의료과오소송에서의 증명방해이론 : 증명방해의 소송상 제재의 근거와 효과를 중심으로

이정환(Lee Jeong Hawn) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2013 의생명과학과 법 Vol.9 No.-

Term of medical malpractice litigation has not been accurately defined as a legal concept but it may be defined as a suit filed by the part of patients pursuing damage compensation against the people including medical professionals, who provided a medical practice at issue, and alleging that "the accident occurred out of the fault made in the course of such medical practice. In these medical malpractice litigations, it is difficult to prove the existence of objective facts causing a medical malpractice because: reenactment of such facts is hard to be made compared to those of other litigations for general damage compensation; and most of evidence in medical malpractice litigations are owned by the dependants, which make it hard to prove without cooperation of those dependants. Thus, it is said that this difficulties in fact proving is caused by the nature of medical practice itself. Therefore, applying general theories of burden of proof to medical malpractice litigations is necessary to be adjusted based on realities of medical malpractice litigations because such application may result in an one-sided disadvantage of difficulties in proving evidence on the patients, the plaintiffs, whatever the cause of action of such medical malpractice litigation is tort or failure to perform obligations. In response, it has been actively discussed to adopt theories including theory of alleviation of burden of proof, theory of conversion of burden of proof and the one of hindrance to proof of evidence. In this paper, I would like to deal with the theory of hindrance to proof of evidence and, under that theory, in the event that the evidence proving of a party having burden of proof becomes significantly difficult or impossible due to intentional misconduct or negligence of the opposite party having no burden of proof, such circumstances must be considered and adjusted in fact finding as an advantage of the party having burden of proving. In our country, this theory of hindrance to proof of evidence started to be discussed in 1970s and, on March 10, 1995, the Supreme Court in its decision adopted such theory with respect to the medical malpractice litigation on its reasoning that a party is allowed to have free suspicion so as to make the other party be at a disadvantage. Thereafter, lots of case laws based on such reasoning have been made so far. Under the present provisions of the Civil Procedure Act in Korea, there is no general provisions for judicial restriction and penalty on the conducts causing hindrance to evidence proving but only partial or specific provisions set forth them. In the event that the evidence proving of a party having burden of proof becomes significantly difficult or impossible due to intentional misconduct or negligence of the other party having no burden of proof, the other party should be imposed by certain punishment by the court and the theory of hindrance to proof of evidence appears at the stage. In such case, the issues are: if such conduct of hindrance is recognized, what kinds of judicial punishments must be imposed (considering their effects); and, if a punishment is imposed by the court, in what cases it can be justified (the grounds of punishment). In this paper, I examine the grounds and effects of judicial punishment under the theory of hindrance to evidence proving regarding medical malpractice suits in order to find alternatives to overcome the limitations of present laws in Korea so that a fairness is realized in the course of litigation in practice.

