http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 최정일(Jung-Il Choi) (검색결과 123 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
독일과 한국에서의 경찰책임(특히 행위책임)의 승계 -2006년 3월 16일자의 독일연방행정대법원 판결을 중심으로-
최정일 ( Jung Il Choi ) 한국경찰법학회 2014 경찰법연구 Vol.12 No.1
This research seeks how to protect Sexual Assault victims in the criminal justice process after the abolishment of crime to compliant on the crimes of rape in 2012, examining the legal and political grounds of crime to compliant on sexual crimes and the effects of this abolishment and investigating the colorful needs of victims who accused their offenders by conducting an empirical study on the 260 counseling journals recorded at the Korean Sexual Violence Relief Center from 2008 to 2010. This crime to compliant aims to protect victims` privacy and reputation because of the cultural context in Korea, where exist the social stigma and condemn against sexual assault victims. However, this code has not only protected victims but also shifted the burden by punishment to the offenders on them. Even though victims can be protected by the abolishment of crime to compliant on the crimes of rape in this context, some victims might need the system to focus on the victim`s unwillingness to punish. The empirical study on the counseling journals shows that the victims` privacy can be violated during the criminal justice process because of social stigma against sexual assault victims and secondary victimization during criminal justice process, and that the victims view criminal settlement as one of the options for resolving the crime through apologies and regret from the offender and restoring from the harm caused by the crime. These results can give directions for protection of sexual assault victims` privacy in the criminal justice process.
-
최정일(Choi, Jung-Il) 한국형사법학회 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.3
Before describing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, First, The type of An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be explicitly established. That is, This type is only limited as one case; Basic crime merely extended to the stage of An attempted crime but has finally caused heavy effects. Second, Two prerequisites should be clearly set; a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy b) The Punishment of Basic Crime. a) The Fulfillment of Immediacy means that The Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes can be contained in arguing An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime but The Result-related Consequentially Aggravated Crime should be excluded from debating An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. b) The Punishment of Basic Crime means that if the basic crime is not unpunishable it should be thought that there is not the basic crime. therefore, the general and typical danger which is immediately linked to heavy effects(mostly injury or death) doesn`t exist in the basic crime. After all, 'Unpunishable Basic Crime' - this term represents that the basic crime not actually exist. I have an evident opinion that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can only be meaningful to the Act-related Consequentially Aggravated Crimes which have the punishable basic crimes. Also, there are usually two theories concerning An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime. One is the affirmative view which supports that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built, The other is the negative view which denies that An attempted crime of Consequentially Aggravated Crime is built. The negative view is the position which both the Supreme court and most scholars advocate. so to speak, The negative view has been regarded as the majority opinion. so far, they have insisted that all the punishment regulations of An attempted crime regarding Consequentially Aggravated Crime only resulted from legislator's mistakes. Considering the substance of Consequentially Aggravated Crime; In special, Principle of Immediacy, I think that the affirmative view is far more rational than the negative view. In current criminal law, Not only the basis of aggravated punishment but also the extent of aggravated punishment should we consider. In examining our regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime, In terms of the sentence, we can notice that the regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime are much heavier than those of the Simple Combination Form(a deliberate offense and a criminal negligence) or even the deliberate offense of heavy effects(death or injury). Appropriate reduction of sentences are certainly needed. With the proper revisions, The regulations of Consequentially Aggravated Crime can correspond to the principle of responsibility.
-
최정일(Choi, Jung Il) 행정법이론실무학회 2013 행정법연구 Vol.- No.36
