The purpose of this study is to provide data for effective immigration policy by investigating the factors that influence Korean citizen’s expectations for the Korean language proficiency of foreigners who seek Korean citizenship. The factors that influence these expectations are Korean citizen’s sense of national identity, multicultural receptivity, and preference for type of social integration. To summarize the results, first, Korean women showed stronger preferences for foreigners being required to demonstrate their Korean proficiency level when compared to their male counterparts. Second, there was a difference in multicultural receptivity of Korean citizens according to academic background, with higher education levels trending with higher rates of multicultural acceptance. Third, when the civic factor, a sub-factor of national identity perception, was high, the preference for foreigners to prove higher Korean language proficiency was also higher. Fourth, if multicultural receptivity was high, the preference for foreigners to demonstrate high levels of Korean language proficiency increased. Fifth, among social integration types, those who favored assimilationism reported significantly higher preferences for demonstration of Korean proficiency. Sixth, the level of Korean language proficiency expected of those who acquired Korean citizenship was 30% for beginner level and 50% for intermediate level.

This paper describes the Bayesian and non-Bayesian approach for reliability demonstration test based on the samples from a finite population. The Bayesian approach involves the technical method about how to combine the prior distribution and the likelihood function to produce the posterior distribution. In this paper, the hypergeometric distribution is adopted as a likelihood function for a finite population. The conjugacy of the beta-binomial distribution and the hypergeometric distribution is shown and is used to make a decision about whether to accept or reject the finite population. The predictive distribution of the beta-binomial distribution is shown and will be used for the reliability demonstration test. A numerical example is also given.

공공 건설공사 수행 중 계약기간내 공사를 완성하지 못하고 공사기간이 연장된 경우 그 지 연 사유에 대한 귀책과 추가비용 발생의 부담주체를 놓고 계약당사자간에 논란과 분쟁이 심화되고 있다. 건설공사에 있어서 공기지연에 따른 전체 공사기간이 연장된 경우 그 원인 제공을 누가 했 는지에 대한 책임을 분명히 할 필요가 있다. 공기지연 원인의 책임구분의 결과는 분명 일 방의 권리와 타방의 손해로 직결되고 명확한 책임구분이 되지 않는 경우 분쟁이 발생하게 되며 결과적으로 어느 일방은 정당하지 않은 손해를 입게 된다. 계약법상 공사기간의 연장은 계약상대자에게 책임이 있는 사유로 인해 약정한 계약기간 내 에 공사를 완성할 수 없는 경우와, 발주기관의 사정에 의해서 공사가 연장되는 경우가 대 부분을 차지하고 있다. 일반적으로 공기지연 사건이 발생한 경우 클레임을 제기하는 주체에 그 입증책임이 있는데 보통 계약상대자인 건설사가 주장·입증을 하게 된다. 이때 이를 증명 입증시 공식적인 문서 즉, 채무자에게 채무가 있고 이를 이행하지 않는 사실과 채무자에게 귀책사유가 있는 사실, 그로 인해 일정한 손해가 발생한 사실에 대한 근거를 함께 제시하여 명확히 밝혀야 한다. 또한 그 입증 결과에 따른 손해배상으로서 계약상대자인 시공사의 책임없는 사유로 인한 계약기간의 연장이 입증되면 발주기관에 연장기간 동안 발생된 ‘실비’ 보상 요구와 계약금 액 증액 청구 등의 행위가 가능함을 명심해야 한다. 하지만, 공기 연장으로 인해 발생한 손 실에 대한 보상이 가능한지의 여부는 계약당사자가 계약 문서를 통해 어떻게 합의 하였는 지에 따라 결정될 것이지만, 공기지연에 대한 귀책이 발주자나 시공자 모두에게 없는 경우 라면 원칙적으로 공기 연장은 가능하나 이에 대한 보상은 가능하지 않은 것으로 이해하여 야 한다

This paper describes the Bayesian approach for reliability demonstration test based on the sequential samples from the one-shot devices. The Bayesian approach involves the technical method about how to combine the prior distribution and the likelihood function to produce the posterior distribution. In this paper, the binomial distribution is adopted as a likelihood function for the one-shot devices. The relationship between the beta-binomial distribution and the Polya’s urn model is explained and is used to make a decision about whether to accept or reject the population of the one-shot devices by one by one then in terms of the faulty goods. A numerical example is also given.