미국증거법상 증명책임과 추정

최은희 대한변호사협회 2010 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.409

The burden of proof in evidence law in America commonly encompassestwo kind of burden. One is the burden of producing evidence and the second is the burden of persuasion. The burden of producing evidence means the liability to an adverse ruling without producing evidence.The burden of persuasion means the burden even all of the evidence is introduced the trier of fact could not decide the truth of fact and that the issue to be decided against the party. The burden of producing evidence may shift to adversary when the pleader discharges its initial duty. But the burden of persuasion does not shift from the beginning to the end of the case. What are to beconsidered to allocate the burden of proof? One of the popular theory is the three Ps. That is, policy, probability, and possession of proof are the most important factors to be considered to allocate the burden of proof. Sometimes fairness is added to the consideration. The level of satisfying the burden varies depends upon the case. In most civil casesby a preponderance of evidence is enough. But in certain exceptional cases clear and convincing evidence is required. In criminal casesthe highest formula of beyond reasonable doubt is applied. Generally a presumption means the rule of law when the basic fact is established the presumed fact should be acknowledged unless and until the rebutting evidence is produced.About the effect of presumption two great theories are developed. One is the Thayer theory, the “bursting bubble”theory and the other is the Morgan theory. The “bursting bubble” theory explains that the only effect of a presumption is to shift the burdenof producing evidence with regard to presumed fact. If evidence is produced by the adversary, the presumption is spent and disappears. By the Morgan theory a presumption maintainsstronger effect to the presumed fact that the burden of persuasion shifts to the adversary party. In Korea, burden of proof generally means two kind of burden, the objective burden of proof and the subjective burden of proof. I think the objective burden of proof is applied to the burden of persuasion and the subjective burden of proof is applied to the burden of producing evidence. About the level of proofhigher probability is required in our lawthan the standard of preponderance of evidence in America. Because most scholars says that the presumption shifts the objective burden of proof to the adversary, the general theory on the effect of presumption in Korea applied to the Morgan theory in America. 미국 증거법상 증명책임은 보통 증거제출책임(Burden of producing evidence)과 설득책임(Burden of persuasion)을 포괄하여 지칭한다. 증거제출책임이란 어떤 주제에 관해 증거가 제출되지 않을 때 불리한 판결을 받을 책임을 말하고 보통 어떤 사실을 주장하는 자에게 먼저 주어진다. 그러나 그가 책임을 다하면 상대방에게 옮겨진다. 설득책임은 당사자들이 증거제출책임을 다하고 모든 증거들이 제출되었을 때에 배심원이나 법관이 어떤 주제에 관해 의문이 있을 때 설득책임이 있는 당사자에게 불리하게 결정하게 하는 책임이다. 그것은 처음부터 어느 일방 당사자에게 고정적으로 정해져 있고 옮겨지는 것이 아니다. 증명책임의 분배를 정하는 고려요소로는 3Ps가 일반적이다. 즉 정책(Policy), 개연성(Probability), 증거의 소유(Possession of proof), 그 외 공정성(Fairness) 등 요소에 의해 증명책임이 분배된다. 증명책임의 만족의 기준으로는 일반 민사소송에서는 증거의 우월(Preponderance of evidence)이 대세이나 명료하고 수긍시키는 증거(Clear and convincing evidence) 등 더 높은 기준을 요구하는 경우도 있고 형사소송에서는 합리적 의심을 넘어선 증거(Beyond reasonable doubt)로 높은 기준을 요구하기도 한다. 추정은 기본적 전제사실이 증명되면 그 추정이 반박되지 않는 한, 사실인정자는 추정된 사실 또한 확립된 것으로 인정해야 하는 법적인 규칙이라고 할 수 있다. 추정의 효과에 관하여는 반박하는 증거가 나타났을 때 추정의 효과가 사라진다는 타이어의 “터지는 비누방울”(Bursting bubble) 이론과 추정의 효력은 사라지지 않고 반대당사자에게 설득책임을 부과하는 강력한 것이라는 모간의 이론으로 크게 나눌 수 있고, 연방증거규칙(Federal Rules of Evidence)은타이어의 이론으로 입법한 것인데 비하여 통일증거규칙(Uniform Rules of Evidence)은 모간의 이론이 반영된 것이다. 각 주의 경우는 연방증거규칙을 따른 예도 있으나 모간의 이론을 따른 경우, 절충적인 입장 등 다양하다. 우리나라에서 증명책임은 객관적 증명책임과 주관적 증명책임으로 구분하는데 이것은 미국법상 설득책임과 증거제출책임에 대비된다. 증명의 정도에 관하여는 법관의 확신을 요구하므로 미국법상 증거의 우월보다는 높은 기준을 요한다고 본다. 추정에 관하여는 상대방은 추정되는 사실의 부존재에 대하여 본증으로 적극적으로 증명해야 한다고 하여 추정으로 증명책임이 전환되는 효과를 가진다는 것이므로 모간의 입장에 유사하다고 보인다.

증거법이론에 있어서 인식과 진술 - 증거법 일반이론의 모색 -

송희식(Song Heesik) 대검찰청 2013 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.39

