서해안 대조차 개방형 연안에서 2010년 태풍 곤파스 전후에 나타난 지형, 표층 퇴적물, 퇴적상 변화에 대해 연구하였다. 소형의 강한 태풍인 곤파스는 2010년 9월 1일과 2일 사이에 한반도 남서부 해안에 상륙하여 내륙을 관통했다. 태풍 전후에 고창 동호리 조간대의 측선을 따라 30 m 간격으로 22개 지점에서 지형을 측량하고 표층 퇴적물을 채취하였다. 연구 지역을 평균고조면, 평균해수면, 평균저조면을 기준으로 고조대, 중조대, 저조대로 구분하였다. 태풍 전후의 지형 변화는 고조대에서 평균 0.03 m 퇴적, 중조대에서 평균 −0.15 m 침식, 저조대에서 평균 −0.39 m 침식으로 나타났다. 조간대의 태풍 전후 표층 퇴적물은 주로 세립사와 중립사로 구성되며, 세립사의 비율이 가장 높게 나타났다. 태풍 후 표층 퇴적물은 태풍 전에 비해 평균입도가 세립해졌고, 양호한 분급을 보였다.

고창 개방형 조간대는 황해의 동편, 한국 서남해 연안에 위치하며, 대조차, 개방형 연안, 모래 저질의 특징을 보 인다. 본 연구는 고창 조간대에서 표층 퇴적물의 계절별 퇴적상 변화를 연구하였다. 2014년 2월, 5월, 8월, 11월의 사계 절에 3개 측선을 따라 총 252개 지점에서 표층 퇴적물을 채취하고 분석하였다. 고창 조간대의 2014년 표층 퇴적물은 주로 세립 사질 퇴적물로 구성되며, 계절별로 겨울에 조립하고, 여름에 세립한 경향을 보였다. 연구 지역 인근의 계절별 파랑과 조위 관측 자료에 근거하여, 고창 조간대의 표층 퇴적작용에 영향을 미치는 요인은 파랑이 조석보다 계절의 변화 효과가 큰 것으로 해석되었다. 겨울에 상대적으로 큰 파고의 파랑 영향으로 표층 퇴적물이 조립한 반면, 여름에는 상대적으로 낮은 파고의 파랑 영향으로 세립한 것으로 해석되었다. 고창 조간대의 2014년 퇴적상 공간 분포는 고조대 의 계절별 편차가 저조대에 비해 상대적으로 크게 나타났으며, 고조대 입도가 조립하고 분급이 불량하게 나타났다. 고 조대에서 저조대 방향으로 갈수록 입도가 세립해지고 분급이 양호해지며 계절별 편차가 작아졌다.

고창 해빈은 황해의 동편, 한국 서남해 연안에 위치하며, 북쪽에서 남쪽 방향으로 동호리, 광승리, 명사십리 해 빈으로 구성된다. 고창 해빈은 대조차, 개방형, 직선형 해안, 모래 저질의 특징을 보인다. 본 연구는 고창 해빈에서 표 층 지형 변화와 퇴적물 집적률의 연평균과 계절 특성을 연구하였다. 2014년 겨울(2월), 봄(5월), 여름(8월), 가을(11월)과 2015년 겨울(2월)의 5계절 동안, 3개 측선을 따라 총 315개 지점에서 지형 고도를 측정하였다. 해안선에 수직인 각 측 선은 30 m 간격의 21 지점으로 구성된다. 고창 해빈의 2014년 연평균 집적률은 −0.081 m/yr로 침식이 우세하였다. 지 역별 연평균 집적률은 동호리 해빈 −0.091 m/yr, 광승리 해빈 −0.051 m/yr, 명사십리 해빈 −0.10 m/yr로 나타났다.

대부분 니질 퇴적물로 구성된 황해 남동부 흑산니질대 퇴적물의 기원지를 밝히기 위해 퇴적물 시료에 대해 주성분 원소와 희토류 원소(REE)를 분석하였다. 표층 퇴적물 시료는 흑산니질대 내 51지점에서 피스톤식과 박스형 시료 채취기로 획득하였다. 흑산니질대의 표층퇴적물은 니 퇴적물이 우세하게 나타나며, 평균입도는 5-6φ이다. 공간적으로 북쪽지역은 실트함량이 높고, 남쪽지역으로 갈수록 점토함량이 증가한다. 흥미롭게도 주성분 원소와 희토류 원소 함량 특성은 퇴적물 기원 해석에 있어 다른 결과를 가져왔다. Fe/Al과 Mg/Al 함량 비, Al2O3와 MgO 함량 비, Al2O3와 K2O를 각각 도시한 결과, 흑산니질대 퇴적물은 한국 기원의 퇴적물이 우세한 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 희토류 원소의 특성은 중국 기원의 퇴적물이 우세함을 반영한다. 이러한 기원 불일치는 각 원소의 함량 조절요인이 다르기 때문이다. 주성분 원소는 입도와 높은 상관관계를 고려할 때 입도에 따라 그 함량이 영향을 받는 것으로 해석된다. 반면에 희토류 원소는 입도와는 상관관계가 낮으며, 중광물 함량에 의해 조절되는 것으로 사료된다. 이와 같이, 각기 다른 추적자에 따른 기원의 불일치를 해결하기 위해 추가적인 연구가 필요하다.

