배심평결규칙의 법심리학적 제 문제(상): 만장일치규칙과 다수결규칙

이은로 ( Eun Ro Lee ),박광배 ( Kwang B. Park ) 한국형사정책학회 2006 刑事政策 Vol.18 No.2

Introduction of lay participation trial system could raise many psychological and legal issues regarding fact-finding functions of a jury. One of those important issues is the appropriate rule for the decision or verdict on the guilt of the defendant: unanimity rule versus majority rule. The verdict by a jury has several characteristics that distinguish it from other kinds of collective decision making, especially those in political contexts. Collective decisions are often based on self-interested behaviors of constituents, voters, politicians, and government officials under consitutional rules. On the other hand, the task of a jury as a decision making group is primarily based on the concerns for finding material fact regarding the guilt of defendant rather than serving for the interests of the participants. The decision by jury should not only be democratic but also be accurate and efficient. Therefore, the issues regarding unanimity or majority rule for the decisions by jury go beyond normative or ideological considerations and should be rooted in empirical bases. The purpose of the present article is to set the ground for research and scientific investigation searching for the appropriate rule for the decision by the lay jury that will convene for criminal trials in Korea. To that end, we introduce public choice theory for the optimal rule for group decisions and other theoretical models predicting the effects of different rules. And legal issues surrounding the unanimity and majority rules for jury decision making are delineated and summarized. In our next study, a review of empirical studies on the verdict rules in the areas of psychology and behavioral sciences will be continued.

의사결정나무 기법을 이용한 노인들의 자살생각 예측모형 및 의사결정 규칙 개발

김덕현,유동희,정대율 한국정보시스템학회 2019 情報시스템硏究 Vol.28 No.3

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a prediction model and decision rules for the elderly's suicidal ideation based on the Korean Welfare Panel survey data. By utilizing this data, we obtained many decision rules to predict the elderly's suicide ideation. Design/methodology/approach This study used classification analysis to derive decision rules to predict on the basis of decision tree technique. Weka 3.8 is used as the data mining tool in this study. The decision tree algorithm uses J48, also known as C4.5. In addition, 66.6% of the total data was divided into learning data and verification data. We considered all possible variables based on previous studies in predicting suicidal ideation of the elderly. Finally, 99 variables including the target variable were used. Classification analysis was performed by introducing sampling technique through backward elimination and data balancing. Findings As a result, there were significant differences between the data sets. The selected data sets have different, various decision tree and several rules. Based on the decision tree method, we derived the rules for suicide prevention. The decision tree derives not only the rules for the suicidal ideation of the depressed group, but also the rules for the suicidal ideation of the non-depressed group. In addition, in developing the predictive model, the problem of over-fitting due to the data imbalance phenomenon was directly identified through the application of data balancing. We could conclude that it is necessary to balance the data on the target variables in order to perform the correct classification analysis without over-fitting. In addition, although data balancing is applied, it is shown that performance is not inferior in prediction rate when compared with a biased prediction model.

골프경기에서 적용할 수 없는 규칙적용에 대한 위원회의 재정과 지향점

강석태 한국스포츠학회 2011 한국스포츠학회지 Vol.9 No.4

The study has been The Committee’s Decision and Process about Player Proceeds Under an Inapplicable Golf Rule. Do not guess. When a player proceeds under a Rule that does not apply to his situation and then makes a stroke, the Committee must determine the Rule to apply in order to give a ruling based on the player’s actions. For examples of appropriate Committee decisions in such cases, see Decisions 18-2a/3, Decisions 20-7/2, Decisions 25-1b/13 and Decisions 25-1c/2. The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules( 6-1. Rules). During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty. If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final. In the absence of a referee, any dispute or doubtful point on the Rules must be referred to the Committee, whose decision is final. If play is conducted other than in accordance with the Rules of Golf, the Rules of Golf Committee will not give a decision on any question. The game of golf in the future to support the definition of general rules and local rules taking into account regional peculiarities harmonize stroke play, the way is predicted to be rapid globalization. Do not guess.