입증책임이란 요건사실의 진위가 불명한 경우에 대처하여 요건사실의 부존재의 경우와 마찬가지로 취급하여 소송당사자 일방에 대하여 그에게 유리한 법규부적용의 불이익을 부담시켜서 판결을 가능하게 하는 것이다. 따라서 소송당사자의 승패에 결정적 역할을 한다. 이와 관련하여 상속이나 증여의 경우에는 납세자에게 자료가 편중되어 있어서 즉 증거의 거리와 증거의 지배를 대부분 납세의무자가 하고 있어서 과세관청에 입증의 곤란을 초래하기 때문에, 이러한 입증책임의 곤란의 문제를 해결하기 위해 다른 세법의 규정과 달리 많은 추정규정과 의제규정 두고 있다. 하지만 추정규정과 의제규정은 과세관청의 입증책임을 완화 또는 입증필요의 전환을 시키는 점에 있어서 입증책임분배원칙에 대한 예외에 해당할 수 있다. 따라서 이와 같은 입법은 되도록 제한할 필요가 있고, 그 해석도 엄격할 필요가 있다. 즉 납세의무자의 헌법 제23조의 재산권과 헌법 제27조의 재판받을 권리를 침해할 가능성을 내포하고 있는 점에서 국민의 예측가능성을 고려한 입법이 요구된다. 궁극적으로 조세법률주의를 실질적으로 잠탈 할 가능성이 있으므로 충분한 고려를 통한 입법이 요구된다. 특히 의제규정의 경우에는 추정규정과 달리 반증을 통한 번복 가능성이 존재하지 않으므로 국민의 구제가능성 어렵기 때문에 신중한 입법이 요구된다. 특히 명의신탁의 증여의제규정인 상증법 제45조의2와 관련하여 위헌가능성과 최근 대법원 판례의 ‘조세회피의 목적’과 관련된 변화된 입장을 고찰할 필요가 있다. 그리고 추정규정 중 재산취득자금의 증여추정 규정인 상증법 제45조 1항에서의 입증의 범위에 관하여 종전의 규정과 달리 ‘다른 자로부터’의 문구가 삭제되어 기존과 다른 입증책임론이 필요한 것이 아닌지 고찰할 필요가 있다.

This paper describes the Bayesian approach for reliability demonstration test based on the samples from a finite population. The Bayesian approach involves the technical method about how to combine the prior distribution and the likelihood function to pro

We want to accept or reject a finite population with reliability demonstration test. In this paper, we will describe Bayesian approaches for the reliability demonstration test based on the samples from a finite population. The Bayesian method is an approach that prior distribution and likelihood function combine to from posterior distribution. When we select somethings in a samples, we consider hypergeometric distribution. In this paper, we will explain the conjugacy of the beta-binomial distribution and hypergeometric distribution. The purpose of this paper is to make a decision between accept and reject in a finite population based on the conjugacy of the beta-binomial distribution.

원전 해체 이후 원전 부지의 제한적 또는 무제한적 이용에 대해서 미국 NRC는 NUREG-1757 문서를 통해 제한적 또는 무제한적 부지 이용에 관한 방사선학적 기준을 제시하였고 사업자가 제염 및 복원 후 이 선량 기준이 충족됨을 증명할 수 있어야만 부지가 제한적 또는 무제한적으로 해제될 수 있다고 하였다. 이와 관련하여 NRC는 운영허가종료계획서(LTP; License Termination Plan)에 방사선학적 부지 해제 기준 준수를 입증하기 위하여 부지 해제 기준, 부지 특성 평가, 최종 방사선 조사 계획에서 주요 방사선원항, 유도농도기준(DCGL) 등을 기재하도록 하고 있다. 이 논문은 국내 원전 해체에 있어서 참조사례가 될 수 있는 Rancho Seco 원전 해체 사례를 참고 및 절차를 분석함으로써 2017년 영구정지가 예정된 고리 1호기뿐만 아니라 향후 해체 원전 부지의 해제 기준 마련에 있어 사용될 수 있는 방법을 검토하였다.

The Supreme Court of Korea convicted Jung Bong-Ju, a former National Assembly member(United New Democratic Party) on the charge of violating Article 250, Section 2 of the Public Office Election Law on December 22, 2012. The Conviction and Imprisonment of Jung Bong-Ju who is one of the 4 hosts of the popular podcast “I'm a Weasel(Naneun Ggomsuda)” drew public attention, and this leads to the heated social discussion about freedom of expression. Moreover, the problem is raised that the crime of disseminating false information under the existing provision(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) result in the excessive restrictions on freedom of political expression. In order to solve this problem legislatively, “the partial amendment bill of the Public Office Election Law” was proposed on January 9, 2012. In such a high profile situation that public attention has focused on the crime of disseminating false information, it is required to review the criminal justice issues on this judgement of the Supreme Court. This article considers this judgement focusing the constituent elements of the crime of disseminating false information(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) and the burden of proving falsity.

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.

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.