In 2003, some cases were reported to Attorney General of Korea in Supreme Prosecution Service, in which the suspect in detention rejected the request of the prosecutor to attend at his office. Previously, the Prosecution Service interpreted the request to attend for interrogation of the suspect to have the power to impose the duty on the suspect. But in the Academic circles, the majority viewed the request to have no power to impose the duty. Thus they explained the suspect may refuse to attend and during the interrogation leave the office anytime. The suspects who refused to attend rely on the view of the majority of the literature. The Prosecution Service insisted that the interrogation system of Korean Criminal Procedure give the prosecutor and the judicial police the authority to impose the duty to attend on the suspect, especially the duty to attend and to stay on the suspect in arrest or detention. The duty could be forced by arrest warrant or detention warrant. The provision of detention(§ 69, Korean Criminal Procedure) give the definition that it includes the power to take the suspect to a place and to detain in custody. The power to take to a place should be interpreted to include the power to take the suspect to the investigator’s office during the detention. In this Case of the suspect in detention, the Court approved the view of the Prosecution Service and concluded the judicial police officer who took the suspect to the office for interrogation to be lawful. Notwithstanding, the Court explained the character of the interrogation to be voluntary because the statement of the suspect should not be forced. But it could be said contradictory between the possibility of forcing the duty to attend and stay against the suspect’s will and the character of voluntainess. The compulsory nature could be said to be proper to this system.

최근 수리 실험 및 계측 분야에 영상유속계가 많이 이용되고 있다. 그러나 영상유속계의 영상 분석에 대한 표준적인 방법과 측정 불확도가 정립되어 있지 않아 일반 사용자들이 사용하기 어려운 것이 사실이다. 특히 영상유속계를 이용한 유속 산정 시 상관영역 크기 결정에 대한 기준이 없기 때문에 사용자마다 유속 산정 결과가 차이가 나는 문제가 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 영상유속계의 상관영역 크기 변화에 따른 오차 분석을 통해 상관영역 크기 결정을 위한 자료를 제시하고 자 한다. 오차 분석을 위해 12개의 인공영상군을 제작하였으며, 다양한 입자수와 입자크기의 영상을 획득한 후 상관영역의 크기를 변화시키면서 산정한 유속을 인공영상의 유속 참값과 비교하여 오차 분석을 수행하였다. 오차 분석 결과 상관영역의 크기 변화에 따라 영상유속계로 산정한 유속값에 대한 오차가 달라짐을 확인하였고, 상관영역의 크기를 크게 결정할수록 오차가 줄어드는 것으로 나타났고, 동일한 상관영역의 크기로 유속을 산정할 경우 입자 크기가 증가할수록 또는 입자수가 증가할수록 오차가 작게 나타났다. 특히 영상유속계의 오차는 입자의 크기 보다는 입자수의 변화에 좀 더 영향을 많이 받는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 상관영역의 크기가 커짐에 따라 최대 오차와 최소 오차간의 간격이 줄어드는 것을 확인하였으며, 영상 전체에서 산정한 유속의 평균 오차가 5% 이하를 만족시키는 상관영역 크기를 기준으로 그 이하의 상관영역에 대해서는 최대 오차와 최소 오차 간의 차이가 크게 나타나 영상유속계의 측정 불확실성이 큰 것으로 나타났다. 영상유속계의 신뢰수준별 입자밀도 변화에 따른 최소 상관영역의 크기를 분석한 결과 전반적으로 입자밀도가 커짐에 따라 상관영역의 크기는 작아지는 것으로 나타났지만 입자밀도가 작더라도 입자수가 큰 경우에는 신뢰수준을 만족시키는 최소 상관영역의 크기가 감소하는 것으로 나타났다.

In the Prosecution Service Act, it is prescribed that the attending officer of the public attorney has the role of the document officer and the helping agency for the public attorney. As the helping officer, he participate in the interrogation of the public attorney and put questions to the suspect or witness and other persons.As for the questioning of the attending officer, it was judged by the Court in this case that it is allowed, but has limitations. First, the public attorney should in person put questions about the important matters and after it, the attending officer can put questions about details or ambiguous answers. Second, during the question of the attending officer, the public attorney should be present the interrogating place with the attending officer and preside the process. There are some people who insist that the attending officer’s questioning should be prohibited and the public attorney should put all questions in person. But this opinion does not accord with the current law. On enacting the Prosecution service Act, the legislature made the choice with the provision §46 ① 1. that allows the attending officer to do the works relating to the investigation which the public attorney orders. It is thought that this choice would be made because of the insufficient numbers of the public attorney and the necessity of the sharing the burden of works.Considering the overweighting burden of works for the public attorney, the Court’s interpretation could be said to be right to the present. But in practice, if we can say the public attorney’s interrogation, the role of the attending officer should be limited within the supplement of the factual work.

표면영상유속계는 PIV의 상호상관법을 이용한 유속 산정 원리를 기초로 하여 Fujita and Komura(1994)와 Aya et al(1995)이 수리모형실험이나 일반 하천에서의 유속측정에 적용 할 수 있도록 응용한 것이다. 표면영상유속계가 간편하고 효율적인 유속측정 방법임에도 불구하고 아직까지 표면영상유속계의 상호상관법에 대한 표준적인 방법과 성능 및 측정 불확도가 정립되어 있지 않아 표면영상유속계를 일반인들이 이용하기 어려운 실정이다. 본 연구에서는 표면영상유속계의 상관영역 크기 변화에 따른 오차 분석을 위해 인공영상을 이용한 오차 분석 방법을 제시하였으며 영상내 입자수와 입자크기를 변화시킨 영상들을 제작한 후 상관영역의 크기를 다양하게 변화시키면서 영상 분석을 수행하였고 유속 산정값의 오차를 분석하였다. 또한 각 상관영역내 명암값 분포를 이용하여 최소 상관영역 크기 결정 기준을 제시하고자 한다. 분석 결과 영상내 입자밀도 평균이 0.5 이상일 경우에는 입자 크기 보다 상관영역의 크기를 크게 결정한다면 오차를 크게 줄일 수 있음을 확인하였다. 또한 입자수 밀도 평균이 0.5 보다 작은 경우는 가능한 상관영역의 크기를 크게 하여 상관계수가 1에 가깝도록 결정하면 오차를 줄일 수 있는 것으로 나타났다.

The right to counsel is regarded as a basic right not only for a suspect under custody but also for a non-arrested suspect as well. It is a constitutional right founded in Section 1 and 4 of Article 12, and Article 27 of Constitution. The right to counsel includes the right entitled to have the presence of counsel during interrogation by law-enforcement. The Criminal Procedure Law revises to guarantee all suspects have rights to counsel during interrogation. The right to counsel is a constitutional right which is materialized at a subordinate criminal procedural law. Therefore, it shall be differentiated from other statutory rights not directly derived from Constitution. According to the Criminal Procedure Law, the right to counsel during interrogation can be exercised by both suspects and counsels. However, such a right entitled to a counsel is not a constitutional right, which shows distinctive difference from a suspect-originated right to counsel.

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.