결정규칙에 따른 모의배심단 평결의 안정성

이은로,박광배 한국사회및성격심리학회 2009 한국심리학회지 사회 및 성격 Vol.23 No.1

The present study is to examine whether different decision rules as external norms imposed on the decision group affect the behavior and the final decision of the group differently. Specifically, based on the definition of the stability of jury verdicts as the degree to which different juries render the same verdict for the same case, the stability of mock juries' verdicts under the unanimity rule were compared with that under the simple majority rule. Eighty mock juries of 8 members for each deliberated and rendered verdicts for a murder case in which the defendant pleaded “not guilty” for the reason of self-defense. Half (40) of the juries rendered the verdict under the unanimity rule and the other half rendered the verdict under the simple majority rule. The juries under each of the decision rules were again randomly assigned into four conditions of evidence state:conflicting, exonerating, incriminating, and vague evidence states. The distribution of the verdicts under the unanimity rule yielded lower information entropy than the distribution under the simple majority rule, suggesting that the verdicts under the unanimity rule may be more stable than those under the simple majority rule. Two reasons for the higher stability of the verdicts under the unanimity rule were suggested:The verdicts under the unanimity rule, compared to those under the simple majority rule, correspond more closely to the objective state of the evidence specially in the conflicting and vague evidence condition; jurors deliberating under the unanimity rule are more open to the minority perspectives as predicted by the theory of leniency contract (Crano & Chen, 1998). Implications of the results for the trials by lay participation implemented in Korea were discussed. 집단의 외부로부터 주어진 규범으로서 의사결정규칙이 집단행동에 미치는 영향을 파악하기 위해, 만장일치규칙과 다수결규칙의 배심단에서 내린 평결의 안정성이 서로 달라지는지를 비교하였다. 평결의 안정성이란 같은 사건에 대해 다른 배심단들이 동일한 결정을 하는 정도로서 정확한 평결을 위한 중요한 전제조건이다. 640 명의 대학생들이 8인 배심단 80 개에 모의배심원으로 참가하여 정당방위를 주장하는 살인사건에 대하여 만장일치규칙 혹은 다수결규칙으로 평의하고 평결을 도출하였다. 재판 자료는 피고인의 유죄와 무죄에 대하여 강한 증거가 서로 상충되는 경우, 무죄 증거가 강한 경우, 유죄증거가 강한 경우, 증거가 모호한 경우의 4 가지 증거상태 조건으로 제시되었다. 그 결과, 정보엔트로피 개념으로 파악한 평결의 안정성이 다수결규칙보다 만장일치규칙의 배심단에서 더 높게 나타났다. 만장일치규칙에서 배심단들이 더 안정적인 평결을 내린 이유는 특히 사건의 증거가 상충되거나 모호한 조건에서 다수결규칙에 비해 이들의 평결이 사건의 객관적인 증거상태와 더 부합하기 때문이다. 또한 평의의 내용을 분석한 결과 ‘관용계약(leniency contract)’ 이론(Crano & Chen, 1998) 이 예측하는 바와 같이 만장일치 규칙의 배심원들이 평의 동안 소수의견에 더 개방적이기 때문인 것으로 분석되었다. 본 연구의 결과가 국민참여재판에 가지는 함의가 논의되었다.

