상소제기기간의 기산점과 피고인의 출석과의 관계

신이철 ( Yi Chul Shin ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2012 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.23

Nach geltender kStPO erfolgt die Urteilsverkundung wahrend der Anwesenheit des Angeklagten im Gerichtssaal. Deshalb kann man gegen die geltende Regelung, wonach der Rechnungszeitpunkt der Rechtsmitteleinlegungsfrist sich mit dem Urteilsverkundungstag beginnt, nicht einwenden, dass durch soche Regelung die burgliche Wissensrecht bzw. Informationsrecht verletzen oder das Recht auf ein rechtliches Gehor rechtswidrig einschranken wurde. Da die geltende kStPO in bestimmten F?llen ohne Anwesenheit des Angeklagten die Urteilsverkundung erlaubt und dadurch der Angeklagte keine Information uber die mit ihm betroffene Urteisverkundung erhalten kann, soll in diesen Ausnahmefallen der Rechnungszeitpunkt der Rechtsmitteleinlegungsfrist so verstanden werden, dass er sich mit dem Zustellungszeitpunkt der Urteilsverkundung beginnt. um die Norm noch zu verdeutluchen, soll de lege ferenda in §343 Abs. 2 kStPO noch ein Paragraph zugefugt werden: Hat die Verk?ndung des Urteils nicht in Anwesenheit des Angeklagten staatsgefunden, so beginnt fur diesen die Frist mit der Zustellung.

사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 인정요건과 적용범위

신이철 ( Yi Chul Shin ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2009 一鑑法學 Vol.16 No.-

A Suspect`s Interrogatory Written by a Judicial Police Officer is suppose d to be granted its admissibility of evidence as deemed to be drawn up in due process and method only the accused or attorney admit it in accord with article 312, clause 3, the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the law now in force, it makes a discrimination in the exceptional recogniti on requirement of a suspect`s interrogatory written by a prosecutor against, but in a legislative aspect, it is considered rather valid to be provided as same as a suspect`s interrogatory written by a judicial police officer, Since if one denies content, a public trial focusing principle can be realized only by getting over a trial by an interrogatory. So a suspect`s interrogatory is considered valid to be positively utilized as a impeachment evidence to the evidence of the accused`s legal statement.

국토교통부 고시(제2022-84호)에 따른 샌드위치패널 유기단열재의 화재안전성능 개선에 관한 연구

신이철(Shin, Yi-Chul),최정민(Choi, Jung-Min),박계원(Park, Kye-Won),정재군(Jeong, Jae-Gun),이길용(Lee, Gil-Yong) 대한건축학회 2022 대한건축학회 학술발표대회 논문집 Vol.42 No.2

일본의 BRI2002를 활용한 건물의 화재성상에 대한 해석적 연구

신이철(Shin, Yi-Chul),권영진(Kwon, Young-Jin) 한국화재소방학회 2008 한국화재소방학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2008 No.추계

This is the study to investigate the Algorithm of BRI 2002 which is high level estimation program of smoke movement and phenomenon for performance based of design named 'ROOT C', made by Japan. The aim of this study is that an analytical model is a fire in a three story building. The outline of the building consists of three usual rooms, one on each floor, and an atrium connecting with these rooms.

형사절차상 영장실질심문조서의 증거능력 규제방안

신이철(Shin, Yi-Chul) 한국형사법학회 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.3

Der koreanische Jurist hat bislang aufgrund des §315 Nr. 3 korStPO dem in Vernehmungsprotokoll, in dem die Aussage des Beschuldigten niederschrieben wurde, eine unwidlegbare Beweisqualifikation gewährt. Gegen die Rechtsprechung wendet jedoch ein, dass die Norm des §315 Nr. 3 korStPO sich dem Bestimmtheitsgebot widersprechen durfte. Die Urkunde im Sinne des §315 Nr. 3 korStPO setzt voraus, das sie unabhängig von betreffenden Straftaten im Verlauf der alltäglichen Betriebsabwicklung automatisch und regelmässig erzeugt werden soll. Dann ist diese Urkunde von Natur aus nicht gleich mit dem Haftprüfungsprotokoll anzusehen. Die Anerkennung der unwidlegbaren Beweiskraft gegenüber dem Vernehmungsprotokoll könnte sich ferner die Wahrnehmung der Verteidigung des Beschuldigten schwer nachteilig auswirken. Um dem Vernehmungsprotokoll die Beweisfähigkeit zu gewähren, sollte man sich umdenken, dass das im Rahmen der Vernehmungsprotokoll nicht gemäss §315, sondern §313 korStPO verwertet werden soll.

