독도는 서기 512년 이래 엄연히 대한민국영토이다. 역사적 및 국제법적 사실들이 이를 증거 한다. 그런데도 불구하고, 주미한국대사 양유찬 박사로부터 샌프란시스코 평화조약 초안에, ‘독도와 파랑도‘를 명시하여 줄 것을 요청한 서한(1951.7.19. 및 동년 8.1)에 대한 미국무성 차관보 러스크의 비공개(unpublished) 답신 (Rusk Note, 동년 8.10)에서, ’독도‘에 대한 미국의 입장이 일본편향적인 것으로 되어 있었다. 이에 주미한국 대사는 동의한 바가 없었다. 따라서 미구정부의 동 입장은 아무런 국제법적 효력이 없음은 물론이다. 그런 데도, 덜레스(John F. Dulles) 미국무성 장관은 그 후(1953) 동 기존 일본편향 미국입장을 번복(reburse)시켰으므로, 러스크 서한 중 기존 ’미국의 입장“은 사문화 된 것이다. 당시 동 입장번복에 대한 주일 미국대사의 강력한 반대가 있었음에도 불구하고, 덜레스 장관은 주일 미국대사 앞 비밀전보(Telegram dated Dec. 9, 1953) 지시에 의거 미국정부의 새 입장을 천명하였는바 요약하면 다음과 같다. ⑴ 러스크 서한(Rusk Note)은 비공개 서한으로서 일본에 통보한적 없다. (필자 주: 이는 비공개 문건인 러스크 서한을 통보받은 바 없는 일본이 동서한에 근거하여 미국에게 ‘독도‘에 대한 우호적 입장 요구는 어불설성임을 함축 하고 있음) ⑵ 미국은 한일 간 독도문제에 개입되지 않는 것이 마땅하다. ⑶ 동 문제에 대한 미국의 입장은 평화조약 전체서명국가의 개별의견 중 하나에 불과하다. ⑷ 동 문제는 당사국들 스스로 해결하지 못하면, 국제사법재판소에 회부 처리가 마땅한 것으로 믿는다. 따라서, 필자는 ‘독도’와 관련된 서술이나 강연 등에 있어서. 러스크 서한 중 ‘독도’에 관한 기존 미국입장을 논함에 있어서, 동 기존미국입장을 번복시킨 덜레스 장관의 전기 전보지시내용 설명을 누락 또는 생략함은 독자나 수강자에게 올바른 사실보다는 편견이나 왜곡내용을 전할 우려가 있다는 견지에서, 이런 류의 강론 등은 철저한 학문적 검증을 통하 여, 근거가 없는 것은 이 사회에서 추방되어야 마땅하다고 생각한다. “대마도가 옛날 우리 땅이므로, 독도 뿐만 아니라 대마도도 일본에 청구해야 한다”는 등도 철저한 학문적 검증대상이 되어야 마땅할 것이다

In accordance with the provision of Article 308–2 of Criminal Procedure Act, any evidence obtained in violation of the due process shall not be admissible. This Article newly inserted by Act No. 8496, Jun. 1. in 2007. Since then, there has been a series of a decision on the evidence, including the exclusionary rule, the fruits of poisonous tree doctrine, and the circumstance that would give exceptionally the admissibility of secondary evidence. In addition, there were a number of decisions that required to be prepared in compliance with the due process and proper methods in giving the admissibility of evidence in relation to the protocol, etc. prepared by prosecutor or senior judicial police officer. As a whole, due to the influence of making a stipulation of the exclusion of evidence illegally obtained, it is clear that the case law in the field of evidence law is proceeding in a direction to emphasize the guarantee of the due process. And in accordance with the provision of Article 314(Exception to Admissibility of Evidence) or 316(Statement of Hearsay) (2), in the case of Article 312 or 313, if a person who is required to make a statement at a preparatory hearing or a trial is unable to make such statement, which is impossible to exercise the right of cross–examination, the relevant protocol and other documents shall be admissible as evidence: Provided, that this shall apply only when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state. In relation to the above provisions, court’s decision maintains a more rigorous interpretation as a requirement for admissibility of hearsay evidence. In addition, court’s decision seems to be proceeding to apply strictly requirements for admissibility of evidence of documents or output from the digital storage media, explaining the requirements of seizure and search of digital storage media in response to overall scientific and information– oriented society. And the recent decision describes the problem of establishing the judgment criteria of scientific evidence as a solution to the problem of misuse of science among the problems in the process of interaction between science and law in accordance with the criminal case. In conclusion, it is still a question of how to realize concretely the general principle that the two sets of demands, namely the discovery of substantive truths and the protection of the human rights of defendants (the guarantee of due process and the deterrence of illegal investigation) under the exclusionary rule.

In 2007, the Criminal Procedure Act has been changed into actually new law reflecting the social demands to protect the rights of defendants and suspects in the criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2011, adding the relevance as a requirement of seizure and specifying the range and method of seizure or search on digital evidence. And it supplemented the method of proving the authenticity of digital evidence with some amendments in 2016. It can be said that it has continued to influence the Supreme Court precedent and the precedent also influenced legislation and investigation practice and led to change. This article examines the trends of major cases in the proceedings and evidence law since 2007. The Supreme Court’s cases on investigation procedures and evidence law have consistently emphasized the due process principles of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, and apply strict standards for existing practices throughout the investigation process including voluntary company, arrest, interrogation, and occasionally have suggested standards and directions of practice from the perspective of judicial control. In particular, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was applied to use of material evidence and the evidence that was illegally collected by the investigating agency in violation of the due process could not be used as evidence of guilt in principle. In the exceptional case that the procedural violation is not equivalent to the violation of the substantive contents of the due process, and the exclusion of the evidence is against the harmonization of the due process and substantive truth in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence can be used. Thereafter, the Supreme Court has elaborated the criteria and exceptional jurisprudence on the illegally obtained evidence through various precedents. Since 2007, there have been important precedents related to the seizure of digital evidence, the authenticity and exceptional application of hearsay rule on digital evidence, and specific precedents on the interpretation and standards of exceptional application of hearsay rule of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, which were also the starting point of a new discussion. And this article suggests that, for right judicial justice, the two axes of the due process principle and the request for the discovery of the substantive truth should be mutually realized in harmony rather than abandoning any one.

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.

The relevancy of the seized evidence to the charged crime is a very important issue in that it is connected with the exclusionary rule and there is some risk the evidence could be excluded in trial. Therefore it should be interpreted with sufficient consideration with the various situation in which the investigation is carried, diverse kinds of evidences which are gathered for investigating and prosecuting crime. This relevancy means the evidential value for investigation and prosecution, and the evidential value includes not only the direct but also the indirect and the circumstantial. In this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient consideration with the various elements of the relevancy, especially the indirect, supplementary, circumstantial value of evidence. Forethemore, it is inappropriate in this case the court of appeal used the issue of relevancy as a tool to restrict the legally obtained evidence relevant to a certain crime from using evidence for other’s crime and the Supreme Court accepted the result. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the issue of relevancy from that of the extent of the utilization of the legally seized evidence should be made actively and lead to the appropriate interpretation.

Centennial- to millennial-scale climate change since the last glacial needs to be revealed to improve the overall predictability of future environmental change. Special attention has been paid to short-term climate oscillations because they usually occurred rapidly enough to cause noticeable change in the average expected lifespan of human. Recently, short-term climate change during the late last glacial was successfully reconstructed from Hanon maar paleolake in Jeju island. In this study, centennial- to millennial-scale climate signals transferred via atmospheric teleconnection were detected for the first time in South Korea. Possible future presence of abrupt climate shifts such as Younger Dryas or 8.2 ka event would not seriously influence the Korean peninsula, especially not Jeju island, due to the Kuroshio warm currents. The study of climate variabilities in Korea could provide essential paleoclimatic information for the entire East Asian monsoon region since the climate of the Korean peninsula is driven significantly by coupled land-atmosphere-ocean dynamics.

So-called Wang-jaesan decision (2013do2511) was declared by ‘Korean Supreme Court’ (hereafter ‘KSC’) in July, 2013. The decision had a lot of important substantial and procedural issues in criminal spheres. However, what I have tried to concentrate in this review are only two issues, the one is the issue of the authenticity of electronic evidence (or digital evidence), the other is the issue of the application of ‘the Korean version hearsay rule’ (hereafter ‘KHR’) of the electronic evidence. The methodology of this review is the comparative analysis of the Wang-jaesan decision from the perspective of Federal Rules of Evidence (hereafter ‘FRE’). In Wang-jaesan decision KSC defined the concept of integrity of electronic evidence as ‘the contents of the digital data have not been altered in any manner from the moment that were seized’ or ‘that evidence wasn’t changed after it was captured or collected.’ The meaning of this concept is different from the meaning of the traditional ‘exactness of utterances’(成立의 眞正) of article 312, 312 of KHR. That concept was made from the unique Korean modern legal history. However, it cannot deal with so many hard cases properly. Therefore I suggest in chapter Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ that We Korean legal scholars and practitioners should adopt the concept of authentication something like FRE, even though Korean Criminal Procedure Law does not have clear stipulations about it. In chapter Ⅴ, Ⅵ I did comparing analyses about the applications of KHR by KSC since 1990’s up to the 2010’s. I found that KSC has adopted enormously FRE when there were no clear stipulations in Korean Criminal Procedure Law. This is a kind of interesting phenomenon which deserves to be analyzed from the perspective of comparative law and global legal transplant of evidence rule.

This research paper is a commentary on the Constitutional Court’s 2013.10.24. sentence 2011 Hunba 79 decision. The point issues of the Constitutional Court’s decisions are as follows. Whether it has violated the principle of definiteness, the principle of excess prohibition, and whether including the accomplice’s protocol of trial in the same article is a violation of the constitution. This writer is a testifier who has suggested a constitutional opinion in the Constitutional Court’s public defense. Therefore, there will be an annotation on the Court’s decision based on the written opinion which may agree with the Court’s basis of decision or have a different perspective towards it. The legislative intent of the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is to accept creditable papers with exceptions to the hearsay rule, allowing the trial procedure to get along smoothly and contributing to the finding of the truth of substance. Japan, on the other hand does not allow a protocol of trial from a different case to have admissibility of evidence. However, there is not a big difference in the procedure of deciding the actual admissibility. Similarly, the United States enumerates the exceptions to the hearsay rule, presuming it limitedly, but with multiple instances laid in the legislation, there is not much difference, compared to Korea’s criminal procedure, in how the evidence law is operated. In addition, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is a regulation on the procedure for the preservation of evidence, not applied to the principle of definiteness. Also, the interpretation itself can concretely determine the range of application, therefore not a vague regulation. As seen above, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure does not transgress the principle of legal step or the principle of excess prohibition. In short, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is constitutional, considering the legislative intent, comparison with foreign legislation cases, and juridical examination. Though the protocol of trial with an accomplice’s testimony is guaranteed to have a high level of ‘voluntariness’ and ‘due process’ because it is realized in the court before judges, considering the content, there may be a possibility of false testimony to shift responsibility on the defendant. In conclusion, this writer approves of the improvement of the legislation, for it is more desirable to have a definite legislation to guarantee people’s basic human rights and develop the code of criminal procedure based on the principle of constitutional state.

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribes that a written statement prepared by the investigative authority is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method. The requirement of ‘due process and proper method’ means the legality of the process and method of preparing a written statement by the investigative authority. On the other hand, the Article 7 of the Korean act on protection of specific crime informants(hereinafter referred to as “the informants protection act”) provides that when any retaliation is likely to be taken against an informant of a crime or his/her relatives, prosecutors or police officers are not required to note all or part of information which verifies the identity of the informant of the crime, such as a name, age, address or occupation. In regard to the requirement of ‘due process and proper method’, it is questionable whether a written statement of witness under a pseudonym is admissible as evidence where it is prepared on the crimes other than the specific crime prescribed in the informants protection act. In this case, the lower court and the appellate court decided that a written statement of witness under a pseudonym was not admissible because the questioned crime of blackmail was not the specific crime and the statement under a pseudonym did not comply with the due process and proper method. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that the investigative authority could prepare the protocol of a written statement under a pseudonym, if there had been a probable cause considering a combination of circumstances such as the relation between witness and the defendant, the type of crime, the necessity of protecting the witness because the Criminal Procedure Act did not require a real name in the written statement to verify the identity of witness. And the Court ruled that the meaning of ‘due process and proper method’ prescribed in the Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act was that the investigative authority must comply with all process and methods provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, like informing of the right to remain silent where a written statement was prepared. However, the balancing test of a probable cause in the ruling has a problem with not presenting a bright-line rule in the investigative procedure and arousing new controversies.

The scientific evidence has become more important in judicial conflict. Aside from its authenticity, scientific evidence combining with tendency in perception of people affect establishment of the fact greatly when it is adopted as evidence. Therefore, which channel is used to have the court recognize science evidence has emerged as an important issue, especially in the U.S. where jury trials have taken place in stead of judge trials. The U.S. Supreme Court has provided a variety of legal grounds on this issue and is developing the grounds. In this commentary, the progress of discussion in the U.S. regarding adoption of scientific evidence is reviewed in detail.Korea is about to introduce full-fledged criminal trial by jury, so how to adopt expert testimony including scientific evidence to confirm the fact of judicial conflicts will have more grave importance. In this regard, discussion over the role of a justice as a gate keeper, suggested in the Supreme Court’s decision on Daubert case, will take shape.The court has tried to evaluate scientific evidence through precedents on individual evidence including a polygraph. The subject decision is very significant because it went further to suggest common standard for validity of scientific evidence by referring to the reliability standard suggested in the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings. However, suggesting the generality without legal basis like the U.S. Federal rules on evidence has a room for criticism such as ‘creating the law’ by court’s decisions. To resolve such concerns, admissibility of evidence and reliability should be divided and standards appropriate for Korea’s criminal procedure system where strict evidence reliability is needed. Then, based on those efforts, interpretation on court rulings should be developed. The discussion between the academia and the field is urgently necessary. Also, judgement on scientific evidence requires collaboration between the science and the judicial society. Therefore, various efforts for communication and institutional improvements shown in the commentary must be developed and there should be improvements regarding the system of seeking an expert opinion.

The defendant consulted an attorney-at-law regarding legal issues which might constitute crimes before commencement of an investigation. The defendant received legal opinion from the counsel by e-mail, which was later seized and presented as evidence of guilt by investigative authority.The court of original instance rejected to accept written legal opinion from the counsel as evidence on the ground of Attorney-Client Privilege. The Supreme Court, however, deemed Attorney-Client Privilege is not rooted in our legal system.I concur with the opinion of the Supreme Court in that we have yet to find traditional or provisional basis for Attorney-Client Privilege. It is premature to acknowledge the concept of Attorney-Client Privilege without in-depth probe. Instead, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court looked to Articles 314 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 314 provides one of the exceptions to hearsay rule, which allows the written statement to be admitted as evidence of guilt without cross-examination against the person who wrote the statement, in case that the person is not available due to illness, unknown whereabouts, etc. as well as that the statement is proved to have been written under especially reliable circumstances. Article 149 confers the right to refuse to testify on the legal counsel regarding professional secrets he obtained in the course of business. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. The majority opinion based its rationale on the fact that Article 314 had been revised with a tendency to reinforce oral hearing and direct examination by narrowing the scope of the exceptions to hearsay rule, as well as on the purpose Article 149 seeks to achieve. On the contrary, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court deemed that Article 314 shall apply in case of exercise of right for refusal of witness under Article 149. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Article 314 serves to discover the truth by allowing hearsay evidence under exceptional circumstances. According to the dissenting opinion, there is no difference between situation where the witness is unable to appear because of illness, etc. and situation where the witness exercises his right to refuse to testify when it comes to applying Article 314.I concur with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. The witness who refuses to testify may or may not have lawful grounds to refuse. If he has sufficient lawful grounds, we should pay attention to the purpose of the Article which confers the right to refuse to testify. In this context, it stands to reason to declare that Article 314 shall not apply in case that the legal counsel exercises his right to refuse to testify under Article 149. By denying the admissibility of legal opinion as evidence of guilt, written by the legal counsel who lawfully exercises the right to refuse to testify, we can further the right to refuse to testify as well as the principle of oral hearing and direct examination.

Although vivid testimony of the witness and/or the defendant in the courtroom is very important in fact-finding, hearsay evidences are widely accepted in relation to the criminal cases. Recently diverse medias such as documents, audio-tapes, video-tapes, computer discs or electronic files which recorded statements spoken by a private person under the private circumstance are available as evidences to prove the fact asserted in such statements.According to the Criminal Procedure Act in Korea the document which contains the statements of the defendant or the witness written by a private person is admissible when autograph, sign or seal of the writer or the speaker is certified and correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer or the speaker in the courtroom during the trial. But the document which contains the statement of the defendant is admissible when correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer in the courtroom during the trial and especially reliable circumstance is affirmed, even if the speaker deny the statement in the document.With regard to the admissibility of recorded statement, the authentication of record might be established by the speaker or the recorder. And the correctness of recording in principle should be confirmed by the speaker. But the defendant is inclined to deny his/her own past statement which may be construed as evidence leading to conviction. So the recorder might confirm the correctness of recording if the speaker made the statement under the especially reliable circumstance.

Introducing hearsay rule in 1961, the words of provisions that provide the authentication and attendance of the declarant as exceptions of principle of the court's self-experience, were used as exceptions of the hearsay rule. It results in confusion of the elements of the hearsay rule with the elements of the authentication in the jurisprudence. Many literatures insist and place emphasis on the elements of the authentication as the elements of exceptions of the hearsay rule. With this confusion and misunderstanding, it became very difficult to understand the hearsay rule and many improper interpretations result from this confusion. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the elements of the hearsay rule from the elements of the authentication should be made actively and lead the academy and practice.

Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not limit explicitly the time limit that public prosecutor should request a warrant to seize, search or inspect evidence. But after the public prosecutor filed the charges, he cannot request a warrant by article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. After the indictment, the court may seize any articles which, it believes, may be used as evidence, or liable to confiscation, by article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act. And the court may, if necessary, search the defendant, effects, or dwelling or any other place of the defendant, by article 109(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court may search the person, effects, dwelling or any other place of a person other than the defendant, only when there are circumstances which warrant the belief that there are articles liable to seize therein. If the public prosecutor collected the evidence by a search warrant issued from a district court judge other than the court in charge of the case, those evidence are not admissible in principle, because those collection of evidence does not follow legal procedures, which are prepared for human rights. Supreme Court decided it April 28, 2011, on 2009Do10412 case.

Si la demande de la part d'un agent de police de le suivre au commissariat comme un moyen d'enquête ne parvient pas à satisfaire la force de maintien requise sensiblement, c'est l'arrestation illégale. Donc détention illégale que les preuves recueillies dans le cadre de la loi de la preuve comme preuve de la recevabilité devrait être négatif. Toutefois, la demande de la part d'un agent de police de le suivre au commissariat rassemblement arrestation illégale, des preuves illégale recueillies dans de telles circonstances à titre de preuve, même la preuve que le défendeur seront recueillies auprès de tiers plutôt que de les lorsque le défendeur directement sur l e s affirmations qui peuvent être utilisés comme preuve de culpabilité. Perçues illégalement principe d'exclusion de la preuve est la proposition du bien absolu, mais en fonction de cas individuels d'intérêt public et intérêts privés en harmonie avec la phrase spécifique afin de s'assurer de la validité des restrictions à certains principes mesure inévitable, et d'autres grands pays qui ont une telle raison, le principe d'exclusion illégalement recueilli des preuves a reconnu une exception pour une variété de théories qui peuvent être vus.

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.

연체동물의 성은 자웅이체와 자웅동체로 구분된다. 자웅동체는 동시자웅동체 (simultaneous or synchronous hermaphroditism)와 비동시자웅동체 (sequential or asynchronous hermaphroditism)로 구분되는데, 비동시자웅동체는 성의 전환을 의미한다 (Heller, 1993; Gosling, 2004). 일반적으로 자웅이체의 경우, 개체의 형태학적 성을 확인한 후, 암수로 표현되는 것은 그 개체의 생활사 가운데 일정시기에 한정된 것이다. 이들의 성을 정확히 파악하기 위해서는 개체의 연속적인 성의 변화 추적이 필요하다. 이매패류의 성전환 가능성에 관한 간접적인 증거는 개체군 수준에서 크기에 따른 성비 변화이다. 또 다른 간접적인 증거는 상당수의 이매패류들은 생식주기 동안 생식소조직이 완전 퇴화되어 형태학적 성의 구분이 불가능한 비활성기를 가진다는 것이다. 이러한 결과는 다음의 생식주기가 시작될 때 새로운 형태학적 성의 발달 가능성을 제시한다. 본 연구에 사용된 꼬막은 남해안 여수시 장수만에서 채집하였다. 조직학적인 분석 결과, 꼬막의 생식소는 1년을 주기로 비활성기 (12～2월), 초기활성기 (3～4월), 후기활성기 (5～6월), 산란 및 퇴화흡수기 (6～11월)의 연속적인 과정을 거치게 되는데, 이 가운데 비활성기에는 생식세포들이 완전 흡수되어 성을 구분할 수 없었다. 성비분석에는 각장 (SL) 10.5～44.6mm 크기의 1,232개체가 사용되었다. 조직학적으로 분석한 결과, 이들의 성비 (암:수)는 1:1.04였다. 하지만, 각장을 2.0mm 간격으로 나누어 이들의 성비를 분석한 결과, 성비는 크기에 따라 다르게 나타났으며, 크기가 증가함에 따라 암컷의 비율이 높아지는 경향을 보였다. SL 10.5～32.0mm (n=772)에서 성비는 1:1.33으로 수컷의 비율이 높았으나, SL 32.1～44.6mm (n=460)에서 성비는 1:0.67로 암컷의 비율이 높았다. 이러한 결과는 꼬막의 성장에 따른 성전환을 간접적으로 의미한다. 따라서 꼬막의 성을 정확히 파악하기 위해서는 개체의 연속적인 성의 변화 추적이 필요하다.

It is defined that digital evidence is all valuable information as evidence that is preserved and delivered in digital form, the salient traits of its character is independent from a storage, invisible, unreadable etc., it must be solved authenticity, reliability, best evidence for the purpose of its admissibility.In our criminal procedure law, the evidence is classified into two types, statements and objects, objects as evidence are composed of documents and things, it could be included statements by a person or not in documents as evidence. In essence digital evidence is regarded as documents evidence so hearsay-rule is applicable to it.To acquire admissibility of digital evidence made by a person it is important that the person acknowledges his digitals documents produced by him-self according to the criminal procedure law art. 313① in a court but the opinion that only the acknowledgement by a writer can give admissibility of digital evidence is very dangerous in criminal procedure because it may make valuable evidences useless things.In the revised criminal procedure law new solution is imposed in it. Even though a person deny its contents in a report said by him-self for example “I didn’t talk like that in a report”, prosecutor could prove that a report made by a investigator is credible and exact in the objective way including recording video-tape etc., the admissibility of a report evidence can be achieved recognition.This revised purpose must be regraded as a new basis in evidence law totally, even if a person deny his digital document made by him-self for example “I didn't make digital document like that”, prosecutor could prove that a digital document is made by him-self in the objective way including analysis meta-data etc., “it is you who made this digital document”, the admissibility of a digital document evidence could be achieved recognition. if to prove who made a digital document evidence end in failure, its admissibility have to be reviewed again according to criminal procedure law art. 315, valuable digital evidence must not go into the dumper easily.Anyone talking about evidence in criminal procedure cannot help but mention digital information that is essential in it by progress of scientific technology.Much to our regret, there is not at all rule for the purpose of admissibility of digital evidence in present criminal procedure law, as a result many opinions and judicial decisions consider requisites of admissibility of digital document as one of admissibility of non-digital document but an intrinsic attribute of digital evidence is profoundly different from one of traditional evidence.Ultimately I think that criminal procedure law must be revised referring to foreign country’ law to acquire admissibility of digital evidence although a person deny a digital document that is made by him-self, if prosecutor could be successful in pr○○f, “it is written by him-self”, in other words witness or suspect, the digital evidence shall be useful.I wish to be collected g○○d thoughts to prevent that valuable digital evidence may be discharged by only one statement of a wicked-person.

