교육교회 통권 202호 : 기독교교육학 논문 초록 ( - 총신대학교편 - ) ; 주일학교 교육과정에 나타난 인간상 연구 ( - 대한 예수교 장로회 합동교단 중등부 공과를 중심으로 - )

한제희 장로회신학대학교 기독교교육연구원 1993 교육교회 Vol.- No.202

프랑스 검사의 지위와 기능

한제희 한국형사소송법학회 2016 한국형사소송법학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2016 No.4

프랑스 형사소송 구조와 동향

한제희 한불법학회 2018 한불법학회 학술대회 Vol.2018 No.06

명예훼손 사건에서 ‘사실’의 의미와 입증

한제희 한국형사판례연구회 2019 刑事判例硏究 Vol.27 No.-

Today, there are many defamation cases in our country. Various issues in many areas of our society are not solved by dialogue and compromise, but have been passed into the judicial process. As the result, investigative agencies and judicial institutions are playing a role in judging social controversies. However, this phenomenon is causing many undesirable problems. So it is necessary to limit the role of the judiciary as a judge. For this end, it is necessary to restrictively interpret the scope of recognition of ‘facts’ in defamation cases, by strictly applying the requirements such as concreteness and possibility of demonstration. If we interpret the meaning of ‘facts’ broadly, there is a risk that people will feel less free to express opinions. So the concept of ‘facts’ should be interpreted as narrowly as possible in order to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of speech. This judgment provides one consideration. That is, even if the expression of a word or a writing appears to represent ‘facts’ when it is seen from the outside, when the whole context or intention is examined, the reality may correspond to the expression of opinion.

특신상태의 의의와 판단기준

한제희 한국형사판례연구회 2013 刑事判例硏究 Vol.21 No.-

In the domain of hearsay evidence, “special guarantees of trustworthiness” now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far.I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.

위법수집증거 배제법칙 운용의 개선방향

한제희 한국형사소송법학회 2017 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.9 No.2

Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that the evidences collected in violation of the due process become invalid automatically. On the other hand, the Supreme Court takes the position that the illegal evidences will become invalid discretionarily according to the method of comparing individual interests with public interests. Therefore, it conflicts with the regulation of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the regulation on the evidences collected in violation of the due process has been made, the issue of the exclusionary rule should be interpreted centering on the prestigious regulation. So, for a harmonious interpretation of Article 308-2, it is necessary to restrict the meanings of the 'due process violation' of this regulation as much as possible, rather than expanding it. For a limited interpretation, taking into consideration that the main reason for recognizing the exclusionary rule is to deter illegal investigations, it is only a violation of the due process that the investigating agency has clearly made its intention to violate the due process. In this regard, if the investigating agency believed and enforced the rules stipulating the obligations or restrictions of various laws and regulations in a reasonable manner within its discretion, and if it does not involve any malice or gross negligence, I suppose that it is not a violation of due process. In this sense, it is reasonable to interpret the meanings of Article 308-2 as limited as possible. 형사소송법 제308조의2는 적법절차에 위반하여 수집한 증거는 자동적으로 증거능력을 배제하여야 한다는 취지로 정하고 있다. 반면, 대법원은 종래의 해석론과 마찬가지로 이익형량 방법에 따른 재량적 증거능력 배제론을 유지하고 있어 형사소송법의 명문규정과 상충되는 측면이 있다. 그러나 위법수집증거에 관한 명문규정이 만들어진 이상, 위법수집증거에 관한 문제는 명문규정을 논의의 중심으로 하는 해석이 우선되어야 할 것이다. 따라서 제308조의2와의 조화로운 해석을 위해서는 이 규정의 ‘적법절차 위반행위’의 의미를 가급적 확장해석하지 말고 제한적으로 해석할 필요가 있다. 제한적인 해석을 위해서는, 위법수집증거 배제법칙을 인정하는 주된 근거가 위법수사를 억지한다는 데 있다는 점을 감안하여, 수사기관이 적법절차를 위반하겠다는 의도를 스스로 명확히 하여 나아간 행위만을 적법절차 위반행위의 범주에 포함시키는 게 타당하다. 이러한 적법절차 위반행위로서, 수사기관이 각종 법령상의 의무나 제한사항을 회피하거나 잠탈하기 위한 목적으로 악의 또는 중과실에 기하여 하는 행위를 상정해볼 수 있겠다. 이런 관점에서, 수사기관이 각종 법령상의 의무나 제한사항을 정한 규정에 관하여 그의 재량범위 내에서 합리적인 판단에 따라 적법한 방식이라고 믿고 이를 집행한 경우, 또한 이에 악의나 중과실이 개입되지 않은 경우는, 이를 적법절차 위반행위에 해당하지 않는다고 보면 어떨까 싶다. 그럼으로써 제308조의2의 적용범위를 가급적 제한적으로 해석하고, 적법절차 위반행위라고 판단하면서도 경우에 따라 이익교량을 통해 증거능력을 부여할 수도 있다는 식의 해석은 지양하는 게 타당하다고 생각한다.