북서태평양과 동해에서 채취된 4개의 코어는 퇴적구조, 생물교란정도와 내부침식면을 기준으로 과거 1만년 부근에서 상부와 하부로 구분된다. 특히, 시코쿠분지의 코어 KT94-10 상부퇴적물은 낮은 퇴적율, 높은 생물교란작용, 내부침식면, 사엽층리 등으로 특징지워지는데, 이러한 퇴적특징의 조합은 저탁류퇴적층이나 반원양성 퇴적물과는 다른 저층류퇴적물로 해석된다. 그러나 하부는 저층류의 영향을 받은 퇴적층이 관찰되지 않고, 생흔화석만 관찰되는 무구조 니질층의 특징을 보인다. 한편 동해 코어(95PC3)에서는 어떠한 저층류 관련 퇴적물도 관찰되지 않는다. 상부는 생물교란 니질층으로, 하부는 엽층리 니질층으로 구성되어 있으며 환원적 환경을 표시하는 황철석을 포함하고 있다. 결과적으로 북서태평양과 동해 코어의 퇴적특징은 심층류순환이 10,000년 전부터 빨라졌음을 표시하고 있다. 또 같은 시기일지라도, 심층수순환은 동해보다 북서태평양이 더 활발함을 보여주고 있다.

곰소만 중앙부의 하부 조간대(lower tidal flat)에는 길이 1300m, 폭 400m규모의 조간대 모래톱(intertidal sand shoal)이 남북 방향으로 발달한다. 이 모래톱을 경계로 3개 구역으로 구분하고, 각 구역에서 표층 퇴적구조, 입도 분포, 퇴적물 이동량(집적율), 그리고 천부 퇴적상을 분석하여, 각 구역의 에너지 영역을 비교하였다. 그 결과 각 구역의 퇴적 특징은 다음과 같다: A 구역(offshorewards zone) -세립사(평균입도 3Φ), 혀모양 연흔, 월 평균 70mm의 집적율과 미발달생물교란구조, B 구역(sand shoal) -중립사(평균입도 2.5Φ), 사구(4∼5m의 파장),월 평균 30mm의 집적율과 미발달 생물교란구조, C 구역(onshorewards zone) - 조립질 실트(평균입도 5Φ), 굴곡형 연흔, 월 평균 10mm의 집적율과 잘 발달된 생물교란구조. 이러한 결과로부터 하부 조간대에 분포하고 있는 모래톱은 외해에서부터 유입되는 파랑의 에너지를 분산시키거나 또는 막아주는 역할을 하고 있는 것으로 추측된다. 즉 곰소만 조간대에 사주섬이 없음에도 불구하고, 저 에너지상태로 유지되고 있는 것은 만의 안쪽 지역에 위치하는 모래들이 방파제의 역할을 하고 있기 때문으로 사료된다.

The 2011Mo1839 ruling of the Supreme Court of Korea decided on July 17, 2015 that the course of retrieving the data storage device or the legally copied files, printing and copying the information related to the accused case is regarded as a part of the total search and seizure procedure under a warrant. And the ruling described that those printed and copied objects are limited to the scope which is relevant to the accused crime under a warrant. In addition to that, the Court ruled that during the total course of retrieving, printing and copying, the presence right of those subject to seizure shall be guaranteed. By the ruling, it would illegal to print and copy relevant digital files mixed with information which is not relevant to the accused crime or not to guarantee the presence right of those subject to seizure. This ruling maintains a point of view the Court's 2009Mo1190 ruling. Especially, the requirement that seized articles shall be deemed to be relevant to the accused case has benefits of making general searches under warrants impossible and preventing the seizure of things irrelevant to the case under a warrant. But those rulings are open to a lot of questions if the balance with the due process law and the truth-finding function of the criminal justice process is being maintained. There are various opinions about the construction and interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the object of seizure, the time of completing the search and seizure, the scope of those whose presence right are guaranteed, the difference between physical evidence and digital evidence in the execution of search and seizure warrant. If it is not sure when the search and seizure is completed, the procedural guarantee including the presence right would make the truth-finding function and the legality of search and seizure highly fluid and unsettled. And those confusion and inappropriate restrictions will cause the execution inefficiency of the warrant and impose a substantial burden upon the administration of the criminal justice process. Therefore, enthusiastic discussions of digital evidence seizure should proceed and lead to a law-making solution to strengthen the truth-finding function of the criminal justice process while preserving the due process law.