한국에서는 증거법에 대한 해석에 있어서 독일이나 미국의 증거법이론을 적용하는 것이 일반적이다. 그러나 독일과 미국의 증거법은 대단히 다르며, 이론도 접점이 거의 없다. 한편 증거법은 그 자체의 고유의 논리성을 가지고 있어, 각국 증거법을 포괄하여 해석할 수 있는 일반이론이 가능한 것으로 여겨진다. 이러한 일반적 이론이 구성될 수 있다면 각국의 증거법을 보편적 관점에서 이해하고, 증거법의 발전방향을 설정하는 데도 유용할 것이다. 증거법의 일반이론을 모색함에 있어 가장 먼저 설정할 수 있는 주요개념은 ‘인식’이라는 개념이 유력하다. 증거법이론의 최우선 전제로 작용하는 배심제와 전문법관제라는 재판제도가 증거법의 관점에서는 ‘증거인식’의 주체의 문제이기 때문이다. 배심제에서는 증거인식의 주체가 배심원이고, 전문법관제에서는 판사이다. 배심제에서는 인식주체의 성격에 때문에 증거법의 모든 문제는 배심원에게 어떠한 증거를 현출하여 인식하게 할 것인가 하는 주제로 귀결된다. 이것은 증거의 허용성의 문제로서 그 기준은 증거자료의 차원에서 규정된다. 특히 진술증거와 관련해서는 어떠한 ‘법정외 진술’을 허용할 것인가 하는 전문법칙이 중요한 증거법이론을 구성하게 된다. 이에 대해 전문법관제에서는 담당 재판부 이외에도 증거인식의 예외적 주체가 있다. 그것은 증거보전절차의 판사, 경질된 이전의 판사, 수탁판사 등이다. 결국 이들의 증거인식을 재판부가 받아들이는데, 이것은 본질적으로 타인의 인식을 재인식하는 것으로‘인식의 인식’이다. 이렇게 보면 수사기관의 조서도 수사기관의 인식을 재판부가 다시 인식하는 문제가 된다. 여기에 ‘인식의 인식’을 증거로 삼기 위해서는 어떠한 요건을 설정할 것인가 하는 문제가 증거법이론에서 중요한 주제로 등장한다. 동시에 진술과 인식을 어떻게 다른 범주로 설정할 것인가 하는 문제도 증거법적 이론에서 중대한 문제로 제기된다. 이렇게 타인의 진술이나 인식을 법정으로 가져오는 문제가 증거법이론의 기본주제이다. 이 주제를 확장하여 사실인정의 자료로 삼을 수 있는 증거의 자격으로서 증거능력의 개념을 보편적 개념으로 설정할 수 있다. 독일 증거법이론에서는 증거능력이라는 개념이 아예 없지만, 법정의 증거조사절차의 대상이 되는 증거방법이라고 해석될 수 있다. 이것은 증거방법의 기준에서 규정되는 것이다. 미국 증거법이론에서는 증거자료의 차원에서 배심원 인식에 대한 허용성이라는 개념이 증거능력의 개념에 대응될 수 있다. 이에 대해 일본 ․ 한국의 증거법에서는 증거능력의 개념에서 증거는 증거방법과 증거자료 모두를 포괄한다. 이렇게 보면 일본 ․ 한국의 증거법이론이 오히려 좀 더 일반적이고 보편적이라는 결론이 된다. 그리하여 진술과 인식, 증거방법과 증거자료, 증거능력 등의 개념이 증거법 일반이론의 체계론적 개념으로 설정될 수 있다. 이런 관점에 비추어 보면, 일본 ․ 한국의 수사기관의 조서에 관한 증거법 규정들은 타인의 인식을 법정에 가져오는 증거방법으로 해석되어야 한다. 그리고 그것과 독립하여 수사기관에서의 진술 그 자체에 대해서는 증거자료로서 조서(인식)와 독립한 진술로서 해석될 수 있다. 이렇게 할 때에만 조서의 증거법적 의의, 조서와 진술을 구별하는 문제, 사경피신과 조사자증언의 근거문제 등이 해명될 수 있다. 그리고 이러한 일반이론의 관점을 받아들이면 새롭게 해명되어야 할 많은 문제들이 제기되며, 아울러 한국 증거법 규정들의 의미와 평가, 발전방향에 대하여 새로운 비전을 찾을 수 있다. This study starts with the assumption that the general theory of evidence law can be developed since evidence law has its own innate logic. Every country has its own evidence laws. So if there were a theory about evidence law and it could explain evidence laws of every country then it can be considered the general theory of evidence laws. The first concept of evidence laws in the general theory is the cognition. The jury trial system and bench trial system are different in the aspect that who recognize the evidence; the subject of cognition about evidences. In jury trial system the subject of evidence cognition is the jury. In bench trial system the subject of evidence cognition must be the judge; this is called ‘principle of directness.’ The exception of this principle of directedness is renewal of proceedings. In the renewal of proceedings, the judge accepts other’s cognition in the forms of protocol. Beweisfäigkeit(the qualification of evidence) is the competence to be legal evidence in fact-finding. It is the admissibility of evidence in jury trial system. In bench trial system it corresponds to legal competence to be written as evidence in judgement paper of guilty. Beweisfäigkeit has two dimensions: cognition and statement. Beweisfäigkeit is the qualification that the judge can accept other’s cognition as evidence, and Beweisfäigkeit is the qualification that judge can accept out-of-court statement as evidence. The latter is the hearsay rule. And the former is the evidence rule of all kinds of protocol. So the concepts of Beweisfäigkeit of cognition and statement are the systems of general theory about evidence law. If we look at evidence laws from this point of view, all evidence laws must be reviewed through the general theory; Special theories cannot be explained by other special theories.

형사소송법 제420조 제5호의 재심사유에서 ‘증거의 신규성과 명백성’ (대상판결:대법원 2009. 7. 16.자 2005모 472 결정)

