현대형 소송이 증가함에 따라 전문가 증인의 역할의중요성이갈수록증대되고있다. 영미법계 를 따르는 미국은 특허 소송에서 전문가 증인 (Expert Witness)의 사용이 일반화되어 있으며, 전문가 증인은 소송 초기부터 배심원 재판까지 많은 절차에서 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 배심원 은 1심 소송의 거의 마지막에 소송 절차에 참여 하기 때문에, 당사자를 위해 증언하는 전문가 증 인의 증언이 배심원 재판에서 허용되기 위해서는 기준이 필요했고, Frye, Dauert 판결 등에 의해 기준이 설정되다가 미국연방증거법 제702조에 법제화되었다. 우리나라는 대륙법 체계의 국가로, 소송의 사실판단에서 전문가의 도움을 받는 방법 으로 감정인 제도를 주로 이용해 왔으나, 부실한 감정, 감정인의 도덕성, 추상적 감정사항 기재로 인한 무용한 감정결과, 형식적인 감정인 신문등 이에 대한 문제점이 노출되면서, 전문심리위원제 도를 2007년 도입하였다. 하지만 전문심리위원제도 역시 역할 대비 복잡한 절차, 낮은 전문심리 위원 수당, 제도 자체에 대한 인식부족, 전문심리 위원의 의견에 대한 반박 절차의 부족 등으로 그 활용도가 낮아서 문제가 되었으며, 이의 개선을 위해 의료 및 건축분야에 한정하여 상임전문심리 위원제도를 도입하였다. 하지만 감정인의 문제점 은 해결이 어려운바, 법원의 공정한 판결을 위해, 프랑스에서 시행하고 있는 특임판사 제도와 유사 한 감정인의 업무를 총괄하는 전문심리관제와 전 문기술의 심리방안 연구와 전문심리위원 선정을 위한 각 기술 분야별 전문가 위원회를 법원산하 에서 운영하는 방안을 제안한다. 우리나라 특허 소송은 특허법원이 2020년 전문심리위원 추천위 원 위촉등을 시작으로 본격적인 전문위원제도 활 용을 시작했고, 특허심판원도 2021년 전문심리 위원제도 운영을 시작하는 등, 특허 소송에 전문 가 활용 제고를 위해 노력하고 있으나, 기존 감정 인과 전문심리위원의 문제는 여전히 안고 있는바, 특허법원 산하에 전문심리관과 전문가위원회를 두어 이에 대한 해결까지 같이 진행하는 방안을 제안하고자 한다. 미국 Dauert 판결의 전문가 증 언 허용 기준은 우리나라에서 증거력과 증명력의 기준으로 사용되고 있으나, 국민참여재판 제도가 확대된다면, 배심원 재판에서 제시허용 기준에대 한 명확한 기준이 제시되어야 할 것이다.

본 논문은 코로나19(COVID-19)의 출현으로 새롭게 재정립되는 한국 교회의 선교적 행보를 꿈꾸며, 교회의 본질에 대한 ‘선교적 교회’의 적합성을 논하고, 교회 공동체의 핵심 주체인 평신도들의 선교적 그리 스도인(missional Christians)으로서의 소명(calling, 召命)을 발견 한다. 이에 따라 대럴 구더(Darrell L. Guder)가 제시하는 ‘선교적 공동체’의 사도직을 한국 교회의 평신도들에게 접목시켜 선교적 증인 공동체의 올바른 선교적 삶을 모색해본다. 평신도는 목회자와 더불어 세상에 파송된 하나님의 선교 동역자로 목회자와 함께 사도직을 부여받은 존재이며, 교회와 사회를 연결해 주는 유일한 통로이다. 이것을 인식하는 교회는 기존의 방식, 즉 교회 내부 중심의 프로그램들의 획기적인 변화에 초점을 맞추어 교회 지도층 들의 일괄적 프로그램 개발과 평신도들의 수동적 참여가 아닌, 평신도 들의 자발적 참여로 함께 만들어 가는 창의적 프로그램들이 요구된다. 따라서 교회의 핵심 주체인 평신도들이 세상을 향해 ‘증언의 도구’로 나아가 ‘세속적 임무(secular order)’를 충분히 감당할 수 있도록 해야 한다.

