검색결과

검색조건
좁혀보기
검색필터
결과 내 재검색

간행물

    분야

      발행연도

      -

        검색결과 86

        81.
        2009.06 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        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.
        83.
        2007.09 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        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.
        84.
        2006.12 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        교사는 역사이해 방식이나 다양한 탐구 방식을 면밀하게 검토한 뒤, 학교급별 학습자 수준에 적절하게 반영될 수 있도록 학습 활동을 구성해야 한다. 이를 위해서는 수업 방법의 바탕이 된 역사이해 방식의 특성이 수업 계획의 어느 단계, 또는 학습자 활동의 어떤 측면에 반영되어야 하는가에 대한 세밀한 판단과 적용이 필요하다. 이 글은 학습 내용과 학습자 수준과 역사 이해 방식, 학습 내용을 유기적으로 고려한 일련의 체계적인 수업 계획 및 그 구성 과정을 제시하고자 역사신문제작 수업을 선택하였다. 역사신문제작의 기저에서 작용하는 역사이해는 감정이입으로서, 과거의 상황과 인물의 행동을 자료를 바탕으로 재구성하고, 시대상에 비추어 맥락적으로 이해하는 것이다. 따라서 감정이입을 역사신문제작에 적용하기 위하여 고려할 사항을 감정이입의 특성, 역사신문제작의 특성으로 나누어 살피보고 이를 위하여 현행 제7차 교육과정에 의한 고등학교 1학년(10학년) '국사' 가운데 조선의 제도사 내용을 대상으로 역사신문 제작 수업을 위한 계획을 수립하여 제시하였다.
        1 2 3 4 5