김태업 사법발전재단 2010 사법 Vol.1 No.11

This thesis is regarding the decision of the Supreme Court on 2009.7.16., 2005mo472. The decision is meaningful in including all the issues related to ‘newness’ and ‘apparentness’ under such a ground for post-conviction relief as ‘it is newly discovered evidence apparent enough to acknowledge innocence’ under sec.420.no.5. First of all, the object-mentioned decision, pursuant to precedent decisions, maintains, in terms of ‘newness of evidence’ under the section, the court-and-post-conviction-relief-petitioner standard theory which adopts such restrictive construction as to ‘newness of evidence’ by considering the recklessness and negligence in submitting evidence of the accused who places petition for a post-conviction relief. However, a court-standard theory and criticism for the court-and-post-conviction-relief-petitioner standard theory, propounded by a concurring opinion, are noteworthy in the future operation of practices to come. Next, the object-mentioned decision is significant in shifting existent holdings, which independently and isolatedly examine newly-discovered evidence as regards the range of evidence as the object of judgment in terms of deciding whether it falls on evidence so apparent to acknowledge innocence, to the restrictive assessment theory, which allows a court of a final decision to consider and assess the closely related and inconsistent things as well as newly discovered evidence among evidences for the foundation of fact-finding. However, it is expected that contents of the restrictive assessment theory will take a firm root through operating future practices as the theory itself is abstract and general. Finally, the object-mentioned decision held, as regards the level of the suspicion whether evidence is apparent enough to acknowledge innocence, “the standard where it is acknowledged that there is such high probability that a court cannot maintain the decision beyond a level of mere doubt on legitimacy of the final judgment of being guilty as the object of a post-conviction relief.” Thereby, it explained in a more concrete way a strict theory suggested by former decisions, and confirmed the fact that ‘in dubio pro reo’ principle is not applicable to the procedure deciding whether a court approves a post-conviction relief. The object-mentioned decision is expected not only to serve as a guideline for practices related to a post-conviction relief in criminal procedure, but also to provoke rigorous discussions for the overall institution of the post-conviction relief. 이 글은 대법원 2009. 7. 16.자 2005모472 전원합의체 결정에 관한 글이다. 위 결정은 형사소송법 제420조 제5호의 ‘무죄 등을 인정할 명백한 증거가 새로 발견된 때’라는 재심사유에서 증거의 신규성과 명백성과 관련된 쟁점을 모두 담고 있다는 데에 그 의의가 있다. 먼저, 위 결정은 위 조항에서 증거의 신규성에 있어서는 기왕의 판례에 따라 재심을 청구하는 피고인에게 해당 증거의 제출에 관한 고의ㆍ과실 등 귀책사유에 의하여 그 신규성을 제한적으로 해석하는 법원ㆍ재심청구인 기준설을 유지하였다. 다만, 위 결정에서 별개의견이 주장한 법원기준설과 법원ㆍ재심청구인 기준설에 대한 문제 제기는 앞으로의 실무 운영에서 유의하여야 할 대목이라고 생각된다. 다음으로, 위 결정은 무죄 등을 인정할 명백한 증거에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하는 데에 있어서 판단의 대상이 되는 증거의 범위에 대하여는 새로 발견된 증거만을 독립적ㆍ고립적으로 고찰하여 그 증거가치만으로 재심의 개시 여부를 판단하도록 한 기존의 판례 견해(고립평가설)를, 재심대상이 되는 확정판결을 선고한 법원이 사실인정의 기초로 삼은 증거들 가운데 새로 발견된 증거와 유기적으로 밀접하게 관련되고 모순되는 것들은 함께 고려하여 평가하도록 하는 제한적 평가설로 변경하였다는 점에서 그 의의가 크다. 다만, 이러한 제한적 평가설의 내용도 일반적이고 추상적이라 할 것이므로 향후 실무운영을 통해 그 내용이 구체화될 것으로 기대된다. 마지막으로, 위 결정은 무죄 등을 인정하기에 명백한 증거인지 여부에 관한 심증의 정도에 대하여는, “단순히 재심대상이 되는 유죄의 확정판결에 대하여 그 정당성이 의심되는 수준을 넘어 그 판결을 그대로 유지할 수 없을 정도로 고도의 개연성이 인정되는 경우”라고 판시하여 그동안 판례에서 제시된 엄격설을 보다 구체적으로 설명하고 있고, 재심개시여부를 심리하는 절차에는 ‘의심스러울 때는 피고인의 이익으로(in dubio pro reo)‘라는 원칙이 적용되지 않는다는 점을 분명히 하였다. 위 결정이 형사재심과 관련된 실무운영에 지침이 될 뿐만 아니라, 이를 계기로 재심제도 전반에 대한 활발한 논의가 이루어지기를 기대한다.