Purpose: This study compares the chest compression quality, and the willingness and confidence to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before and after education between the compression only CPR (COCPR) group and the standard CPR (STCPR) group using manikins. Method: This study employs a randomized controlled trial design. A total of 219 and 214 individuals were randomly assigned to the COCPR and STCPR groups, respectively. Both groups were asked to perform CPR for 2 min before and after education. The willingness and confidence to perform CPR were surveyed through a questionnaire. Results: Before education, the STCPR group had a significantly higher mean chest compression depth and accuracy than the COCPR group for the entire 2 min. After education, the STCPR group had a significantly higher mean chest compression depth for 2 min and higher compression accuracy for late 1 min than the COCPR group. However, no significant difference in the willingness and confidence to perform CPR according to the compression method was evident. Conclusion: Repeated training is required to maintain chest compression quality. CPR education improves willingness and confidence to perform CPR.

What is the value, impact and meaning of Jeju 4·3 survivors giving their oral histories and witness testimonies in public venues? These community forums and international conferences are opportunities for Jeju 4·3 survivors to bear witness to previously untold lived experiences and memories during the seven-year bloodbath, known as the Jeju 4·3 Events. Many narratives and stories are revelations of closeted memories, hidden traumas, and unreconciled historical pasts. The audience-listeners who can empathize and identify with speakers’ depictions in bearing witness to the inhuman can become co-witness bearers and coowners of the trauma experiences. Audience-listeners can join the witness-speaker as a fellow traveler in the difficult journey into witnessing, and as a comrade in the struggle to transcend persistent traumas, and society’s ongoing domination and dehumanization.

The ad hoc international criminal tribunals addressing the mass atrocities involving such extraordinary crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have developed a delicate and intricate judicial scheme of ‘delayed disclosure.’ Against the backdrop of the unique gravity of egregious atrocities, ‘delayed disclosure’ aims at respecting the fundamental interests of both the accused and the witnesses, which has turned out to be an exceptionally challenging judicial exercise. Striking a balance between the rights of the accused to have adequate time to prepare his defence on the one hand, the protection of identifying information of witnesses who may be subject to serious danger or threat requires highly disciplined judicial vigilance on the other. For the purpose of elucidating the demanding challenges involving the practice of ‘delayed disclosure,’ this paper explores the relevant rules and case law of the ICTY and the ICTR.

본 연구는 가정폭력이론과 가정폭력발생 원인을 살펴보고 아동이 가정폭력을 경험한 경우와 아동이 부부간의 폭력을 목격했을 경우, 아동의 공격성에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴보고자 했다. 이를 위해 경기도에 소재하는 초등학교 5～6학년을 대상으로 폭력경험, 폭력목격, 공격성 검사설문을 실시하였으며, SPSS 12.0을 사용해 분석하였다. 결과를 요약하면 첫째, 남학생이며, 학년이 높을수록, 가족 성원의 수가 많을수록, 생활수준이 낮을수록, 가정폭력경험, 가정폭력목격 및 공격성이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 폭력적인 영상물인 공포영화, 폭력물, 애니메이션, 판타지, 게임비디오 등에 많이 노출된 아동들이 더 공격적인 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 가정폭력경험, 가정폭력목격, 공격성과의 상관관계(pearson r)를 분석해본 결과 모두 유의미한 수준에서 정적인 상관관계가 있었다. 즉, 아동의 가정폭력경험, 가정폭력목격 그리고 매스미디어 노출정도가 아동의 공격성에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 아동이 가정폭력으로부터 보호되고 부부간의 폭력을 목격하는 것을 예방하기 위해 사회복지적인 개입방법으로 가정폭력예방과 아동폭력예방 및 중재를 위한 프로그램 개발, 감정조절 그리고 인간관계 훈련을 위한 프로그램 개발과 연구가 필요함을 제언한다.

In the korean supreme court case in question, the fact needs to be reconsidered, that the prosecutor’s record containing the statement of witness that becomes the decisive evidence to prove the guilt was left out. Especially, even though the court judged that the chance of cross-examination was provided to the declarant of the record and there was no substantial violation of procedural rules, it could have assess the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness. Every issue will be absorbed into the principle of free evaluation of evidence, if the admissibility of the prosecutor’s record is not considered. It is so hard to completely agree with the argument of the dissenting opinion in which in case of inconsistent statements more weight of reliability must be placed on a court testimony. It is because it is clearly in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence to simply more rely on a court testimony in case of inconsistent statement. In light of the facts appearing in the case in question, it was possible to assess reliability of circumstances of statement separately from total consideration of reliability of evidences. Most of all, the witness’ statement before prosecutor should not have easily admitted when considering its’doubtful circumstances. Therefore, the courts, expecially the appellate court, should have closely examined the circumstances by having the persons related to the prosecutor’s interrogation take the stance. Because this process was left out, the requirement of the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness was not satisfied.