경찰관 상대 모욕 현행범인 체포의 요건

한제희 한국형사판례연구회 2015 刑事判例硏究 Vol.23 No.-

Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.

조사자 증언 관련 특신상태의 판단과 증명

한제희 한국형사판례연구회 2014 刑事判例硏究 Vol.22 No.-

I think the spirit of the introduction of the testimony system of investigators, is in order to prevent, it is possible, among other things, what happens to overturn sentence unfair of witness or defendant, the absurd result, to deal effectively with this. If you look at the relevant case law of the testimony system after the introduction of the investigators, the main material used to determine the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of investigators. If there is participants at the time, it is possible to mention his statement, a description of statement was created in the course of the investigation. Therefore, in order to be recognized innocuously the special guarantees of trustworthiness from the perspective of law enforcement, it or enlist a person or trusted counsel in the course of the investigation, to record the all process of investigation is most preferred and counsel or if the video recording research and participation of people with a trust relationship has not been made, and that along with the testimony itself of investigators, will be discussed in a comprehensive manner, such as the description of the written statement and assertion of the accused, the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, it is necessary to judge. And, by notifying explicitly whether the certification of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of the investigator in the course of the trial, so as to additional proof activities for inspection, by this, the court, a sufficient psychological it is necessary while securing the article must determine the adoption of evidence.

[정책제언] 디지털 세상이 도전하여야 할 난제들

한제희 4차산업혁명융합법학회 2021 4차산업혁명 법과 정책 Vol.4 No.-

뇌졸중 환자에서 3 Tesla 자기공명혈관조영술의 유용성

한제희,서정진,정태웅,윤웅,장남규,신상수,임효순,송상국,정용연,강형근 대한자기공명의과학회 2005 Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Vol.9 No.2

목적 : 뇌혈관 평가에 있어서 경두개 도플러 초음파(transcranial doppler; TCD)와 고식적 뇌혈관조영술(CA)과 비교하여 3T 장비를 이용한 Time-of-flight(TOF) 자기공명 뇌혈관 조영술(3T-TOF MRA)의 유용성에 대해 알아보고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법 : 뇌혈관 질환이 의심된 54명의 환자를 대상으로 3T-TOF MRA를 시행하였다.54명 모두에서 TCD를 시행하였으며, 이중 11명은 CA를 함께 시행하였다. 뇌혈관의 평가를 위해 추골동맥과 기저동맥을 포함하여 I군, 총경동맥의 분지부위 2 cm 전부터 내ㆍ외경동맥분지 부위에서 내경동맥의 무릎(genu)부위 까지를 II군, 내경동맥의 추체부위에서 전ㆍ중 대뇌동맥의 1차분지 부위까지를 III군, 그리고 각각 전ㆍ중 대뇌동맥 1차분지 그 이하 부위를 IV군으로 임의로 구분하였다. 평가는 2명의 방사선과 의사가 3T-TOF MRA와 TCD, 그리고 CA의 결과를 모르는 상태에서 각 군에서 혈관의 양상이 잘 나타나는 경우를 3점, 양상이 잘 나타나지 않으나 판독이 가능한 경우를 2점, 잡상 등으로 혈관의 평가가 어려운 경우를 1점으로 하였다. 혈관의 협착 정도에 대한 평가는 TCD 및 CA와 각각 비교하여 그 일치 정도를 평가하였다. 결과 : 각 군당 좌우를 합하여 108 혈관분절, 총 432 혈관분절을 평가하였다. 정성평가에서 I, II, III, IV군은 각각 2.98, 2.96, 2.91, 2.88로 혈관의 양상에 대한 파악은 잘 되는 것으로 나타났다. TCD만을 시행한 43명 중 41명에서 3T-TOF MRA와 TCD가 일치하였고, TCD와 CA를 모두 함께 시행한 11명에서는 3T-TOF MRA가 TCD 및 CA와 모두 일치하였다. 결론 : 3T-TOF MRA는 뇌혈관 평가에 있어서 CA 및 TCD와 비교해서 빠르고 비침습적이 며 혈관상태를 적절하게 평가할 수 있는 유용한 검사라고 생각한다.