A Review of the Improvement of the Expert Evidence System under the Criminal Procedure Act - Focused on the Case of Intellectual Property Litigation -
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
As the number of professional lawsuits increases, many discussions are being made on improving the appraisal system to assist a judge. In particular, the importance of expert evidence in a trial for intellectual property rights is more emphasized because of its unique characteristics. Although the relevance of expert evidence is emphasized in a criminal trial, active discussions on system improvement have yet to occur. Therefore, the problems of the expert evidence system by order of a judge in the expert evidence systems of the Criminal Procedure Act(Articles 169–179-2) and the ways to improve the problems are examined. To that purpose, solutions to challenges, such as the specification of an expert witness, the method of an expert witness examination, the method of a report on expert evidence, and the anonymity of an expert witness, were sought.
Abstract
As the number of professional lawsuits increases, many discussions are being made on improving the appraisal system to assist a judge. In particular, the importance of expert evidence in a trial for intellectual property rights is more emphasized because of its unique characteristics. Although the relevance of expert evidence is emphasized in a criminal trial, active discussions on system improvement have yet to occur. Therefore, the problems of the expert evidence system by order of a judge in the expert evidence systems of the Criminal Procedure Act(Articles 169–179-2) and the ways to improve the problems are examined. To that purpose, solutions to challenges, such as the specification of an expert witness, the method of an expert witness examination, the method of a report on expert evidence, and the anonymity of an expert witness, were sought.
참고문헌 (26)
- 民事鑑定の積極的活用策に関する検討－知的財産訴訟を中心として-, 2019 年度若手・女性研究者奨励金レポート, "ウエムカイテルヨシ", 1~2 (2019)
- "The Supreme Court Decision 99Do693Decided April 27. 1999", ~ (1999)
- 신양균, "형사소송법상 감정제도에 관한 몇 가지 고찰", 법학논총, 28(4), pp.321~350 (2011), 법학연구소
- "The Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1950Decided May 10. 2007", ~ (2007)
- Paul Goldstein, "Goldstein on Copyright, Vol.Ⅱ", pp.27~29 (2010), LexisNexis
- "the Supreme Court Press Release (2015.3.23.)", ~ (2015)
- Sheila Jasanoff, "Science at the Bar:Science and Technology in American Law", pp.85~ (2011), East-Asia Publishing. co
- "The Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1950Decided May 10. 2007", ~ (2007)
- 정차호, "미국의 법정조언자(amicus curiae) 제도의 우리 특허소송에의 도입방안에 관한 연구", 정보법학, 23(2), pp.141~181 (2019), 한국정보법학회
- Shin, Dong Woon, "New Criminal Procedure", pp.762~ (2007), Bobmunsa
- The Office of Court Administration, , pp.256~ (2014), the Office of Court Administration
- Shin, Dong Woon, "New Criminal Procedure", pp.763~ (2007), Bobmunsa
- 이성기, "법과학 증거의 기준에 관한 법적 연구 - 전문가 증언 제도의 문제점과 개선 방안을 중심으로 -", 법학논집, 23(3), pp.63~85 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Ellen E. Deason, "Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference", Oregon Law Review, 77(1), pp.100~101 (1999)
- Shin, Dong Woon, "New Criminal Procedure", pp.763~ (2007), Bobmunsa
- Tahirih V. Lee, "Court-Appointed Experts and Judicial Reluctance: A Proposal to Amend Rule 706 if the Federal Rules of Evidence", Yale Law &Policy Review, 6(2), pp.499~ (1988)
- "Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando American, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 1499 (D. Colo. 1999)", ~ (1999)
- Ellen E. Deason, "Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference", Oregon Law Review, 77(1), pp.100~101 (1999)
- 김성룡, "형사소송법의 전문가감정의 제 문제", 비교형사법연구, 7(1), pp.271~290 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- Ellen E. Deason, "Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference", Oregon Law Review, 77(1), pp.60~62 (1999)
- ソノだケンジ, "専門訴訟における争点整理への専門家の中立関与と当事者権の保障", 広島法学, 27(2), pp.170~172 (2003)
- Kim Hui Ouk, "Expert Evidence in the Investigation Process", Gosilaw, 36(7), pp.174~ (1991)