불송치 및 불기소 결정의 규정체계 및 주문의 바람직한 정립방안에 관한 연구

김현철 아주대학교 법학연구소 2021 아주법학 Vol.15 No.1

형사사건의 처리에 있어서 불기소의 비율이 높고 불기소 사건의 경우 기소되는 사 건 못지않게 피의자, 피해자, 고소·고발인 등 사건관계인의 법익에 미치는 영향이 큼 에도 그동안 우리 형사소송법은 기소유예처분을 제외한 불기소처분에 관하여 규정을 두지 않고 부령인 검찰사건사무규칙에서 이를 규정하고 있었으며, 이에 관한 학자들의 논의 또한 거의 없는 상황이었다. 그리고 형사소송법은 기소유예처분 외에는 수사의 종결이나 종결 후의 처리에 관한 일반 원칙이나 요건과 내용에 관한 규정을 두고 있지 않았다. 2020. 2. 4. 형사소송법 개정시 사법경찰관이 수사를 완료한 후 관계서류와 증거물을 토대로 피의자의 혐의 유무에 대한 판단을 하여 불기소함이 적절하다고 판단 되는 경우 검찰에 송치하지 않는 불송치결정제도가 도입되었는데, 이에 관한 개정 형 사소송법 제245조의5 제2호는 수사의 종결 후의 처리에 관한 규정이라고 할 수 있다. 개정 형사소송법 제245조의5 제2호는 “사법경찰관이 고소·고발 사건을 포함하여 범 죄를 수사한 때에 범죄의 혐의가 있다고 인정되어 검사에게 사건을 송치하는 경우 외 에는 그 이유를 명시한 서면과 함께 관계서류와 증거물을 지체 없이 검사에게 송부하 여야 한다. 이 경우 검사는 송부 받은 날부터 90일 이내에 사법경찰관에게 반환하여야 한다.”고 규정하여 수사의 종결 후의 처리인 불송치결정에 관하여 규정하고 있지만 혐 의없음, 죄가안됨, 공소권없음 등 불송치결정의 구체적 요건과 내용에 관하여는 규정 하고 있지 않다. 불송치 및 불기소 결정의 구체적인 요건과 내용, 절차에 관하여는 형사소송법이 아 닌 대통령령이나 부령인 검사와 사법경찰관의 상호협력과 일반적 수사준칙에 관한 규정, 경찰수사규칙, 검찰사건사무규칙에서 규정하고 있다. 2020년 형사소송법의 개정으로 경찰의 불송치결정권이 신설됨으로써 불송치 및 불 기소 결정의 규정체계와 주문 및 사유에 관한 합리적인 정립이 더 절실히 요청되는 상황이다. 본 논문에서는 수사종결과 수사종결 후 하게 되는 결정인 불송치 또는 불기소 결정 의 관계 및 법적성격에 관하여 살펴본 후 불송치 및 불기소 결정의 규정체계와 주문 및 사유의 바람직한 정립방안과 관련하여 불송치 및 불기소 결정의 규정형식, 체계, 주문형식 및 사유에 대하여 검토하였다. 구체적으로 필자는 수사종결과 불송치 및 불기소 결정의 관계 및 법적 성격과 관련 하여 수사의 종결은 수사기관이 수사를 개시·진행하여 오다가 공소를 제기할 것인지 여부를 결정할 수 있을 정도로 피의사건이 해명되었을 때 수사를 마치는 사실행위이 고, 위 사실행위 후에 이루어지는 사법경찰관의 검찰송치나 불송치 결정, 검사의 공소 제기나 불기소 결정이라는 법적 판단작용과는 구별된다는 점을 밝혔다. 그리고 불송치 및 불기소 결정 규정체계의 바람직한 정립방안과 관련하여 불기소결정을 형사절차의 기본 법률인 형사소송법에 규정하는 형사소송법의 개정이 이루어져야 할 것이고, 형사 소송법에 수사의 종결이나 종결 후의 처리에 관한 일반 원칙을 두어야 하며, 특히 수사 종결 후 공소제기를 하는 경우뿐만 아니라 불기소결정을 하는 경우에 관한 규정을 두 어야 할 것이라는 견해를 제시하였다. 마지막으로 불송치 및 불기소 결정 주문과 사유 의 바람직한 정립방안과 관련하여 유죄 이외의 판결 주문 및 사유에 관한 형사소송법 의 규정내용과의 체계관련성의 관점에서 현행 불송치 및 불기소 결정 주문과 사유의 문제점과 바람직한 정립방안에 대한 견해를 제시하였다. The proportion of non-prosecutions in the handling of criminal cases is high, and in the case of non-prosecution cases, it has as much impact on the legal interests of those involved in the case as suspects, victims, accusers. Nevertheless, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act has not stipulated the regulation of non-prosecution except the suspension of prosecution, and the Justice Department's office rule stipulate this, and there has been little discussion by scholars about it. And the Criminal Procedure Act had no general principles, requirements, content for the closing or post-closing of an investigation except the suspension of prosecution. In the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act on February 4, 2020, a non-transfer decision system which the judicial policeman shall determine whether the suspect is suspected based on related documents and evidence after completing the investigation and decide non-transfer decision to prosecutor was introduced, and Article 245-5 No. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act which stipulate this may be referred to as the regulation on the handling after the investigation is concluded. The amended provisions provide for non-transfer decision after the investigation is closed, but do not provide for the specific requirements and contents of the decision, such as no charge, no conviction, no right to prosecute. Specific requirements, contents, and procedures for non-transfer and non-prosecution decisions are provided by the presidential decree or the department's decree, Regulations on mutual cooperation between prosecutor and judicial policeman and General Investigation Rules, the Police Investigation Rules, and the Prosecution Case Administrative Rules, not the Criminal Procedure Act. In the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act in 2020, as the police's right to non-transfer decisions has been newly established, making it more urgent to establish a reasonable system and text of decision for non-transfer and non-prosecution decision. In this thesis, author studied the relationship and legal nature of investigation closing and non-transfer and non-prosecution decision after the investigation closing, and reviewed the regulatory format, system, and text of decision format of non-transfer and non-prosecution decision. Specifically, author revealed that the closing of investigation is an act of fact that the investigation is closed when the suspect is explained enough to decide whether to prosecute a suspect after investigating, and it is different from the judicial policeman's decision to transfer or not to prosecutor, the prosecutor's decision to prosecute or not. And author presented that an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act will need to be made to stipulate non-prosecution in the Criminal Procedure Act which is the fundamental law of criminal proceedings, and that the Criminal Procedure Act will have to have general principles on the closing or post-closing of the investigation, and that in particular, regulations concerning the case of non-transfer or non-prosecution, as well as the case of prosecuting a suspect after the investigation is closed. Finally, in terms of systematic relevance to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act on text of judgment other than guilt, author presented his views on the problems and their desirable establishment of text of decision of non-transfer or non-prosecution.