원자력에너지가 경제적으로 필수적인지 아니면 원자력에너지 없이도 에너지공급에 문제가 없는지라는 문제, 원자력에너지의 파국적 잠재력을 최소화시켜서 다른, 수용가능한 기술적 리스크 수준으로 축소시킬 수 있는지, 방사성폐기물처리와 최종보관장소에 대해 만족할 만한 해결책을 찾게 되어, 미래세대에 대해서도 수인불가능한 리스크를 부과하지 않을 수 있는지 여부, 그리고 원자력에너지의 사용에 의해 재생에너지의 기술발전이 방해받지 않는지 여부의 문제 등이 원자력에너지문제의 핵심이라고 할 수 있다. 원자력에너지의 평화적 이용을 지지하는 입장에서는 석유화학산업에 필요불가결한 석유의 절약과, 전통적인 발전소(특히 화력발전소)에 비해 원자력발전소가 보다 더 환경친화적인 점을 그 근거로 제시하고 있고, 원자력에너지의 평화적 이용에 회의적인 입장에서는, 무엇보다도 원자력발전소의 안전문제를 그 반대논거로 제시하고 있다. 독일 원자력법[2002년 개정전의 법] 7조1항은 원자력발전소의 설치허가와 운영허가를 규정하고 있다. 동조2항에서는, 「일정 허가요건을 충족할 경우에만 허가가 발급될 수 있다」라고 규정하고 있는데, 비록 허가요건이 충족되더라도, 독일 「원자력법」 1조1항의 “원자력의 평화적 이용”이란 “촉진목적”에 비추어 볼 때, 원자력발전소설치허가는 허가유보부의 예방적 금지이기는 하지만, 허가발급시에는 원자력에너지의 특별한 위험이 아직 충분히 조망될 수 없으므로, 허가관청에게는 제한된 범위내의 “거부재량”이 인정된다고 보고 있다. 이 경우 특히 재량의 하자 없는 거부가능성이 어느 범위에서 인정되는지는 다투어진다. 한편, 독일 「원자력법」 7조2항1문3호에서는 “원자력발전소의 건설과 운영에 의한 피해에 대한, 과학기술수준에 따른 예방조치가 취해질 것”을 허가전제요건 중의 하나로 규정하고 있는데, 허가절차시의 그것의 핵심적 의미와 동조문에 사용되는 불확정개념 때문에 독일 「원자력법」중 최대의 쟁점 중 하나가 되고 있다. 독일 「원자력법」 7조2항1문3호는, 「각각의 과학기술수준에 따른 피해의 실제적 배제」를 요구하고 있는데, 이는 “평가”와 불가분의 관계에 있고, 이 경우의 리스크의 조사와 평가는 독일연방헌법재판소와 독일연방행정대법원의 일치된 견해에 따르면 단지 제한된 사법심사만 가능한 판단여지(평가특권)로서 행정에게 맡겨져 있다. 독일연방행정대법원의 견해에 따르면 환경법과 기술적 안전법에서의 규범구체화행정규칙은 특별한 지위를 가진다. 그것은 환경오염의 한계치의 확정을 위한 기술적 지침의 문제이다. 독일연방행정대법원의 빌[Wyhl]판결에서는, 「이러한 “기술적 규범”들은 규범구체화행정규칙으로서 법원을 구속할 수 있다」라고 판시하였다. 환경보전법상의 부분허가와 예비결정이 원자력법에도 규정되어있다. 부분허가는, 단계적으로 문제를 처리함으로써 절차를 관계인에게 보다 더 조망할 수 있게 형성하게 하고, 후속허가시에 최신의 과학기술수준에 따른 사무처리를 가능하게 한다. 예비결정은, 원자력발전소건설허가의 발급이 그것에 달려있는, 그런 개별적 문제들[예 : 입지, 구상]과 관련된다. 예비결정은 그 뒤 발급되는 부분허가가 지켜야 하는 범위를 설정해준다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 독일과 한국에서의 원자력발전소건설허가를 둘러싼 법적 쟁점들을 정리하고, 한국에서의 원자력관련 법리의 방향을 모색해 보고자 한다.
-
-
-
-
독일과 미국에서의 의회에 의한 위임입법의 직접적 통제에 관한 연구
최정일(Choi Jung-Il) 행정법이론실무학회 2008 행정법연구 Vol.- No.21
The Korean Constitution provides separation of powers. It divides the power of government among three branches of government. But while the Korean Constitution creates separate executive, legislative, and judicial departments, it establishes no air tight compartmentalization of the branches. Instead, it sought to establish a system of checks and balances. The aim of this article is to exam is to the direct congressional control over administrative regulations in Germany and in U.S.A. First, to bridge the gap between general policies and the details of their application, the German parlament vests executive agencies with rule-making power. According to article 80 GG, public bodies may promulgate regulations(Verordnungen) based upon the statutory determination of the instrument's objectives and substantial content. Administrative bodies thus enjoy delegated power to regulate details that the legislature need not have addressed. In Germany, however, to control these administrative regulations. German Parlament (Bundestag) introduced the prior approval procedure of administrative regulations (Zustimmungsvorbehalt) and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) declared it constitutional. Second, in U.S.A, like Germany, Congress began to vest executive agencies with rule-making power - the authority to write rules or regulations, with the force of law, specifying how vague statutory directives should be applied. As Congress delegated increasing rule-making power to the executive branch, it poredictably looked for new ways to oversee and influence the exercise of executive power. In particular, it began to rely increasingly on statutory provisions authorizing so-called legislative vetoes. In a typical statutory design, Congress would authorize executive rule-making but provide that the rules drafted by an executive agency could not take effect if either the House or Senate enacted a 'veto resolution' expressing its disapproval. The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of legislative vetoes in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chada (1983). The Court held the arrangement unconstitutinal. The Court reasoned that legislative veto violated the plain language and structural design (The Presentment Clauses and Bicameralism) of the Constitution. Congress has in 1996 taken a step to reassert its authority over agency decisionmaking. A 1996 law requires agencies to submit all rules to Congress. for its review and stays the effective date of major rules to perm it legislative review. If the joint resolution is passed by Congress and signed by the President, a rule will not take effect, or if it has already gone into effect because the 60-day expired, the rule will cease to be in effect. The 「Korean National Assembly Act」 Article 98-2 provides now that agencies must submit all rules to the Korean National Assembly for its review. The Standing Committee of the Korean National Assembly examine them with respect to whether they are in contravention to the Acts, etc. The Korean National Parlament may notify the agencies of their contents. In this article, it is suggested that the instruments of German and American direct control system over administrative rules by parlaments can and must be introduced to Korean legal system without the problem of being unconstitutional.
-
-
ScienceON
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