관련성이론의 개요와 그 적용영역

김일룡 한국민사소송법학회 2012 민사소송 Vol.16 No.1

The Relevancy theory was developed under Anglo–American legal system when it was enacted and became part of the Federal Rules of Evidence,but the need to introduce this theory in Korean judicial procedure is required in order to realize the objectives of reasonable, fair, prompt, and economic civil procedure system, to give order between rules with the theory. The fields that can develop de lege ferenda of interpretation theory by introducing the relevancy theory to Korean legal system are as below. First of all, through relevancy theory, one can stereotype individual regulation of evidence ejection with natural relevance and legal relevance;one can also understand necessity clauses of Civil Procedure Code article 290 as individual evidence ejectment clause; and at the same time, it can reach intramarginal limitations by limiting the scope of evidence that can be ejected. These operations allow a ground to clearly specify reasons of evidence ejectment on the decisions or protocols for hearing to substantially secure the objections on the evidence ejectment beyond intramarginal limitations. Second, when the adversary defends the authentication of documentary evidence through ignorance or denial, one can only converse the burden of proof by using the presumption of authentication clause under current Korean legal system when all ‘ignorance’ allegations cannot be solve through the burden of proof conversion. We need to codify the types of “self–authenticated” evidences as rule 902 of Federal Rules of Evidence defines;otherwise the court should cleary specify in the decide when eliminating admissions with binding force on authentication is an important foundation for fact–finding. Third, as for expert opinions of scientific or technical evidences, even under the circumstances when the authentication of identification are acknowledged, a separate procedure to probe its reliability is needed. The procedure is needed because even judges tend th label “errorless” on the expert opinions of evidences with the word ‘scientific’ or ‘technical’. Understanding these phenomena as substantial probative force of evidence under principle of free evaluation of proof, there is no way to prevent fact–finding through scientific or technical evidence from being distorted. Under Korean legal system, absence of clause like the rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence, exclusion of evidence should be allowed for scientific or technical evidences have possibilities to mislead or confuse facts. Lastly, the article 23 of the Civil Conciliation Act, which forbids quotations of the parties of a conciliation and the statements of the parties interested when the conciliation fails, indicates that the statements cannot be used as a confession or an evidence when they are submitted again in the latter judicial procedure. The article should be understood that the statements of the adversary party cannot only be accepted as preceding confession but also the parties cannot be interrogated in the examination form with the statement made during the conciliation. Such manner coincides with the rule 408 of Federal Rules of Evidence which excludes those statements for law relevance. Therefore, the conciliation reports should be very simple with the least information like the appearance but without any specific information;and statements of the both parties at the conciliation should not be reported and these statements cannot be added to the merit reports. Also the clause that directs the court which failed to manage the immediately directed conciliation to lead the merit should be deleted from the Civil Conciliation Act since the judge panel already knows about the facts from the conciliation which puts the limitation of the quoting preceding statements in the Civil Conciliation Act out of action and since the ‘Ruling of Recommendation of Compromise’ system was recently adopted in the Civil Procedure Code.

의료과오소송에서의 증명방해이론 - 증명방해의 소송상 제재의 근거와 효과를 중심으로 -

이정환 원광대학교 법학연구소 2013 의생명과학과 법 Vol.9 No.-

Term of medical malpractice litigation has not been accurately defined as a legal concept but it may be defined as a suit filed by the part of patients pursuing damage compensation against the people including medical professionals, who provided a medical practice at issue, and alleging that "the accident occurred out of the fault made in the course of such medical practice. In these medical malpractice litigations, it is difficult to prove the existence of objective facts causing a medical malpractice because: reenactment of such facts is hard to be made compared to those of other litigations for general damage compensation; and most of evidence in medical malpractice litigations are owned by the dependants, which make it hard to prove without cooperation of those dependants. Thus, it is said that this difficulties in fact proving is caused by the nature of medical practice itself. Therefore, applying general theories of burden of proof to medical malpractice litigations is necessary to be adjusted based on realities of medical malpractice litigations because such application may result in an one-sided disadvantage of difficulties in proving evidence on the patients, the plaintiffs, whatever the cause of action of such medical malpractice litigation is tort or failure to perform obligations. In response, it has been actively discussed to adopt theories including theory of alleviation of burden of proof, theory of conversion of burden of proof and the one of hindrance to proof of evidence. In this paper, I would like to deal with the theory of hindrance to proof of evidence and, under that theory, in the event that the evidence proving of a party having burden of proof becomes significantly difficult or impossible due to intentional misconduct or negligence of the opposite party having no burden of proof, such circumstances must be considered and adjusted in fact finding as an advantage of the party having burden of proving. In our country, this theory of hindrance to proof of evidence started to be discussed in 1970s and, on March 10, 1995, the Supreme Court in its decision adopted such theory with respect to the medical malpractice litigation on its reasoning that a party is allowed to have free suspicion so as to make the other party be at a disadvantage. Thereafter, lots of case laws based on such reasoning have been made so far. Under the present provisions of the Civil Procedure Act in Korea, there is no general provisions for judicial restriction and penalty on the conducts causing hindrance to evidence proving but only partial or specific provisions set forth them. In the event that the evidence proving of a party having burden of proof becomes significantly difficult or impossible due to intentional misconduct or negligence of the other party having no burden of proof, the other party should be imposed by certain punishment by the court and the theory of hindrance to proof of evidence appears at the stage. In such case, the issues are: if such conduct of hindrance is recognized, what kinds of judicial punishments must be imposed (considering their effects); and, if a punishment is imposed by the court, in what cases it can be justified (the grounds of punishment). In this paper, I examine the grounds and effects of judicial punishment under the theory of hindrance to evidence proving regarding medical malpractice suits in order to find alternatives to overcome the limitations of present laws in Korea so that a fairness is realized in the course of litigation in practice.

