prevent the defendant from being unexpectedly and disadvantageously punished, its objective is to make it so that the limited subject of judgement can be adjusted only through the request of the prosecutor based on the principle of ‘no judgement without actor’ and therefore guarantee the right of defence of the defendant when his charges are changed. Therefore, the adjustment of arraignment in this case seems to hinder the exercise of the right to defence and may be violating the prohibition of reformatio in peius when assessing it from the point view of the initial purpose of the arraignment adjustment system. Subsequently, the prohibition of reformatio in peius should include the sentences of the substantial law and of the criminal procedure law after considering advantages and disadvantages. In the end, although the fact relation may be identical, approving the arraignment to be adjusted to the one that has only the imprisonment as its only applicable punishment can be seen as not considering the advantages and disadvantages of the criminal procedure law and this violates the prohibition of reformatio in peius.