수사보고서에 기재된 참고인과의 전화통화 내용의 증거능력 - 전문법칙과의 관계를 중심으로 -

신이철(Shin, Yichul) 대검찰청 2014 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.45

현행 형사소송법상 수사보고서가 실체진실발견에 도움을 줄 수 있으며, 실체진실을 발견하기 위한 하나의 구체적이고 적극적 수단으로 평가되고 있지만, 다른 한편으로는 피고인의 방어권에 많은 영향을 미치게 될 수 있으므로 이를 적절히 규제하면서도 엄격한 요건 하에 증거로 활용할 수 있을 것이다. 판례는 참고인과의 전화통화 내용을 기재한 수사보고서는 형사소송법 제313조 제1항 본문에 정한 ‘피고인 아닌 자의 진술을 기재한 서류’인 전문증거에 해당하지만, 그 진술자의 서명 또는 날인이 없을 뿐만 아니라 공판준비기일이나 공판기일에서 진술자의 진술에 의해 성립의 진정함이 증명되지도 않았으므로 증거능력이 없다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 물론 수사보고서가 ‘조서’가 아닌 것이 분명하므로 제312조 제4항의 참고인진술조서에 막바로 포함시키기에도 여전히 무리가 있어 보이지만, 그렇다고 진술조서와 달리 취급할 이유도 특별히 없기 때문에 대부분의 경우 그 증거능력은 제312조 제4항에 준하여 판단하면 충분할 것으로 생각된다. 그리고 피고인의 방어권 보장차원에서 보더라도 형사소송법 제312조 제4항을 적용하는 것이 더 유리한 것으로 생각된다. 차후에 입법의 기회가 있다면 이러한 논란을 해소하기 위해서는 수사보고서에 대한 원칙적인 법적 근거규정을 두어 직접적으로 규율하는 방안도 검토해 봄직하다. Under the existing Criminal Procedure Act, an investigation report is evaluated to help find a substantial truth as well as to be a specific and aggressive tool. On the other hand, since the report could affect against the defence right of the defendant, it is to be made use of as an evidence with it properly regulated and under rigid conditions. The relevant prejudication says that an investigation report containing the recordings of phone calls with a testifier constitutes a hearsay evidence because it is 'a document containing statements from those other than the defendant' under Section 1, Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but nonetheless it lacks an admissibility of evidence because there is no signing or sealing on the document, and because the integrity of the evidence is not proven by the mentioner on the date of preparation of a trial or the date of a trial. However, when it comes to guaranteeing the defence right, it is thought to be more favorable to apply Section 4, Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since an investigation report is never a 'record of statement', it still seems hard to include the report directly into the record of statement by the testifier under Section 4 of Article 312. Nonetheless, there is no particular reason to treat the report to be different from the record of statement. Therefore, in most cases, it is thought that the admissibility of evidence of the report is to be sufficiently determined pursuant to Section 4 of Article 312. In order to resolve the controversy surrounding the above problem, it is worth considering to directly determine the admissibility of evidence with a concrete clause of the relevant law about the investigation report, if and when a legislation opportunity comes in the future.

수사기관의 압수수색영장 집행절차와 제한 규정

신이철(Yi Chul Shin) 중앙법학회 2009 中央法學 Vol.11 No.2

As Importance of real evidence is gradually emphasized, Search and Seizure Warrants frequently happen. Among these, because Criminal Suit make you find realistic truth but protecting the right of the persons related to search and seizure is very important, the rule of criminal procedure law should be firmly kept. Especially the procedure regulations about search and seizure is not only simply procedural duty of search and seizure but also further important regulations of deciding the scope of search and seizure. Therefore, the presentation duty of preliminary warrant should be in principle accomplished without reference to the claim of the opponent. And there is abolitionism about the presence of parties. But It can be seen that it should be rather needed. And it can be seen that the amendment of the law that the body search of women should be possibly done by female investigation manpower is needed. As for the limitation of execution at night, in the case of the commencement just before the sunset, legislation of the regulation that it is possible even though the sunset came is desirable. And in the case that you meet sunset while you do not commence in the daytime, the commencement regulation of urgent night search and seizure can be considered. And there is criticism in the obligatory delivery of search certificate. But it can be seen that it should be still arranged. In this point that importance of the procedure rule is raised than any time, I think that the effort to reinforce the rule of the procedure regulations is much more needed.

