http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 황정인 (검색결과 185 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
황정인 한국형사판례연구회 2010 刑事判例硏究 Vol.18 No.-
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds using the case of Samsung Everland which Samsung Everland issued convertible bonds for dirt cheap in a scheme to have chairman Lee Kun-hee’s son inherit control of the Samsung group. According to the final decision of Supreme Court, Korea, the case was received the verdict of not guilty. As following the Supreme Court ruling, the interpretation restricted the concept of an act in violation of one's duty to a certain behavior having a potential risk of damage. However, the final decision has some doubtable factors to question its adequateness. Defining the duty violation using the factor of potential damage ignored the other factors such as justness(legitimacy) of purpose, due process, rationality of means. Additionally, it seems that the logical background of the final decision disbanded all factors equivalently without any weights on the certain behavior. That is, as excluding the factor of loss, it is clear that the accused issued the unfair convertible bond with wrongful purpose against due process. Therefore, it is clear to assert a possibility of breach of duty. On this paper I am going to go through the overall a jump in the logic for the decision of Supreme Court on criminal responsibility of issuing of cheap convertible bonds of Samsung Everland, and discuss the need of reconsideration of the case.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
수사절차에서의 진술내용에 관한 증거방법 : 전문법칙상 수사기관이 작성한 조서의 증거능력을 중심으로
황정인 경찰대학교 2011 경찰학연구 Vol.11 No.2
This article examines how 'Hearsay Rule' in US regulates admissibility of statement evidence, especially statements collected during interrogation by law enforcement officers. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence in US, written statement by law enforcement officers can't be presented to the court or tribunals. To use statements of an accused or a witness as an evidence in the court, the inspector who interrogated the accused or the witness should give his testimony in the court, unless the accused or the witness takes their own stands by themselves. Moreover, Hearsay Rule regulates more strictly the inspector's testimony of the statement of the witness than that the statement of the accused. To affect the jury's decision, the inspector's testimony should be about name or descriptions of the suspect which the inspectors have collected from victims or witnesses at the crime scene during or just after the crime. If the inspector give testimony about statement collected during interrogation, the testimony couldn't be accepted as an evidence in the court without guarantee of cross-examination. From the point of 'Hearsay Rule', the evidence rules under the law of Criminal Procedure has some problems. Under criminal justice system in Korea, documentary evidence is used more easily as an evidence in the court than the testimony of a witness. The court denies the admissibility of written statement by the law enforcement agency, moreover, doesn't guarantee the right of cross-examination. This article criticizes that criminal justice system in Korea both neglects the intent and the purpose of 'Hearsay Rules' and concentrates only on efficiency of criminal justice system.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
