The exclusionary rule is a principle restricted in order to draw appropriate conclusions according to the common sense of the community, and for this reason, other major countries recognize various exceptional theories of the exclusionary rule. In addition, article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the exclusion of automatic and mandatory evidence on evidence of illegal collection, which may lead to unjustified results depending on the case. Therefore, for the proper operation of article 308-2, it is necessary to interpret the meaning of ‘procedural violation’ as limited as possible rather than expanding it. For a limited interpretation, taking into consideration that the main reason for recognizing the exclusionary rule is to deter illegal investigations, it is only a violation of the due process that the investigating agency has clearly made its intention to violate the due process. From this point of view, the act of obtaining the evidence of the crimes that the customs officer discovered during the customs clearance inspection for international mail or international cargo and handing over the evidence to the investigating agency is considered to be legal. Because the nature of the customs inspection work performed by customs officer is an administrative investigation, and he has cooperated with the investigation of the investigating agency by taking the measures attached to the work. He is not considered to have conducted an investigation. In the end, it is important to look closely at whether the customs officer or investigative agency’s conduct of drug seizure directly violates the due process and it is intentionally malicious.

Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.

This study was conducted to evaluate the growth conditions and vegetation of Peucedanum japonicum habitatin uninhabited islands of Incheon Korea. The emergence area of Peucedanum japonicum was 4.9m distance in coastline,and altitude and slope was 7.4m and 47.5%. Soil pH, organic matter and P2O5 of habitat were 7.1, 8.3% and 29.0㎎/㎏, andcontents of K, Ca, Mg and Na were 0.66, 4.9, 3.4 and 1.13cmol+/kg, respectively. Growth plants with Peucedanum japonicumwere total 55 taxa, and Gakeuldo in uninhabited islands was the most as 25 taxa. In growth plants with Peucedanumjaponicum, plants of over 25% frequence per plot were Miscanthus sinensis, Dendranthema boreale, Lilium lancifolium,Hemerocallis middendorffii, Elymus dahuricus, Cirsium japonicum var. maackii, Asparagus schoberioides, Gypsophila oldhamiana,Cocculus trilobus, Silene aprica var. oldhamiana, Artemisia capillaris, Crepidiastrum denticulatum and Sedum oryzifolium.The vegetation of Peucedanum japonicum habitat was classified into Aster spathulifolius community, Miscanthus sinensiscommunity, Dendranthema boreale community, Setaria viridis var. pachystachys community, Cirsium japonicum var. maackiicommunity and Hemerocallis middendorffii community. According to general condition of habitat, suitable growing areaswas determined to slightly acidic from mild alkaline soils.

I think the spirit of the introduction of the testimony system of investigators, is in order to prevent, it is possible, among other things, what happens to overturn sentence unfair of witness or defendant, the absurd result, to deal effectively with this. If you look at the relevant case law of the testimony system after the introduction of the investigators, the main material used to determine the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of investigators. If there is participants at the time, it is possible to mention his statement, a description of statement was created in the course of the investigation. Therefore, in order to be recognized innocuously the special guarantees of trustworthiness from the perspective of law enforcement, it or enlist a person or trusted counsel in the course of the investigation, to record the all process of investigation is most preferred and counsel or if the video recording research and participation of people with a trust relationship has not been made, and that along with the testimony itself of investigators, will be discussed in a comprehensive manner, such as the description of the written statement and assertion of the accused, the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, it is necessary to judge. And, by notifying explicitly whether the certification of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of the investigator in the course of the trial, so as to additional proof activities for inspection, by this, the court, a sufficient psychological it is necessary while securing the article must determine the adoption of evidence.

In the domain of hearsay evidence, “special guarantees of trustworthiness” now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far.I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.

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.

지난 2005년 1월 4일 보현산 천문대(BOAO)의 BOES(BOao Echelle Spectograph)를 이용하여 Machholz(C/2004Q2) 혜성을 관측하였다. 이 논문에서는 Machholz 혜성의 고분산 분광 자료를 이용하여 미확인 분광선에 관한 연구를 수행하였으며 연구에 이용된 분광선의 파장 범위는 4800 ~ 8100A 영역이다. 기존에 있던 Swift-Tuttle 혜성 Brosen-Metcalf 혜성, Austin 혜성, 그리고 122P/de Vico 혜성의 자료들과 비교분석을 하였다. 다수의 미확인 분광선에 대한 원인물질을 알아냈고, 이러한 자료들은 앞으로 혜성 연구에 있어서 유용한 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.