• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.11 no.12
• /
• pp.734-741
• /
• 2011

The beginning that the 'Obstruction of Justice' in the United States is commonly known to Korea is through the impeachment of former president W. J. Clinton in 1998. The 'Obstruction of Justice' in the federal law of the United States is comprehensively provided with a general and a particular rule laying emphasis on the obstruction of legal judiciary proceedings. But, according to the Korean Criminal Act and court decisions, there are no such system like the 'Obstruction of Justice' in the United States. In this result, in terms of the criminal-judicial system, some cases even telling a lies has more benefits than revealing the truth and it is discouraged to cooperate the achievement of judicial justice, which make difficulties in investigation and realizing real truth. For this reason, the Ministry of Justice in Korea makes efforts to introduce the 'Obstruction of Justice'. Nevertheless we should examine from all angles that the introduction of 'Obstruction of Justice' is indeed the alternative in our circumstances. Most of the discussions on the introduction of 'Obstruction of Justice' and also the revised bill of the Ministry of Justice are questions of 'False Statement of Suspect and Witness' for investigation of investigative agency, rather than for the introduction of a general rule on the 'Obstruction of Justice'. The introduction of 'False Statement of Suspect and Witness' for investigation of investigative agency needs to consider concern about human rights infringement and witness protection system should be reinforced in the first place. In other words, the introduction of 'False Statement of Suspect and Witness' for investigation process of investigative agency is undesirable now.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.167-172
• /
• 2012

There is no substantive enactment in our country to regulate testifier's false statement in the process of investigation under current law. In consideration of such investigation reality, there exist predominant view that the regulations against testifier's untrue statement are necessary to fine actual truth on criminal justice. However, such view is not quite agreeable, for it holds a probability that excessive investigation rights might cause infringement on personal rights. It's because of human rights protection that the criminal justice puts before the finding of actual truth as its biggest principle, and as we see above, any testifiers' untrue statement are already punishable, although restrictive, through interpretation of deceptive scheme under current law such as obstruction of justice, crimes of sheltering or flying a criminal or calumny.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.211-239
• /
• 2020

This study examined characteristics and judges' judgments regarding sexual violence cases against individuals with intellectual disabilities by analyzing total 716 cases of court decision. Of 716 cases, 6.0% sentenced not guilty, 53.5% imprisonment, 36.7% suspended sentence. More than half of the victims had experienced sexual assault more than one time with the tendency of repeating being higher when the accused were relatives or acquaintances to the victims. In half of the total cases, the victims were not able to specify the time of incidents. Only in 20% of the cases, there was actual compulsion but in the remaining cases, there was no clear coercion used during the crimes. There are three issues regarding court's decision of sexual assault case against individuals with intellectually disabilities; (1) credibility of victims' statement, (2) inability of resist during the crimes, and (3) whether the accused were aware of the victims's disabilities. In the judgment of credibility of statement, consistency of statement was the criterion that was used most frequently, being followed by specificity of statement, motivation for false accusation, cognitive capacity of victim, and reports of statement validity analysis in the order. The most frequently used criterion of inability to resist was the victim's statement and attitude, followed by the statement and attitude of the accused, the victim's knowledge and understanding of sexuality in the order. Regarding to the awareness of disabilities on the part of the accused, the statement and attitude of the accused was most frequently used, the victims' communicative abilities, duration of relationship, and daily life competence in the order. There were no differences in the rulings and issues according to levels of disabilities and gender. When victims were under 13 credibility of statement became more argues but the awareness of disabilities less frequently than the cases of victims who were 13 or older.