http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
金亨埈(Kim, Hyung-Joon) 중앙대학교 법학연구소 2008 法學論文集 Vol.32 No.1
In Japan, because the people who caused fatal accidents by driving while intoxicated could have had only been sentenced around 3 years, it had been criticized largely. Finally, in 2001, the fatal driving style penalty, which focuses on heavily punishing the people who cause fatal accidents by driving dangerously and riskily, was created under the penal code 208-2. According to this, the offender who fatally harms a person can be sentenced up to 15 years, more than a year up to 20 years for fatally killing and up to 30 years for the chain offender. However, this penalty has several problems applying and explaining legislation. Firstly, because it does not target all the risky driving styles but the few such as drunk driving, there is definitely unfairness between them. Secondly, because when the offender kills a person he does not do it intentionally, charging him with murdering or injuring a person cannot really be agreed with 'Schuldprinzip' and should be charged with weaker penalty. Thirdly, Japanese courts do not blame the one being chain offender consequently for the entire consequences and it completes a fundamental offense even for the result that was not anticipated thereby adding difficulty for ranging fundamental offence. Fourthly, the risky driving styles with no intention to murder or harm are being charged with murdering and injuring, sometimes with even heavier charges. Moreover, two offenders with the same driving style can be charged differently depending on the case, again bringing unfairness. Lastly, because this penalty looks for a standard which requires value judgment such as ‘unable to drive properly’, there has been an unbalance between the courts due to giving different explanations. All these problems can be used to implicate the application of Korean fatal driving style penalty which started in 2007.
金亨埈(Kim Hyung-Joon) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2005 法學論文集 Vol.29 No.1
The case above says that if the person who commits a traffic accident leaves the accident area before the police arrives there, he should be charged with the neglect of traffic accident victim. However, after the defendant commits the traffic accident, stops the vehicle, gives the victim"s company his namecard to identify himself, and then asks the taxi driver to give a ride to the victim, he should be considered to fulfill his obligations as accident-committor, even though he is not present at the accident site at the time when the police arrives there. Therefore, the case above is far from rationale.
金炯俊(Kim Hyoung-Jun) 대한건축학회 2007 대한건축학회논문집 Vol.23 No.3
The purpose of this study is to explore the liminal spaces of Jeju traditional housing by MunjonPonpuri, to give attention to contemporary architecture that we inhabit, and to escape from existing architectural concepts of Jeju traditional housing. This study seeks to the meaning and possibility of the liminal spaces on the basis of social and cultural factor especially rites de passage and rituals of affliction in Jeju traditional housing. The liminal spaces can be studied in the aspect of architectural space that molds human experience and perception. As a result of this study, two properties in the liminal spaces are revealed. One property of the liminal spaces is softness that is revealed by relations between myth and space. Another property is that communication that is revealed in exchanges according to ritual setting and its experience. This results means that the liminal spaces as interface which represents community and culture in Jeju traditional housing.
辯護人의 眞實義務와 陳述拒否權 行使勸告 - 대법원 2007.1.13.자 2006모656 결정
金亨埈(Hyung-Joon Kim) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2007 法學論文集 Vol.31 No.1
Lawyers in the criminal procedures should assume a public "guardian" status to cooperate in the legitimate enforcement of governmental criminal sentences. In this regard, it is beyond dispute that lawyers in criminal cases should tell the whole truth. True as it may be, the attorneys" public “guardian" status should be differentiated from that of prosecutors who should be in pursuit of substantive truth, simultaneously focusing on achieving the protective functions of criminal system. That is, the public "guardian" status of criminal lawyers finds its distinction from that of prosector in that the former puts first and forefront priority on its clients" best interests and secure the substantive truth within the scope of due process through continuous struggles with courts and prosecutors. In this sense, it may well be that criminal lawyers are obliged to be more aggressive and thorough in protecting their defendant clients based on duty to protect their clients which preempts the duty to tell the truth.<BR> Therefore, the positions of the Supreme Court in this case should be duly noted that “while lawyers should assume the duty to tell the truth according to the Korea"s Code of Professional Responsibility, it is also their duty as well as right to provide legal counsel to their clients in detention and cannot be regarded to be contravening their duty to tell the truth by informing his client of the constitutional right to remain silent and then recommending excercise of this right, not engaged in positively advising false statement, deception, conceit, or misrepresentation.”