최근 정부는 국가 온실가스를 효율적으로 감축시켜 국제적인 기후변화에 대응하기 위하여 여러 부문에서 기술개발을 진행 중에 있다. 이를 달성하기 위하여 정부는 화석연료를 대체하고 이산화탄소를 감축시키는 수단으로 바이오연료를 저탄소와 탄소중립자원으로 검토하고 있는 실정이다. 일반적으로, 목질계로부터 생산된 2세대 바이오연료는 수송부문에서 기존 화석연료를 대체하고 온실가스를 감축하는데 큰 효과가 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 이러한 이유로 정부는 목질계 기반 바이오매스 액화연료(biomass-to-liquid fuel)에 대해 파일럿 수준으로 기술개발 중에 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 바이오매스액화연료 생산을 위한 동일공정으로 합성된 F-T(Fischer-Tropsch) 디젤의 연료적 특성을 연구하였다. 합성 F-T 디젤은 자동차용 경유에 단독 또는 혼합하여 사용할 수 있는 장점으로 인해 자동차용 경유엔진에 사용될 수 있다. 그 이유는 합성 F-T 디젤이 자동차용 경유와 비슷한 물리적 특성을 가지기 때문이다. 본 연구에 사용된 F-T 디젤은 Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) 공정을 이용하여 저온(240℃)에서 철 촉매를 가지고 합성되었다. 합성 F-T 디젤은 n-파라핀과 iso-파라핀을 함유하고, 등유와 경유 성분을 가진 C12~C23+ 분포로 이루어졌다. 합성 F-T 디젤은 합성 F-T 연료부터 증류를 통해 분리된 합성 F-T 디젤은 자동차용 경유에 비해 세탄가가 높으며, 방향족화합물은 매우 낮고, 황함량는 초저황(sulfur free) 수준으로 평가되었다. 또한 합성 F-T 디젤은 자동차용 경유와 비교하여 황과 방향족 화합물의 함량이 낮기 때문에 윤활성이 열악함을 보였다.

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.