Research on Dynamic Trust Computing Method Based on Multi-Dimensional Evidence

Shi DeJia,Jiang WeiJin,Zhang LianMei 보안공학연구지원센터 2015 International Journal of Security and Its Applicat Vol.9 No.9

From the perspective of the credibility of evaluating network main body, first consider to improving of evidence source on which trust computing is based, and propose the concept of multi-dimensional evidence. The multi-dimension refers to involvement of multiple types of evidence, and the multi-dimensional evidence, in this paper, involves mainly e-commerce business feedback evidence, online community business feedback evidence and network operation behavior evidence. On this basis, the evidence features can be incorporated into combination rule of evidence, design a new method to calculate the dynamic trust, and propose an improved D-S combination rule to synthesize multi-dimensional evidence, better to solve the problem of uncertainty of evidence. Experiments show it can effectively resist network fraud.

예비 초등교사의 과학 탐구 글쓰기 활동에서 나타난 이론과 증거의 조정 과정 분석

이선경 ( Sun Kyung Lee ),이규호 ( Gyu Ho Lee ),최취임 ( Chui Im Choi ),신명경 ( Myeong Kyeong Shin ) 한국과학교육학회 2012 한국과학교육학회지 Vol.32 No.2

본 연구는 예비초등교사들이 과학탐구를 수행하고 이에 대한 과학글쓰기를 분석하여 증거와 이론의 조정의 유형과 특성을 탐색하기 위한 연구이다. 본 연구에서 4개의 과학탐구활동에서 총 115개의 예비초등교사들의 글쓰기가 수집 및 분석되었다. 글쓰기 분석을 바탕으로 4개의 이론과 증거의 조정 유형을 발견할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 다음과 같이 유형을 제안한다. 유형1은 증거와 이론의 일치, 유형2는 증거와 이론의 일치 및 이론의 확장과 정교화, 유형3은 증거와 이론의 불일치, 마지막으로 유형4는 증거와 이론의 불일치 및 조정으로 보았다. 본 연구결과 우선 빈도수를 고려할 때 가장 많은 것에서 적은 것의 순으로 보면 유형1, 유형3, 유형2, 유형4의 순이다. 가장 빈도수가 높은 것으로 유형1이 나왔는데 이는 탐구질문에 내재된 이론이 참여자에 의해 쉽게 파악되었고 이를 지지하는 증거를 발견된 자료 중에서 골라냈다는 것으로 해석된다. 탐구주제와 조정유형의 빈도수 사이에 관련성이 별로 없었으나 예외적으로 활동1은 관련성을 보여주었다. 본 연구의 이러한 결과는 학생들이 자신이 이미 가지고 있는 지식을 실험계획, 자료분석 및 해석 그리고 과학주장을 만들어내는 과정에서 잘 융합하고 있다는 점과 연관성이 있다고 보여진다. This study aims to explore patterns and characteristics of coordination between evidence and theories which were found in pre-service elementary teachers` writing for their science inquiry. Five science inquiry activities and a total of 115 writings of the participant teacher at the elementary teacher preparation university in Korea were collected and analyzed for this study. Based on the writing analyses there were found four types of coordination between the evidence and theory. We proposed four types as: Type 1-Consistency of evidence and theory; Type 2-Consistence of evidence and theory including more extension or elaboration of theory; Type 3-Inconsistence of evidence and theory Type 4-Inconsistence of evidence and theory followed by coordination of them. Firstly the findings indicated that the most to least frequent types were Type 1, Type 3, Type 2, and Type 4. The most frequent type was Type 1. It is interpreted that theory in the inquiry questions were frequently figured out by participants and they selected supporting evidence out of data found, There were rarely found relations between activity topics and frequencies of coordination types except in activity 1, The findings in this study will connect to the point of how students collaborate their previously owned knowledge with experiment planning, data analysis and interpretation and making of their own scientific claims.