The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribes that a written statement prepared by the investigative authority is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method. The requirement of ‘due process and proper method’ means the legality of the process and method of preparing a written statement by the investigative authority. On the other hand, the Article 7 of the Korean act on protection of specific crime informants(hereinafter referred to as “the informants protection act”) provides that when any retaliation is likely to be taken against an informant of a crime or his/her relatives, prosecutors or police officers are not required to note all or part of information which verifies the identity of the informant of the crime, such as a name, age, address or occupation. In regard to the requirement of ‘due process and proper method’, it is questionable whether a written statement of witness under a pseudonym is admissible as evidence where it is prepared on the crimes other than the specific crime prescribed in the informants protection act. In this case, the lower court and the appellate court decided that a written statement of witness under a pseudonym was not admissible because the questioned crime of blackmail was not the specific crime and the statement under a pseudonym did not comply with the due process and proper method. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that the investigative authority could prepare the protocol of a written statement under a pseudonym, if there had been a probable cause considering a combination of circumstances such as the relation between witness and the defendant, the type of crime, the necessity of protecting the witness because the Criminal Procedure Act did not require a real name in the written statement to verify the identity of witness. And the Court ruled that the meaning of ‘due process and proper method’ prescribed in the Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act was that the investigative authority must comply with all process and methods provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, like informing of the right to remain silent where a written statement was prepared. However, the balancing test of a probable cause in the ruling has a problem with not presenting a bright-line rule in the investigative procedure and arousing new controversies.

Criminal procedure holds the discovery of substantive truth as its highest value. However, this fact-finding function cannot be the sole aim of criminal procedure to be attained at all costs. Rather, it is constrained by the principles of due process and a timely trial. Therefore, although the Criminal Code provides for the crime of perjury which deters witnesses from hindering a fair trial with false testimony, the Criminal Procedure Code partially concedes the fact-finding function of criminal procedure by providing for the witness’s right to refuse testimony as a function of due process.This right to refuse testimony is enforced by the obligation to inform the witness on the existence of this right. The question is, if the judge questions a witness in violation of the right to refuse testimony and the obligation to inform, and the witness makes a false statement under oath, can the witness be punished for perjury? This is a question of weighing the values of substantive truth and the principle of due process when they are in contradiction, as due process is the source of the right to refuse testimony and, in certain circumstances, constitutes a limit on the ideal of substantive fact-finding.The decisions in this study take the position that the standard for finding a witness guilty on perjury should be whether there has been an actual hindrance to exercise the right to refuse testimony due to the failure to inform. In this sense, the cases give more weight to the due process considerations of witness examination than previous Korean Supreme Court cases. However, the studied cases are incorrect in limiting the affirmative defense to perjury to those cases where the failure to inform resulted in an actual hindrance to exercise the right. The witness is an individual who bears the obligation to appear at court even though it is not the witness’s own trial, swear a legally binding oath, and testify, all in the interest of substantive fact-finding. The Criminal Procedure Code obligates these witnesses to give testimony, but also gives them the right to refuse testimony where the witness may incriminate himself or herself or close family members. The obligation to inform the witness of this right forms a procedural safeguard to enforce the right. Therefore, the presiding judge’s failure to inform the witness of the existence of the right is a violation of due process and the testimony is given illegally, meaning the witness should not be found guilty of perjury even if the testimony was false.The obligation to inform the witness of the right to refuse testimony exists to guarantee the right to refuse testimony by reminding the witness of the right, thereby giving the witness the ample opportunity to reached an informed decision on whether to stay silent or testify. Therefore, the obligation to inform (Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code) guarantees the exercise of this right even when the witness does not know he or she has this right, or is ignorant of how to exercise the right. If the presiding judge violates this regulation and compels the witness to testify without informing the witness that the witness has the right not to testify, such an act on the judge’s part is far more than a minor infraction that has no effect on the legal existence of the crime of perjury. In the cases where the court has failed to inform the holder of the right to refuse testimony, there is no expectation that the witness in question will not commit perjury. It is worth noting that the newly amended Criminal Procedure Code now provides for the exclusion of illegal evidence, and due process is increasingly important at trial as well as during the investigative phase. Therefore, a failure to adhere to laws protecting the witness, especially the failure to inform the witness of a right to refuse testimony should be a full defense to the crime of perjury.