U-City사업 계획단계에서의 핵심 리스크 요인 도출

김호기,권순욱,Kim, Ho-Ki,Kwon, Soon-Wook 한국건설관리학회 2011 한국건설관리학회 논문집 Vol.12 No.4

u-City사업은 기존의 도시개발 사업과 달리 IT기술과의 융합을 통하여 진행된다. 따라서 기존의 개발사업의 비하여 더 많은 복잡성, 다양성을 내포하여 더 많은 위험요인들을 내제하고 있다. 이러한 리스크 요인들을 체계적으로 확인하고 정량화하여 관리, 통제할 수 있는 리스크 관리체계에 대한 필요하다. 특히 계획단계는 그 위험 요인이 다양한 형태로 나타나게 되어 사업의 성패에 많은 영향을 주는 단계이지만, 위험요인에 대한 관리는 소극적인 형식에 머물러 있다. 이러한 상황에서 리스크 요인들의 식별과 분석을 통한 리스크관리는 가장 필요한 요소이다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 u-City 사업의 지속적인 성장과 성공적인 수행을 위하여 계획단계에서의 문제점과 기존의 개발사업의 리스크 요인을 분석하여, u-City 계획단계에서 관리되어야 할 리스크 인자를 식별하고 이를 통계적 기법을 활용하여 리스크의 중요도, 발생확률, 발생영향에 따라 리스크 요인을 분석하여 정량화 하였다. 이를 통하여 우선적으로 관리되어야 할 핵심리스크 요인을 도출하였으며, u-City사업의 효과적인 리스크 관리를 위한 기초자료를 마련하였다. u-City projects are different with the existing urban development projects progress via convergence with IT technology. Therefore, it inheres many risk factors more than the existing development projects as including more complexity and variety. The risk management system to systematically manage those risks which get identified and quantified is required. Especially, the planning phase that is appeared the various forms has a large effect on the success of the business. However, the management of risk factors remains in the passive form. So the problems on u-City project in the planning phase and risk factors of existing development business were analyzed for the continuous growth and the successful performance of u-City project, and those risk factors was identified and quantified by using statistical technique. In the results of it, the core risk factors were obtained through which way and the basis for the effective risk management in u-City business is provided.

피고인의 범행 기타 행위에 대한 증거의 사용제한에 관한 커먼로 국가 입법례 비교

김호기(Kim, Ho-Ki) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2014 형사정책연구 Vol.100 No.-

재난발생의 직접적인 원인야기자에 대한 중한 형의 부과를 통한 재난예방 가능성

김호기(Kim, Ho-Ki) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2014 형사정책연구 Vol.99 No.-

살인죄에 있어서 불능미수와 장애미수의 구별 - 대법원 1984.2.28. 선고 83도3331 판결의 검토를 중심으로 : 살인죄에 있어서 불능미수와 장애미수의 구별

김호기(Kim Ho-Ki) 한국형사법학회 2007 刑事法硏究 Vol.19 No.3

커먼로 국가의 기업살인죄의 검토

김호기(Kim, Ho-Ki) 한국형사법학회 2010 刑事法硏究 Vol.22 No.1

A Corporation is a creature of law and run by people who act as its agent. Corporations have rights and obligations in their own name. But they can commit crimes? Commonwealth jurisdictions have traditionally approached corporate criminal responsibility using “vicarious liability” or “identification principle” that locates its criminal liability derivatively through the culpability of individual actors. But since the 1990s, some countries like UK, Australia have enacted legislation which makes corporations criminally liable on the basis of management failure. This article begins with a discussion of the limitation of the common law doctrine and a general review of the nature of organizational fault, and then provides a critical analysis of how corporate criminal liability is conceptualized in the UK, Australia and Canada. The author argues that the strategy of Individualism in the criminal law fails to capture the significance of the corporate operation, because the traditional concept of individual wrongdoing presupposes personal quantities such as the capacity to choose freely which cannot be effectively applied to the corporate body. It is suggested that the corporate culture model in the Australian “Criminal Code Act 1995” might be a promising alternative.

공공건설사업 사후평가의 사업효율성 평가 개선방안에 관한 연구

김호기(Kim Ho Ki),권순욱(Kwon Soon Wook),이두헌(Lee Du-Heon),박희성(Park Hee-Sung),박성훈(Park Sung Hoon) 대한토목학회 2010 대한토목학회 학술대회 Vol.2010 No.10

외국법 연구 : 미국의 정당방위 성립요건인 합리성의 해선론 -합리적인 인간 기준과 합리적인 매 맞는 여성 기준의 의미

김호기 ( Ho Ki Kim ) 한국경찰법학회 2009 경찰법연구 Vol.7 No.2

Is a battered woman justified if she kills her tormenter when he is not attacking her? Should courts permit her to assert the defense of self-defense? There is no imminent threat in nonconfrontational circumstances, and she is regarded as a reasonable person who has the capacity to choose freely whether to kill her abuser. Therefore, it would be very hard to legalize the killing of abusive husbands by their wives in nonconfrontational cases if we stick to the traditional view of self-defense. But in recent years a few argue that different rules should be applied to battered women who kills their partners before or after a beating, or, when her abuser was asleep, because traditional self-defense law ignores the reality of battered women. They say that the object element of self-defense must be evaluated by considering how a reasonable battered woman would have perceived the situation. Apparently they are relying on the battered woman syndrome which is introduced by Lenore Walker in the USA, but have never examined if the BWS theory is scientifically accepted or the battered women standard based on the BWS theory can be adopted in applying korean self-defense law without any theoretical problem. Korean criminal law never uses such concepts, so it must be discussed in advance whether battered women standard as well as the BWS theory can be properly integrated into already existing korean criminal law system. This article traces the development of the U.S. self-defense law and presents an overview of how the notion of reasonableness has changed in applying the U.S. self-defense law.