EU 적정성 결정에 따른 개인정보보호위원회 고시인 보완규정의 법적 분석

박노형 고려대학교 법학연구원 2022 고려법학 Vol.- No.106

In December 2021, the European Commission of the European Union adopted the adequacy decision on the data protection of the Rep. of Korea(Korea). The adequacy decision means that the personal information of the EU citizens and residents may freely be transferred to Korea. The Personal Information Protection Commission of Korea adopted the public notice which is the supplementary rules applicable to the personal information transferred from the EU to Korea for the interpretation and application of the Personal Information Protection Act(PIPA). This public notice(‘Supplementary Rules’) became effective upon the adoption of the adequacy decision by the European Commission. This public notice or the Supplementary Rules is identical to the Annex I of the adequacy decision. The Supplementary Rules is a legal instrument which was regarded necessary in relation to the adoption of the adequacy decision, but it has some interpretations of some of important provisions of the PIPA. For example, it is to note that the PIPA provisions on the limitation to out-of-purpose use and provision of personal information applies to the personal information transferred from third countries as well as from the EU. However, some of the Supplementary Rules’ interpretations seem to go beyond the legal meanings and legislative contexts of the PIPA. For example, the Supplementary Rules interpret Article 17(4) on the provision of personal information for the purposes compatible to the original ones to be a legal basis for the provision of personal information to third parties abroad. However, considering the legal meanings of GDPR Article 6(4), a model of the PIPA Article 17(4), and the legislative context of the latter during the so-called ‘three data law amendment’, this interpretation of the Supplementary Rules is certain to be excessive and immoderate. Further, the PIPA does not require the destruction of pseudonymized personal information, when achieving its purpose of processing, but the Supplementary Rules interprets that personal information transferred to Korea on the basis of the adequacy decision, including its pseudonymized personal information, should be destroyed when its purpose is achieved. It is a serious matter that the PIPA does not require the destruction of such personal information at present, but it is also another serious matter that the public notice exceeds the PIPA, which is at a higher status than itself. In addition, the Supplementary Rules’ interpretation in relation to the analysis of personal information related to national security in Article 58(1)(i) of the PIPA seems to be most wrongful. Article 58(1) of the PIPA provides that Chapters III through VII are not applicable in this case. The provisions of those chapters are most important substantive provisions of the PIPA. However, the Supplementary Rules interprets that Article 3 of Chapter I on the principles of data protection is still applicable in lieu of those chapters including Chapters III and V on the processing of personal information and the guarantee of data subjects’ rights respectively. Article 58(4) still provides how to process personal information to benefit the protection of data subjects in this case, although it may be at a minimum. For national security purposes, however, the government department concerned should devise and implement those relevant measures stipulated in Article 58(4) of the PIPA. It is certain to find that the Supplementary Rules wrongly goes well beyond the legal meanings and legislative contexts of the PIPA in the name of interpretation to benefit the personal information transferred from the EU. The Supplementary Rules, the public notice of the Personal Information Protection Commission, should be revised to interpret the PIPA to fulfill the legal system’s purpose: legal expectation and stability.