국민참여재판에 있어서 관련성 없는 증거의 배제법리 -미국 연방증거규칙상의 논의를 중심으로-

김일룡 ( Il Ryong Kim ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.31 No.2

There is a number of things that are to be legally and systematically corrected when we examine the procedures of criminal cases, particularly the procedures of ruling on evidence and trial management in civic participation trial based on the relevance theory of the US Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). First, according to the precedents in Korea, the criterion to determine whether applied evidence is to be excluded depends on whether the evidence is necessary in the judgment of the case. However, if the subject of deciding the ‘necessity’ of evidence is a judge and we follow the position of precedent that the judgment comes from the discretion of the judge, the person concerned would not easily be convinced by ruling on evidence of the judge. Therefore, accepting and applying relevance idea that is objective, faithful and persuasive as the standard of ruling on evidence are appropriate rather than accepting and applying necessity idea that is vague and authoritative. Second, Korean law allows objection on the court’s ruling on evidence only when such ruling on evidence violates legislation, and it is almost impossible to change ruling on evidence which is once determined as an objection raised by violation of legislation can rarely be brought as long as we understand ruling on evidence as a part of the right of command on suit of a judge. If that is the case, there must be a way to claim ruling on evidence even in an appellate trial, but there is a problem that a proper review cannot be conducted as the reason of exclusion of evidence is unknown in the appellate trial as the reason of determination of exclusion of evidence is orally notified without recording in existing practices. Thus, legal and systematic modification is needed and we should let the procedures of objection and appeal stipulated in FRE be a good lesson. Third, it is clear that unrelated evidence or the one without evidential ability must be excluded during pretrial arrangement in advance to prevent wrong decision of a juror who does summary judgment in participation trial due to prejudice or stereotype. However, a judge who performs pretrial arrangement cannot be free from prejudice or stereotype on the accused as he or she is completely exposed to the evidence which must be excluded for ruling on evidence. Therefore, if a judge who performs pretrial arrangement explains a number of things and state’s his or her views in accordance with the stipulation of participation law, the judge’s prejudice or stereotype will be moved to the jury. To prevent the happening of such situation, the judge who performs pretrial arrangement and the one who performs trial proceedings must be separated. Fourth, in Korean civic participation trial, a jury is involved not only in fact-finding but also examination of an offense. The evidence necessary for fact-finding is strictly limited to block the intervention of prejudice or stereotype whereas character evidence can be used as the one for examination of an offense. If a juror can present evidence for both act-finding and examination of an offense at a time as the juror is involved in both act-finding and examination of an offense, there is no way to prevent prejudice or stereotype of a juror. Therefore, division of procedures for fact-finding and examination of an offense should be institutionalized in civic participation trial that the evidence excluded in the trial for fact-finding can be presented in the trial for examination of an offense, if the accused is convicted. The writer mentioned details of relevance theory stipulated in FRE in this paper, but it is not intended for legalization in Korea but examination of whether the ‘necessity’ which is the standard of ruling on evidence is applied without details in the point of judge’s view by checking the particulars. If what FRE-related rules intends to show is deeply read and applied to our trial system on setting of the standard of faithful and detailed ruling on evidence, it will contribute appropriate fact-finding without prejudice of a juror and highly reduce time and economic burden of suit procedures.