민주주의와 한국사회, 1945~2005

김호기(Kim Ho-Ki) 참여연대 참여사회연구소 2006 시민과세계 Vol.- No.8

비대면상황에서의 피학대자의 학대자 살해행위와 정당방위의 성립가능성 -미국의 매 맞는 여성 기준의 도입가능성 및 그에 대한 대안의 검토-

김호기 ( Ho Ki Kim ) 한국경찰법학회 2011 경찰법연구 Vol.9 No.2

Is a battered woman justified via self-defense if she kills her abuser in a non-confrontational situation? Some argue that the battered women standard developed in the U.S. should be applied when a claim of self-defense is raised by a woman who killed her tormentor in non-beating situation. Advocates of the battered woman standard say that a reasonable woman with BWS (battered woman syndrome) would believe that the abuser represents an immediate threat to her life even in non-confrontational circumstances, so a battered woman is justified under self-defense law in killing her sleeping abuser. In the Korean criminal law, the rightness of an act is strictly distinguished from the personal culpability of an actor, so the termination of a life of a man cannot be justified merely on the fact that she who commits a homicide suffers from BWS. The claim of BWS only may be able to excuse a defendant`s criminal culpability. As a result of the principle of the state`s monopoly of violence, the right of self-defense can be legitimately exercised only if the attack is imminent such that it cannot be prevented by those authorized to do so. In other words, the imminence requirement in self-defense should be substantially broadened and anticipatory self-defense should be allowed in a person to person context when one cannot expect that the future threat would be able to be stopped or prevented by the state and there is no other way left to protect himself from the anticipated threat.

도로교통에 있어서 운전자의 위험운전행위에 대한 형법적 대응 : 독일의 Berliner Raser 판결을 대상으로 진행된 심리적·사실적 고의 개념과 규범적 고의 개념 논쟁에 대한 검토를 겸하여

김호기(Kim, Ho-Ki) 한국형사정책학회 2020 刑事政策 Vol.32 No.3

고의가 성립하기 위하여서는 의지적 요소가 반드시 존재하여야 하고, 미필적 고의가 인정되기 위하여서도 감수 등의 의지적 요소가 필요하다고 보는 견해가 다수설이고판례이다. 그런데 이러한 고의 개념에 의하면 예를 들어 상당히 높은 수준의 결과발생의 개연성을 인식하면서도 결과실현의 의지 없이 행위한 자, 경솔하게 경미한 위험이 발생할 것으로 판단하거나 타인의 이익에 대한 무관심 등으로 결과발생의 개연성에 대한 인식이 결여되어 결과발생에 대한 의지도 없이 행위한 자 등을 고의범으로 처벌할 수 없게 되는 문제점이 있다. 규범적 고의 개념을 주장하는 학자들은 고의개념을 정의함에 있어서 의지적 요소를 배제할 것을 주장하면서 위와 같은 행위자를고의범으로 처벌하는 것이 타당하다고 주장하고 있다. 타인에 대한 무관심, 경솔함, 배려의 결여 등으로 위험발생을 예견하지 못한 자를 과실범으로 처벌하는 것은 부당하다고 주장한다. 불법 판단이 행위에 대한 비난가능성에 상응하여야 한다고 본다면, 기존의 심리적·사실적 고의 개념, 그리고 그것에 기초한 용인·감수설이 타당한가에 대하여 추가적 논의가 필요할 것으로 보인다. It is widely recognized that a volitional element is a prerequisite for criminal intent. Criminal intent can take the form of dolus eventualis (conditional intent). Accodring to the the traditional view of the criminal intent, an offender acts with dolus eventualis if he foresees the risk of harm his act creates and accepts, is reconciled to, or endorses the occurence of the harm. Dolus eventualis also require not only a cognitive awareness of risk, but also a volitional element such as inner approval of the result. But the old notion of criminal intent is criticized that it yields unjust solutions for some cases. For example, an agent does not act with dolus eventualis, when he is aware that his conduct creates a significant risk of harm and he is indifferent as to whether the harm takes place. An agent who is willfully blind or extreme indifferent to the evident danger of death or injury that could result from his conduct also would not be held liable for crimes which require criminal intent, even when he could be reasonably expected to have foreseen the risk if he had fulfilled his duty of care. Proponents of normative theory of criminal intent argue that the theory of the mental state of dolus eventualis should be abandoned. They emphasize that criminal intent should be regarded as present when an agent’s conduct could be interpreted as a manifestation of his principle of action that the violation of legal interests (Rechtsgüter) could be condoned. Extreme recklessness, carelessness and indifference to the interest of others should not be appraised for the benefit of the accused. Moreover, we should not be criminally liable for inner attitudes or emotion. The boundary between criminal intent and negligence should be also drawn objectively. The traditional notion of dolus eventualis does not fit the liberal concept of criminal law.