등록 후 상표 사용에 의한 식별력 취득과 상표법상 유효성 – 대법원 2011후3698 전원합의체 판결의 재검토 및 권리범위확인심결의 규범적 의미에 대한 고찰을 중심으로 -

최동준 한국지식재산학회 2023 産業財産權 Vol.- No.76

식별력 없는 상표의 사용에 의한 식별력 취득 판단에 대한 시기적 기준은 출원시, 등록여부결정시, 심결시 또는 사실심변론종결시 등으로 구분할 수 있는데, 그간 상표법상 규정이 모호한 가운데 판례와 학설에 의해 등록여부 결정시로 인식되어 왔다. 그런데 2014년 3월 20일 선고된 권리범위확인심판 에 관한 대법원 2011후3698 전원합의체 판결은 상표 유사판단과 관련하여 식별력의 존재를 심결시를 기준으로 판단하여 종전에 등록여부결정시를 기준시로 하던 입장을 변경하였다. 특히 이 판결은 등록거절결정에 대한 불복심판 및 그 심결 취소소송에 대한 것이 아니라 상표등록 확정 후의 사용으로써 취득한 식별력이 권리범위확인심판의 심결시를 기준으로 인정 되었다는 점에서 중요한 의미를 가진다고 볼 수 있다. 위 판결의 의미를 두고 그동안 상표법상 등록주의에 반하는 판결이라고 비판하는 입장과 이러한 식별력에 대한 인정은 단지 상표 유사판단을 위한 것이기에 문제될 것 없다는 입장 등으로 논의가 분분하였으나, 일치된 결론 에 이르지 못하였다. 이와 관련하여, 본 논문에서는 우리나라 상표법이 최근 폐지론에도 불구하고 굳이 권리범위확인심판제도를 두고 있다면, 그 심결 의 규범적 의미를 보다 적극적으로 해석하여 심지어 등록여부결정 당시상표 전체에 식별력이 없어 무효사유가 있는 등록상표라도 등록 후 사용에 의해 식별력을 취득하였고 이를 특허심판원이 권리범위확인심판에서 ‘심결 시’를 기준으로 확인해 주었다면, 등록에 존재하였던 행정행위의 하자까지 치유될 수 있는 것으로 보았다. 그 근거로는 ‘식별력 유무에 대한 사항’은 상표권의 발생과 관련한 상표등록요건에 대한 것이므로 ‘특허청의 전속적 판단사항’에 해당된다는 점과 권리범위확인심판에서의 특허심판원의 판단 은 ‘법에 의해 정당한 권한을 부여받은 기관’의 준사법적 행정행위이므로 그 심결에 공정력 및 불가변력이 발생하고 ‘심결 내용 중 특허청의 전속적 판단사항에 대하여는’ 기존의 행정행위를 변경하는 법적 효력, 즉 ‘형성적 효력’이 인정될 수 있다는 점을 고려하였다. ‘식별력’이라는 개념 자체가 시장에서의 수요자 인식의 변화에 따라 매우 유동적일 수밖에 없는 것이고, 부정경쟁방지법의 관련 내용을 포함한 전체 로서의 상표보호제도는 창작을 보호하는 특허제도와 달리 시장 질서 및 수요자의 이익 등 공익을 가장 중요한 보호 대상으로 삼고 있다. 그러므로 권리범위확인심판에서의 권리범위에 대한 판단 기준시점 또한 이러한 관점 에서 정해져야 할 것이며, 현시점의 시장 상황이 잘 반영되도록 하는 것이 규범적으로 바람직한 방향일 것이다. 상표법상 상표의 보호 법리는 행정편 의적인 요인을 제외한다면 사용주의에 따르는 것이 이상적인 모습이다. 상 표법은 이미 상표법 제117조 제1항 제6호에서 후발적 무효심판사유로서 등록 후 상표등록요건인 식별력의 ‘소멸’을 고려하고 있으며, 이러한 맥락에 서 등록 후의 식별력 ‘발생’ 역시 권리범위확인심결을 통해 인정될 수 있다. 상표법은 등록 후에도 사용주의적 규정을 두어 식별력의 유무에 대한 현시 점에서의 구체적 판단을 관철시키고 있음을 알 수 있다. The timing criteria for determining the acquisition of distinctiveness by the use of a trademark that is not inherently distinctive can be classified into the criterion of the time of an application, the time of decision for registration, the time of trial decision, or the time of closing arguments in a court trial. It has been recognized as the time of decision for registration by precedents and theories amid ambiguous regulations under the Trademark Act. However, the Supreme Court's 2011Hu3698 en banc decision of the trial to confirm scope of rights on March 20, 2014 ruled the time of trial decision as the reference point as to whether the mark had acquired distinctiveness and changed its previous position of the time to decide whether to register. In particular, this ruling is significant in that a degree of distinctiveness of the trademark acquired by the use was recognized as of the time of trial decision in the trial to confirm scope of rights even though this trial is about the distinctiveness acquired by the use after registration. Discussions have been divided over the meaning of the above ruling, such as criticizing it as a ruling against the first-to-file rule under trademark law and saying that recognition of such distinctiveness is not a problem because it is only for the judgment of similarity between trademarks, but failed to reach a consensus conclusion. In this paper, if the Korean Trademark Act has a trial system for confirming scope of rights despite recent discussions on the abolition of it, the meaning of the trial decision can be interpreted more actively and even defects in a registered trademark with a reason for invalidity due to lack of distinctiveness in the entire trademark at the time of decision for registration, provided that the IPTAB confirmed the acquisition of distinctiveness ‘at the time of trial decision’, could be corrected. The reason for this is that ‘whether distinctiveness of a trademark is acquired’ is about the requirements for trademark registration, ‘the judgment authority of which the KIPO has exclusively’, and the IPTAB's decision in the scope of rights confirmation trial is a quasi-judicial administrative act of ‘an institution authorized by law’, having irrevocable power with authentication and, ‘for matters related to the KIPO’s exclusive authority from the decision’, the ‘formative effect’, changing the existing administrative act. The concept of ‘distinctiveness’ itself is bound to be very fluid in response to changes in consumer perceptions in the market, and the trademark protection system as a whole, including related contents of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, takes the public interest, such as market order and consumer interests, as the most important protection targets, unlike the patent system that protects the result of one’s creation. Thus, the timing criteria for determining the scope of rights in the scope of rights confirmation trial should also be set from this point of view, and it would be a good way to ensure that the current market situation is well reflected. It is ideal to follow the first-to-use rule of the trademark protection law, except for administrative convenience factors. The Trademark Act already considers the ‘extinction’ of distinctiveness, a requirement for trademark registration, after registration, as a later occurring reason for a invalidation trial in Article 117 (1) 6 of the Trademark Act, and, in this context, the ‘occurrence’ of distinctiveness after registration can also be recognized through a trial to confirm scope of rights. It can be seen that the Trademark Act has regulations based on the first-to-use rule even after registration to carry out specific judgments on the existence of distinctiveness at the present time.