In these days, transnational illicit trafficking cases in narcotic drugs like methamphetamine, marijuana as well as smuggling cases of buying illicit drugs directly from a foreign seller on the internet are increasing sharply. Customs inspection and controlled delivery are recognized to be one of the most effective tools to combat transnational drugs trafficking cases by an international mail. The 2013do7728 ruling of the Supreme Court of Korea has a meaning that it is the first ruling about the legal character of Customs inspection of an international mail and the legality of controlled delivery. In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that customs inspection of an international mail without a search and seizure warrant is legal because considering the purpose of Customs Act and the procedures provided in the Act, notifications and instructions of Korea customs service, customs inspection is not a legal disposition in the criminal procedure but an administrative investigation. Controlled delivery enables the law enforcement agencies to specifically identity, arrest and prosecute not only the carriers and couriers but also the principals, organizers and financiers of such illicit activities. Under the controlled delivery system, the delivery of an international mail such as narcotic drugs is monitored closely by law enforcement officers in order to identify as many members of a trafficking network as possible and to arrest them at a point where legal proof is most readily available. And the Court decided that controlled delivery is not a seizure as a legal disposition of taking possession of a property and after the delivery, the seizure of narcotic drugs by the investigative authority with a consent of the accused is also legal.

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribe that only the prosecutor is authorized to prosecute a criminal case and to determine whether or not a criminal case will be prosecuted. On the other hand, the judicial review system is implemented in the Korean criminal procedure to protect the constitutional right of criminal victims to make a statement in a trial and to judicially control the prosecutorial discretion. It was limited to some abusive crimes of authority by a public officer but is expanded to all crimes after the revised Act took effect on and after January 1, 2008. An accuser as a victim of crime should file a review by the prosecution before appealing to the court against the prosecutorial disposition not to be prosecuted. And the prosecutorial review is compulsory as a legal obligation prior to the judicial review. It helps to enhance the efficiency of the reviewing system on prosecutorial discretion. It also is intended to minimize expenditures of time and to prevent abusing the judicial reviews. But there are some exceptions in the preliminary proceeding. An accuser as a victim of crime can appeal directly to the court against the prosecutorial disposition not to be prosecuted without going through a prosecutorial review where ⅰ) a notice that the prosecutor made a decision not to be prosecuted is reached after being investigated again through the prosecutorial review, ⅱ) 3 months has passed without any decision since filing a prosecutorial review, or ⅲ) the prosecutor doesn't indict until 30 days to the completion of prescription for prosecution. The accusers shall file to the court a written petition of the judicial review on the prosecutorial disposition within 10 days of the notice's arrival. They shall appeal to the court within 10 days when the exceptional condition has been fulfilled. Even though an exception is applicable, the accuser may go through a prosecutorial review. That is to say, the accuser is not forced to appeal to the court in case of an exception. Because it is intended by the lawmakers to protect the right of an accuser as a victim and is not proper to disadvantage an accuser who go through the statutory procedure. Especially, the purpose of allowing the direct appeal to the court after 3 months' passing without any decision of the prosecutorial review is not to force the appeal to the court but to protect the interest of an accuser.

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea has not had an explicit provision for the right to the presence of counsel during interrogation until the Article 243-2 of the revised Act took effect on and after January 1, 2008. Whether being in custody or not, a suspect is entitled to have counsel present during interrogation. But while the right to counsel has been the constitutional right, there was discussions on the content and extent of the right. the Article 34 of the previous Act provided the right to counsel for only a suspect in custody and the Article 243 of the previous Act had prescribed only an investigation officer or policeman as those who could be present during interrogation. So the question that a suspect could have a counsel present during interrogation was raised in the practice and the academic circles of law. Many of them had denied the right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea had held that a suspect in custody had the right to the presence of counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea had determined to confer the right on a suspect without custody. There were advances of the right to counsel through these decisions in Korea. After the 2007 criminal procedure reform, the Act has an explicit provision for the right. Therefore, a suspect is entitled to have a counsel present during the course of investigation and is allowed to get advice from the counsel. Also the counsel is allowed to be present with the client during interrogation. However, unlike the right of a suspect, the right of a counsel is not granted by the Constitution of Korea but by the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea.