This paper presents a probabilistic head tracking method, mainly applicable to face recognition and human robot interaction, which can robustly track human head against various variations such as pose/scale change, illumination change, and background clutters. Compared to conventional particle filter based approaches, the proposed method can effectively track a human head by regularizing the sample space and sequentially weighting multiple visual cues, in the prediction and observation stages, respectively. Experimental results show the robustness of the proposed method, and it is worthy to be mentioned that some proposed probabilistic framework could be easily applied to other object tracking problems.

Some appellate courts find facts using the pharase on their written judgments as “with the evidence which was legally examined and admitted by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally examined, admitted by the lower court.” However those kinds of expressions are inappropriate because those do not exactly describe the proceedings of examining eivdence made by lower courts. The lower courts, especially trial courts, admit evidences, such as testimonies of witnesses or protocols made by prosecutors, which are admissible under the criminal procedure law before they examine those evidences. So those expressions on the written judgment should be corrected into the phrases like “with the evidence which was legally admitted and examined by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally admitted, examined by the lower court.” Appellate courts should be careful about using the phrase, “as the record shows that ”, even though they … pronounce not guilty judgment because there are various kinds of documents in the court record. The evidence which is put in the court record and cited by the appellate court should be legally obtained and examined in the courtroom. If the appleallte court rules guilty judgment using that pharase even though there are illegally obtained or examined evidence in the court record, that judgment breaches evidence rules. To pronounce the guilty judgment, the appellate court should cite the evidences of the trial court which are legally admitted and examined. However the appellate courts should not find fact with no evidence on its written judgment, because fact finding shall be based on evidence(Article 307 of Korean Criminal Procedure Law).

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The other major civilized country, such as UK, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, and Germany, also have their own exclusionary rule related with the improperly, illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the major opinion of Korean Supreme Court recently held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. According to this ruling, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in exclusion. I disagree with this opinion of Korean Supreme Court because this opinion did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure - the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea gives very important opinion for the evidence law in general, ① Lowering of the probative power of the statesment in the protocol of investigative agent in the light of the weakness of the written record ② Unrecognizing the proof value of the statements where the cross-examination lacks. First, With indicating the inaccuracy of the record in the light of statements in fact, lowering of the probative power of the statesments in the protocol of investigative agent in general is inappropriate. In order to complement such a weakness, the law provide the strict provisions for the protocol drawing up. Furthermore, this kind of view falls into difficulty in answer to the question, “Can be the lowering problems all solved, if we, for the complement of such weakness, record the total statements or record them in tapes or video tapes?” This problem is not for statement in the protocol, but for the probative power of the out of court statement. Probative power is the thing which should be judged in each case individually with considering total situation with relation to the situation in which the statements were made, contents of the statements and comparison with other evidences. By the way, the problem of confrontation has important meaning from the new tendency which views the problem in other way than hearsay approach. But the method of the Court leads to the confusion with the meaning or the standard because of the termonology which the Court has used, that is , substantial proof value and inadmissible. Recently, the problem of confrontation is understood as a procedural right of the defendant in the criminal procedure and there is an American approach and a European Union approach. In my opinion, Considering our constitutional provision and criminal procedure, the European Union solution is proper. The admissiblity of the statements made in the situation in which the defendant cannot confront the speaker should be judged be the standard of the fairness of the process, that is, the question, “Would it harm the fairness of the process in the whole to admit the statements?” By the judgement, it would give an important ground to see the resposibility of the investigative agent for the nonconfrontation situation. But the responsibility of the investigative agent should not be an absolute ground for the inadmissibility of the statements, but would be the ground for prudent judgement of the probative power considering whether the substantial parts of the statements could be confirmed by other materials, when the statements are the only one important evidence to support the charge. Furthermore, Because the time of the confrontation is not limited to the trial, it would be useful to evaluate the provision in our criminal procedure for the interrogation with confrontation by the public attorney and investigative officer and to use it as a meaningful tool for guaranteeing the chance of confrontation of the defendant.

The criminal procedure commonly provide for the joinder of defendants, whereby two or more persons may together be prosecuted in a single trial. Assume a case in which defendants A and B have been lawfully joined for trial, but at that trial the prosecution intends to offer against A a confession by him stating, in effect, that he and B committed the crime. That right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him would be violated if A, by his confession, was a witness against B but could not be cross-examined. So to speak, where the powerfully incriminating judicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused sideby- side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the judge in a joint trial. In fact, it seems to me that “interlocking” bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant' confession will be relatively harmless if the incriminating story it tells is different from that which the defendant himself is alleged to have told, but enormously damaging if it confirms, in all essential respects, the defendant' alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession does no more than support the defendant' very own case as corroborating evidence. But it might be otherwise if the defendant denies about his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession is required as corroborating evidence that supports the defendant' very own case.

The right to remain silent is a basic right of the defendant or suspect guaranteed by the constitution and criminal procedure law. It is important to notify the right to the defendant or suspect so that he can excercise the right properly and effectively. It is appropriate to exclude the statement made by the suspect if the Miranda right notice is not given to him. However, once the police officer give the Miranda warning to the suspect, the statement after the notice can be admissible by the purged taint exception rule except that the officer abuse the rule. In addition to that, even if there is a breach of notification, the real evidence should be admissible. It is because the purpose of Miranda rule is to protect the statement not the real evidence. According to newly revised Korean Criminal Procedure Code, the range of exclusion can be interpreted very widely. However, we must be careful when we apply the rule to the real case in order to seek the balance between the human rights and social safety.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.

Recently, many people live or travel abroad by various reasons. In this global era, we cannot only require the witness to come to homeland for testifying in court. It is necessary to provide a new method to take a reliable evidence which can solve the case with the witness staying abroad. In this case, the Prosecutor's Office try to give a new method by requesting the Consul in Japan to hear the witness and record the statements. According to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Consul can hear the people of the Consul's nation. German Consular Relations Law provides that the admissibility of out of court statements recorded by Consul is regulated according to the institution which makes the request. Therefore, if the request comes from court, the statements recorded by the Consul according to the request are treated as statements recorded by Judge. From this point of view, the Prosecutor's Office insisted that the out of court statements recorded by Consul in Japanese be treated as the out of court statements recorded by Judge in deciding the guarantee of trustworthiness. But the Court construed that the statements recorded by Consul as the statements recorded by private person. Worse than this, the Court denies the guarantee of trustworthiness as the condition for the admissibility for the evidence. But this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in this case, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded by Consul should have been admitted.

형사재판에서 피고인이 제출한 증거에 대한 증거능력과 증거조사에 관한 연구이다. 국민 참여재판의 출범 및 개정 형사소송법의 시행에 따라 피고인이 제출하는 증거의 중요성이 증대되고 있다. 형사재판에서 공소 제기된 범죄사실에 대한 입증책임은 어디까지나 검사에게 있다. 따라서 피고인이 제출하는 증거는 알리바이 등 공소 범죄사실에 반대되는 사실을 입증하기 위한 증거이든, 공소 범죄사실에 대한 진술증거의 신빙성을 탄핵하기 위한 탄핵증거이든, 모두 그 성질은 탄핵증거라고 보는 것이 합당하다. 그러므로 원칙적으로 증거능력을 필요로 하지 아니하고 탄핵증거로서 증거조사를 하면 족하다. 연구 대상 판례는 이러한 판단을 전제로 하고 있다.

In 1983, Supreme Court ruled that policemen could not testify to the defendant's confess when the defendant objected. The Court reasoned that since the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the admissibility of the documents which was made by the police and contained the defendant's confess when the defendant object, the policeman was not allowed to testify to that effect, either. The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, does not explicitly prohibit the use of such testimony. As for the document which contains the confess of the defendant, it is extremely difficult to contest. Because the defendant cannot cross-exam the policeman who interrogated the defendant or the defendant himself. But as for the testimony, the reliability can be guaranteed by the cross-examination. In addition, such testimony often includes first-handed, accurate information and cannot be obtained otherwise. This study is an attempt to illustrate such an occasion. In this case which was ruled in 2005, Supreme Court once again denied the admissibility of the interrogator's testimony. However there are some special elements to be considered. Here, the policeman met the defendant near the crime scene just after he had committed homicide; the setting was not interrogatory; the defendant freely admitted that he had killed the victim. If he had met a civilian, he would have told the same story. In situation like this, there is no danger of misconception, manipulation, or memory lapse. This case clearly shows that under certain circumstance it is necessary, sometimes desirable to admit interrogators' testimony. In conclusion, the admissibility of the policeman's testimony should not be decided uniformly. Rather, it should be decided case by case in the light of reliability.

On the evidence for the impeachment, in literature, four problems are in discussion. At first, whether a hearsay evidence is admissible for impeachment, although it is not admissible in view of the hearsay rule. Second, whether the oral evidence of the defendant in trial is impeachable, and whehter the defendant's pre-trial statements protocol of the police is admissible for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. At last, whether the authentification is required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. For first problem, though a hearsay evidence is not admissible according to the hearsay rule, it is admissible for impeachment. The hearsay rule is operated only where pre-trial statement is produced for asserting the truth of the statement. Because impeachment is not asserting the truth of the pre-trial statement, but swaying the crediblity of the oral evidence in trial, hearsay rule is not operated when the evidence is produced for impeachment. For second problem, the oral evidence of the defendant in trial can be impeached for the appropriate way of truth-finding. In practice, the prior inconsistent statement of the defendant can be often used for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. § 312 ② of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. Because of the provision, some say that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible for impeachment when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. But the Court admits the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol although the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment, and it is with me on that. For the last problem, the majority in literature and the Court are with the opinion that the authentification is not required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. In this point I cannot agree with the Court. The requirement of the authentification is essential for producing all the evidences. It is a different rule from the hearsay rule. In my opinion, It could be said that the majority and the Court confuse the difference. It should be said that a hearsay written statement cannot be used for impeachment when it is not authentifcated.

The Supreme court admits the real evidence in spite of the unlawfulness during the process of acquiring it. The reason of the theory is that truth-worthiness of the real evidence has not been changed by the fault of the investigation in gathering evidence. Considering the want of Destruction of Justice statutes, the Supreme court strikes the balance between the public interest and private protection by admitting the real evidence on all occasions. The reformed Criminal procedure law is going to introduce the exclusionary rule. The §302-2 stipulates that "The evidence which is not gathered by lawful process should be excluded." Comparing with other developed countries exclusionary rule, it is too broad. For instance, PACE act §78 (1) in England is “In any proceeding the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it." In Canada, the constitution §24 ② provides that “Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice in to disrepute." Even in the U.S., there are lots of exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Good faith theory, harmless error rule, the standing, restrictive application in Miranda rule violation. collateral use are the examples. The German's Beweisverwertungsverbote is the theory concerned about balancing the interest to protect the privacy. Thus basically it doesn't matter the manner of gathering the evidence. So it stats from quite different angle. When it comes to our exclusionary rule, we must be prudent when we apply the rules to the real case. We don't have to exclude the real evidence solely because it is not obtained according to the process of law. We should take into account the motive of the police, the seriousness of the case, the deterrence effects, the influence on the administration of justice, the value of the evidence. If the evidence is procured by private party, it should not be excluded. The criminal justice system don't have to depend on third party's action. Also there is the possibility that the third party or dependant will abuse the rule. There will be no remarkable deterrent effect, even if we remove the evidence on account of private party's illegal behavior.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.

이 연구의 목적은 초등학생들의 과학 실험 활동의 증거 평가 과정에서 나타나는 반응 유형과 특징을 알아보는 데 있다. 연구를 위해 촛불 과제 2가지와 물질의 용해와 부피에 관련된 과제 2가지가 개발되었다. 자료는 초등학생 20명을 대상으로 예상, 실험, 증거 평가 과정과 면담을 통하여 수집되었다. 연구 결과, 실험 활동 과제에서 초등학생과 교사들의 증거 평가 반응 유형은 조건적 수용, 무조건적 수용, 거부, 보류의 네 가지로 나타났다. 실험 활동 과제 상황에 따른 반응 유형은 일관성이 없었고 과제의 내용에 영향을 받고 있었다. 실험 1과 실험 2에서는 네 가지 반응 유형이 모두 나타났다. 그러나 실험 3과 실험 4에서는 거부 반응 유형이 나타나지 않았다. 실험 3에서는 조건적 수용의 반응 유형이 거의 대부분이었다. 증거 평가 과정에서 나타나는 특징은 다음과 같다. 1) 초등학생들은 직관에 의한 예상을 하였고, 이는 선행 실험 결과를 유사한 내용의 다음 실험의 예상을 구성할 때 사용되었다. 2) 실제 실험 과정에서 실험 오차를 인식하여 증거 평가로 활용하지 못하고 있었다. 3) 선 개념의 영향으로 왜곡된 관찰을 하였다. 4) 선지식에 대한 확신이 강할수록 예상과 다르게 나온 실험 결과를 거부하는 경향이 있었다. 5) 실험 결과는 직접 수행한 것이고 눈에 보이는 것이므로 정확하다고 평가하였다. 6) 실험 결과가 어떠한 경향성을 갖고 있거나 반복되면 그 실험 결과를 신뢰하는 것으로 나타났다. 7) 교사와 교과서의 권위를 인정하고, 다수의 의견을 신뢰하는 경향이 나타났다. 그리고 증거 평가 반응은 일관되지 않고 실험 활동 과제의 내용에 영향을 받고 있었다. 증거 평가 전 과정에서 나타나는 초등학생과 교사들의 특징은 예상과 실험 결과의 일치 여부와 상관없이 실험 결과를 수용하는 경향을 보이는 등 대체로 유사하였다.