중재교육의 반응에 대한 의사결정의 정확성 탐색

김윤옥(Youn-Ock Kim) 학습전략중재학회 2019 학습전략중재연구 Vol.10 No.1

This study was to investigate what kind of rule be a best accuate decision-making in responsiveness to intervention. This study hired fomular 1 and 2 with four-point rule, six-point rule, and no-denominator rule under each fomular. The fomular I hires -1 standard deviation for both achievement and slope of trend-line, and fomular 2 hired the bottom 10% of achuevement and 25%ile on the slope when deciding ‘no-response’. The data included 96 first graders in an elementary school. As the research results, first, the fomular 1 with six-point rule accuracy was to be 62.5% and fomular 2 with six-point rule accuracy was to be 66.8% with some over-screening. Second, the fomular 1 with four-point rule was to be 33.3% while the fomular 2 with four-point rule was 41.8%. Third, no-denominator rule accracy was the same as the four-point rule while it can not exhibit any slope information, which would be inappropriate for the kind of decision-making. Fourth, the fomular 1 with six-point rule was appeared to be a best decision-making approach when clinical observation being added. In the discussion, the detail issues were discussed. 본 연구의 연구문제는 공식1(성취도 -1표준편차 & 진전도 -1 표준편차)과 공식2(성취도 하위 10% & 진전도 25%ile)를 바탕으로 첫째, 네 점 규칙, 무분모 규칙, 여섯 점 규칙 등은 어떻게 다르게 의사결정을 하는가를 분석하는 것이며, 둘째로는 공식1은 공식2보다 더 정확한 의사결정을 하는가를 살펴보는 것이었다. 그 연구결과로서, 공식선택과 의사결정 규칙에 따른 의사결정 결과는 김윤옥(2016)에 비추어서 볼 때, 첫째, 공식1의 여섯 점 규칙이 62.5%로, 공식2의 여섯점 규칙은 66.8%로 나타났다. 둘째, 네 점 규칙은 공식1에서 33.3%, 공식2에서 41.8로 나타났다. 셋째, 무분모 규칙은 네 점 규칙과 같은 결과이나 진전도를 나타낼 수 없기 때문에 의사결정방법으로 부적절한 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 임상적 관찰을 추가할 때는 공식1의 여섯 점 규칙이 가장 정확한 의사결정 방법인 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 논의하였다.

예비적 공동소송에서의 화해권고결정에 대한 일부 공동소송인의 이의 - 대법원 2015. 3. 20. 선고 2014다75202 판결 -

오상현 ( Oh Sang Hyun ) 법조협회 2016 최신판례분석 Vol.65 No.9

대상판결의 판시취지를 요약하면, ① 주관적·예비적 공동소송에서, 조정을 갈음하는 결정에 대하여 일부 공동소송인이 이의하지 않았다면 원칙적으로 그 공동소송인에 대한 관계에서는 그 결정이 확정될 수 있다. ② 다만, 조정을 갈음하는 결정에서 분리 확정을 불허하고 있거나, 그렇지 않더라도 결정 사항의 취지에 비추어 볼 때 분리 확정을 허용할 경우 형평에 반하고 민사소송법 제70조 제1항 본문의 입법 취지에 반하는 결과가 초래되는 경우에는 분리 확정이 허용되지 않는다. ③ 이러한 법리는 화해권고 결정의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다. 위 ①, ②는 대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2006다57872 판결의 취지를 그대로 따른 것이고 화해권고결정에 관하여는 대상판결이 처음인데, 공동소송인 중 일부라도 이의한 다면 전원에 대하여 이의의 효력이 미쳐 결정이 확정되지 않고 소송으로 복귀한다고 해석해야 한다. 그 이유는, 그렇게 해석하는 것이 민사소송법 제70조의 규정이나 재판의 일종인 화해권고결정(조정을 갈음하는 결정 포함)의 성질에 맞고, 대상판결의 판시 취지에 따르더라도 실제 위 ①의 법리가 적용되는 경우를 상정하기 어려워서 대부분의 경우에 위 ②에 해당하게 되어 분리 확정되지 않으며, 또한 ②에 해당하는지 여부를 판별하기 쉽지 않은 경우에는 소송종료 여부가 분명하지 않아 소송절차의 안정을 해칠 우려가 있기 때문이다. Supreme Court Decision 2006Da57872(decided on July 10, 2008) deals with the case in which only one of the conjunctive parties filed the objection against the court`s ruling of mediation. The Supreme Court decided that when the court made the ruling of mediation in a conjunctive and alternative joinder`s mediation procedure, and a party didn`t file an objection against the court`s ruling, in principle, the ruling can be settled seperately between the parties who didn`t make the objection. Supreme Court Decision 2014Da75202(decided on March 20, 2015) is dealing with that issue in a ruling of recommending a compromise. The Court decided that the reasoning above in the ruling of mediation should be applied to a ruling of recommending a compromise. But I cannot assent to the reasoning of the decision. My argument is that even though only one of the parties files an objection against the ruling of mediation or the ruling of recommending a compromise, the ruling becomes invalid and the case should be shifted to the litigation procedure(according to Civil Procedure Act article 70 paragraph ① main sentence and article 67, Civil Mediation Act article 36).

Simple Energy Detection Algorithm for Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio

이소영,김은철,김진영 한국ITS학회 2010 한국ITS학회논문지 Vol.9 No.1

In this paper, we propose an efficient decision rule in order to get better chance to detect the unused spectrum assigned to a licensed user and improve reliability of spectrum sensing performance. Each secondary user receives the signals from the licensed user. And the resulting signals input to an energy detector. Then, each sensing result is combined and used to make a decision whether the primary user is present at the licensed spectrum band or not. In order to make the reliable decision, we apply an efficient decision rule that is called as a majority rule in this paper. The simulation results show that spectrum sensing performance with the proposed decision rule is more reasonable and efficient than that with conventional decision rules.