In this case, the appeal court says, the fact that the defendant used the privilege against self-incrimination and denied answering the questions of the police in the investigative process could not be used as evidence for evaluating the charge to the disadvantage of the defendant. This reference is appropriate. But the principle that we must not use the fact of no answer as evidence for regarding the assertion of the defendant as unreliable should not be confused as a principle that we must give an advantage to the no answer defendant. No answer could not prohibit the fact finder from infering truth from the indirect circumstantial facts. In this case, the defendant insisted that the drug in his body was not injected by him and he did not know how it was in his body. As two persons known visited him the day of arrest and he saw they put injectors in the waterpot, he thouhgt propably they injected the drug in his body in a stealthy way. But the defendant only insisted this story and did not give any clue with which this story could be checked up and for identifying the two persons. Therefore his assertion should be valued as unreliable because of the unreliability of the assertion itself, not because of the fact of no answer. And as the subjective factors as perception, intention, knowing etc could be infered by indirect factors, in this case, the fact that the defendant injected the drug voluntarily could be presumed from the fact that he was arrested in the intoxication in his room, there was none in his room when he was arrested, injectors were founded in his room. So the fact-finding of the court would be said inappropriate.On the other hand, the appeal court says, when the defendant decided to use the privilege against self-incrimination and not to answer, the police should immediately stop questioning. As in this case the police continued questioning, the interrogation is illegal. But this comment is inappropriate because the current criminal process law recognize the right to question to the public attorney and the police independently to the right of the defendant not to answer. Consequently the police can put questions to the defendant though he uses the privilege. But it is up to the decision of the defendant, whether he refuses all questions from the beginning to the end, or reply partly. As for ruling the interrogation, Korean law is different from the American law. Furthemore, in this case, the questions the police put to the silent defendant were for the name or for affirming whether the defendant would use the privilege or not. Because the questions are not for the fact for the defendant's charge, it would be not illegal with the viewpoint of American law.

기존 영토·영해 국제분쟁에 관련 국제법 판결을 살펴보면 실효 적 지배의 중요성을 인식할 수 있다. 독도 관련 한국의 실효적 지 배의 역사적 사실들을 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 한국인은 고대 이전 부터 울릉도에 거주했다. 한국정부는 최소 15세기 중엽 울릉도와 독도를 그 판도로 정확하게 인식했고, 울릉도와 독도의 영유권을 행사했다. 그 대표적인 증거가 1454년 세종실록(世宗實錄) ｢지리 지｣, 1531년 신증동국여지승람(新增東國輿地勝覽) 등이 바로 그 것이다. 무엇보다도 17세기 말 한국 정부는 일본 막부의‘죽도도해금지령 (竹島渡海禁止令)’에 기초하여 한일양국의 현안 중 하나인 울릉도와 독도가 한국 영토라는 공식적인 확인 절차를 마무리했다. 여 기서 주목할 점은 일본이 소위‘안용복사건’(1693-1696)으로 촉발 된 한일 외교교섭 이후 1905년 시마네현의 독도편입까지 200년간 독도에 대한 아무런 영유권 주장도 제기하지 않았다는 사실이다. 소위‘안용복 사건’이후 한국 정부는 울릉도와 독도에 대한 관 심이 증대되면서 울릉도와 독도에 대한 방어 노력을 기울였다. 한 국 정부는 이미 1694년 삼척첨사 장한상(張漢相)을 파견해 울릉도 를 자세히 살피게 했고, 1694년과 1697년 막부의‘죽도도해금지 령’이 내려지면서 울릉도 수토정책(搜討政策, 순검과 수색)을 정 식화했다. 그 후 한국 정부는 18세기 독도를 포함한 울릉도 수토 를 진행하면서 울릉도의 시찰, 울릉도 자원 조사 및 채취 등을 실 제로 실행했다. 대한제국 정부는 1900년 6월 내부시찰관(內部視察官) 울도시찰위 원(鬱島視察委員) 우용정(禹用鼎)을 울릉도에 파견하여 울릉도와 독도의 실효적 점유를 강화했다. 우용정은 1900년 자신의 보고서 인 울도기(鬱島記) 에서 대한제국 선포 이후 고종의 황제 등극을 표현했다. 이것은 서구 열강과 동등한 근대국가를 지향하려는 모 습 중 자국의 영토와 영해에 대한 행정관할 의식을 높이려는 고종 과 대한제국 정부의 의지를 반영한 것이다. 이러한 배경으로 1900년 10월 25일 대한제국은‘울릉도를 울도 (鬱島)로 개칭하고 도감을 군수로 개정할 것’을 공포했다. 대한제 국 칙령 41호 2조에서 울도의 관할 범위가‘울릉전도와 죽도(竹島), 석도(石島)’로 규정되었다. 이것의 의미는 울릉도와 독도에 관한 대한제국의 영토의식과 주권행사가 대한제국 칙령 41호에 반 영되었다는 사실이다.