디지털 시대 규제이론으로서 증거기반 규제의 법적 의미와 제도화 한계

김재선 한국공법학회 2024 공법연구 Vol.52 No.4

2019년 노벨경제학상을 수상한 경제학자인 “마이클 클레이머 교수, 에스테르 뒤플로 교수, 아브지히트 바네르지 교수”는 인류의 난제인 빈곤 문제가 나타나는 이유가 인간의 행동에 있다고 보아, 이를 해결하기 위한 맞춤형 정책대안을 제시하는 연구를 수행하여 이를 수학적으로 입증하였다. 예컨대 인도에서 우수한 교육이 이루어지지 않는 이유에 대한 가설(“문구류(학습도구) 부족, 교과서 부족, 선생님 부족”)을 제시하고, 실험과 증거를 통하여 분석한 결과, 좋은 선생님이 부재하다는 점을 입증하여, 단기 계약직 선생님들의 다수 고용하되 성과가 좋은 경우에만 계약을 연장한 결과, 어린이들에게 좋은 교육을 제공할 수 있다는 점을 제시하였다. 본 논문은 증거에 기반한 정책 결정이 행정 법제화 되는 과정에서 규제법적 이론이 어떻게 기능할 수 있을지에 대한 고찰을 주된 대상으로 삼았다. 특히 급격하게 디지털 전환이 이루어지면서 정책 결정 과정에도 규제의 효용성과 합리성에 관한 논증이 요구되고 있다. 정책의 효용성에 대한 적절한 증거는 국민을 설득하고, 투명한 입법 절차에서 합리적인 토론에서 중요한 역할을 하기 때문이다. 특히 현대사회의 많은 규제는 기술, 환경, 금융, 지적재산권, 개인정보, 독과점, 식품안전 등을 다루는데 경찰, 안전 등 전통적 규제행정이론 영역에 비하여 규제정책의 합리성과 효과성은 중요한 입법적 논의의 전제가 되기 떄문이다. 증거기반규제는 “현 시점에서 가용가능한 가장 좋은 과학적 증거에 기반하여 보다 합리적이고, 바람직한 규제방식을 도출함”을 의미한다. 증거기반이라는 용어는 “증거기반 의학”(evidence-based medicine)에서 처음 사용, 증거기반 실행(practice), 증거기반 경찰작용, 증거기반 교육 등 정책 결정의 다양한 영역에서 광범위하게 활용되기 시작하였다. 미국에서는 1960년대 보건, 교육정책 수립에서 체계적 증거기반 연구가 수행되었고, 이를 바탕으로 2016년 증거기반정책수립위원회가 구성되었으며, 2020년 증거기반정책기본법 제정이 제정되었다. 하지만 증거기반규제는 증거해석의 일관성에 문제를 나타낸다. 즉, 어떤 변수나 가치에 더 가중치를 두는지에 따라서 다른 해석이 나타난다는 점, 과학적으로 특정 효과를 기대하더라도 군집적 인간의 행동과 판단이 결합되면서 증거와 정책의 효과 사이에 괴리가 발생할 수 있다는 점이다. 실증적으로는 증거 수집의 한계, 인과관계 분석의 한계, 일반화의 한계, 집행력의 한계가 나타나며 체계화 측면에서는 증거들간 우선순위 결정의 한계, 체계적 증거평가의 한계가 나타난다. 우리나라에서는 행정규제기본법이 도입되어 규제영향평가제도를 정부입법에 도입하였으며, 증거기반 행정법제 확산을 위하여 공공데이터법, 데이터기반행정법 등이 제정되기도 하였다. 또한, 2020년 코로나19 대응 과정에서 방역정책 마련, 예방접종 추진, 의료자원의 적정한 배분 등에 과학적 근거 존부가 논의되었다. 규제샌드박스 심의 과정에서 허가 등의 우선순위 결정에도 적절한 증거가 제시될 것이 논의되고 있다. 보건의료법제, 환경법제, 재정법제 등이 확산되면서 증거기반 정책이 입법에 반영되도록 하기 위해서는 신뢰할 수 있는 데이터의 안전한 수집과 활용, 정책에 대한 적절한 논거의 마련, 체계적인 연구를 통한 규제정책의 수립 등이 요구된다. The economists who won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics, “Professors Michael Kreimer, Esther Duplow, and Abhishek Banerjee,” believe that human behavior is the reason for the emergence of poverty, which is a challenging problem for humanity, and they prove it mathematically by conducting research and proposing customized policy alternatives to solve it. For example, he presented a hypothesis about the reasons for the lack of quality education in India (“lack of stationery, lack of textbooks, and lack of teachers”), analyzed it through experiments and evidence, and proved that the lack of good teachers was due to the lack of good teachers, and suggested that good education could be provided to children by hiring many teachers on short-term contracts and extending their contracts only if they performed well. This paper focuses on the role of regulatory legal theory in the process of evidence-based policymaking as administrative law. In particular, the rapid digital transformation has made it necessary for the policymaking process to argue for the effectiveness and rationality of regulations. Adequate evidence of policy effectiveness plays an important role in public persuasion and reasoned debate in a transparent legislative process. In particular, many modern regulations deal with technology, the environment, finance, intellectual property, privacy, antitrust, food safety, and other areas where the rationality and effectiveness of regulatory policy is an important premise for legislative debate compared to traditional areas of regulatory administration such as police and safety. Evidence-based regulation means “the derivation of more rational, desirable regulatory approaches based on the best scientific evidence available at the time”. The term evidence-based was first used in the context of “evidence-based medicine” and has since been widely applied to various areas of policy-making, including evidence-based practice, evidence-based policing, and evidence-based education. In the United States, systematic evidence-based research was conducted in health and education policymaking in the 1960s, leading to the formation of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission in 2016 and the enactment of the Evidence-Based Policy Framework Act in 2020. However, evidence-based regulation faces the problem of inconsistent interpretation of evidence, meaning that different interpretations emerge depending on which variables or values are weighted more heavily, and even if a certain effect is expected scientifically, the combination of collective human behavior and judgment can lead to a gap between evidence and policy effectiveness. Empirically, there are limitations in evidence collection, causal analysis, generalization, and enforcement, and in terms of systematization, there are limitations in prioritizing evidence and systematically evaluating evidence. In Korea, the Basic Act on Administrative Regulation was introduced to establish the regulatory impact assessment system in government legislation, and the Public Data Act and the Data-Based Administration Act were enacted to promote an evidence-based administrative law system. In addition, the 2020 COVID-19 response discussed the importance of scientific evidence in the preparation of quarantine policies, the promotion of vaccination, and the proper allocation of medical resources. The regulatory sandbox consultation process also discusses that appropriate evidence should be provided for prioritization of approvals, etc. To ensure that evidence-based policies are reflected in legislation as health, environmental, and financial laws proliferate, it is necessary to safely collect and use reliable data, prepare appropriate policy arguments, and establish regulatory policies through systematic research.