화재시 개구분출화염으로부터의복사열에 의한 화재확대위험성평가 프로세스 정립

신이철(Yi-Chul Shin),박수영(Soo-Young Park),박계원(Kye-Won Park),최동호(Dong-Ho Choi),이길용(Gil-Yong Lee),최정민(Jung-Min Choi) 한국화재소방학회 2021 한국화재소방학회논문지 Vol.35 No.6

건축물의 구획에서 화재시 플래시오버가 발생하면 화재실 내의 온도가 급격히 상승하며 화재규모가 폭발적으로증가하고 구획 내 가연물의 완전연소를 위한 산소가 부족하게 된다. 그 결과 화재의 성상이 연료지배형화재에서 환기지배형화재로 변경되면서 구획 내의 미연소가스가 개구부를 통하여 외부로 분출된다. 분출된 미연소가스는 외부산소와 만나 격렬하게 반응하여 대규모 분출 화염을 형성하게 되고 이로 인해 화재가 상층부로 빠르게 확산된다. 또한 분출화염은 주변 건축물 및 시설물에 고온의 복사열을 방출하여 외장재 및 인접 사물로의 화재 확산에 주된원인이 된다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 구획실에서 화재가 발생한 경우의 화재가 완전히 발달한 최성기화재를 가정하여개구분출화염으로부터 발생하는 복사열이 외장재 및 인접 사물에 미치는 열적 영향을 평가하기 위한 정량적 평가프로세스를 수립하였다. When a flashover occurs from a fire in a building compartment, the fire intensifies explosively and changes from afuel-controlled fire to a ventilation-controlled fire. As a result, flames and unburnt gas are ejected from openings. Theejected unburned gas reacts violently with external oxygen to form a large-scale ejected flame, which causes the fire toexpand to the upper layer. Moreover, the radiation of extreme heat to neighboring buildings contributes to fire spreadingbetween buildings. In this study, a quantitative evaluation process was established to evaluate the thermal effect of radiantheat generated from an open fire on the exterior materials of facilities, assuming a fully developed fire.

형사증거법상 사진의 증거능력 제한

신이철 ( Yi Chul Shin ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2012 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.22

Infolge einer technischen Entwicklung wird die Beweisfahigkeit der neuen technischen Beweismittel im Beweisrecht in Frage gestellt. Inbesondere werden die Photos, die beim Ermittlungsvorgang aufgenommen werden, als Beweismittel in der Hauptverhandlung haufig benutzt, sollten den Photos jedoch nicht ohne weiteres die Beweisfahigkeit beigemessen werden, da sie als solche sich die objektive Tatsachen nicht in vollen Masse beweisen lassen. Da die im Ermittlungsverfahren aufgenommenen Photos in der Regel in verschiedener Weise die Beweisqualifikation haben, sind auch die Frage nach Beweisfahigkeit der Photos je nach deren Art gepruft werden. Nach Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofes, die vor dem Inkrafttreten der neuen Strafprozessordnung im Jahr 2007 veroffentlicht wurde, ist fur die Beweisfahigkeit des ohne Anordnung aufgenommene Photos drei folgende Voraussetzungen: erstens, der Tater muss auf frischer Tat betroffen werden, zweitens mussen die Erforderlichkeit und Dringlichkeit der Beweissicherung des Photos bejaht werden, drittens muss die Aufnahmemethode des Photos verhaltnissmassig sein. Da die Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofes jedoch schon vor dem Inkrafttreten der neuen Strafprozessordnung, die insbesondere Beweisverwertungsverbot gemass §308-2 korStPO ausdrucklich beinhaltet, veroffentlicht wurde, sollte ihr auch jetzt nicht ohne Vorbehalt gefolgt werden, sondern die Rechtsprechung muss unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Beweisverwertungsverbots neu interpretiert werden.

검사의 불기소처분에 대한 재정신청 - 특히 재정신청기간과 재정신청서를 중심으로 -

신이철 ( Yi Chul Shin ) 한국비교형사법학회 2015 비교형사법연구 Vol.17 No.3

The Constitution does not specifically provide direct provisions related to the subject, and procedure or the post control of indictment, and is considered to fall within the legislative policy of the legislator. Based on which the Criminal Prosecution Act maximally promotes a flexible operation of the Prosecutor’s Act, such as the principle of discretionary prosecutions. However, on the other hand, a revisement application policy, which controls the prosecutor’s right of exercising an indictment is being prepared. In 2007, the benefit of the applicant of such revisement was being optimally promoted through a general expansion of the scope of crime of appeal against the decision, while preparing a policy as a device to relieve the instable legal status of the victim and preventing the applicant’s reckless appeal against the decision. In this regard, the period of the appeal against the decision is restricted to ten (10) days in consideration of the disadvantage of the continued instability of the status of the defendant (or accused) that has received the prosecutor’s disposition not to institute a public action. However, since there is a lack to draft an appeal against the decision and the reason, the deadline should be legislatively extended to twenty (20) days from the date of receiving the notification, and it would be reasonable to adhere to the Special Convict Regulations in this case. Furthermore, the decision should be enabled to be appealed in light of the purpose of the policy after the court rules on the indictment by overlooking the fact that the defendant has not provided a sufficient reason.