http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
김대순,배종면,Kim, Dae Soon,Bae, Jong-Myon 제주대학교 의과학연구소 2020 The Journal of Medicine and Life Science Vol.17 No.1
As respiratory syncytial virus(RSV) is transmitted either via directly contact with an infected case or via indirectly contaminated fomites or skin, the major preventive measures are strict hand hygiene, early detection of transmitted sources, and rapid isolation of RSV patients. Especially early detection of hidden cases is the most critical control measure when an index case was notified in a postpartum center. The Guideline of Korea Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention defines potential contacts in an epidemiologic survey as admitted newborns, parents of index cases, center's workers, and visitors for 10 days before the first diagnosis day of index case. However, it needs to classify potential contacts in more detail in order to conduct a successful survey. Authors conducted to search related literatures and appraise the evidences. Firstly, potential contacts would be classified into RSV-related symptomatic contacts(SxC) and asymptomatic contacts. And then, mother, caring workers, and visitors of the index cases among asymptomatic contacts would be defined as the asymptomatic close contacts(ASCC). Finally, the rest would be defined as the asymptomatic regular contacts(ASRC). The defined test using reverse transcription-PCR is applied to SxC and ASCC, and decision of isolation or regular activities are made according to the results. The rapid antigen detection test kits are applied to ASRC. These suggestions might be helpful to detect hidden cases earlier and prevent a further infection.
도시 콘텍스트를 반영하는 성곽복원에 대한 제안으로서의 “라피데리안 도시(Lapidarian City)"의 계획안
김대순(Kim Dae-Soon),구영민(Koo Young-Min) 대한건축학회 2009 대한건축학회 학술발표대회 논문집 - 계획계/구조계 Vol.29 No.1(계획계)
Undergone a passive modernization, Seoul presently puts her heart into seeking after 'urban identity' in the global discourse. Most projects undertaken in the name of historical restoration, are, however, apt to create 'airy stage effect' decorated by false history because they usually destroy the existing neighbors again to revive simply the past images. The study attempts to criticize the City Wall restoration which only imitates the past figures of the Wall against globalism's homogenization, to represent the chronological gap between tradition and the modern age into architecture, and to explore authentic ways of manifestation of the sense of place to propose architectural strategy.
김대순(Dae Soon Kim) 한국유럽학회 1998 유럽연구 Vol.7 No.-
In interpreting the provisions of the Community Treaties, the European Court lays little emphasis on the historical, grammatical or textual approach. Obviously, what is significant to the European Court is to have” a Community based on the rule of law” and an eventual, prospective accomplishment of European integration. The statement by Advocate General Mancini in ` Les Verts` case shows that the Court is a court with a ` mission` and that therefore it is not an orthodox court: “…the obligation to observe the law takes precedence over the strict terms of the written law. Whenever required in the interests of judicial protection, the Court is prepared to correct or complete rules which limit its powers in the name of the principle which defines its mission.”
김대순 ( Dae Soon Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2015 法學硏究 Vol.25 No.4
영국의 최고 헌법규범인 이른바 의회주권의 원칙에 의하면, 오늘의 의회는 내일의 의회를 구속할 수 없으며, 사법부는 개별 법률에서 특별히 사법심사를 허용하는 경우를 제외하고는 (왕 혹은 여왕을 정점으로 하는)영국의회에서 제정된 법률의 적법성을 심사하는 것이 허락되지 아니한다. 최근 수년간 의회주권원칙에 주요 변화가 생겼다고 말하는 이들이 있는데, 이들이 그 근거로서 인용하는 몇 가지 발전에는 1972년 영국의 유럽공동체(현 EU) 가입, 일부 입법권의일부 지방의회로의 이전, “1998년 인권법” 제정, 그리고 2009년 그간 영국의 최고재판소로 기능해 왔던 상원의 사법기능을 신설된 “영국 최고재판소”로 이전한 것 등이 포함된다. 그러나 영국법에서 의회는 원한다면 언제든지 이러한 법률을 폐지할 수 있는데, 왜냐하면 내일의 의회는 오늘의 의회에 구속되지 않기때문이다. 따라서 “적어도 이론상으로는” 영국의 의회주권 원칙은 근본적으로는 훼손되지 않은 채 남아있다고 할 수 있다. According to what is called the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the supreme constitutional norm in UK, today’s parliament cannot bind tomorrow’s parliament, and the judiciary is not allowed to review the legality of statutes made by the parliament(headed by the King or Queen) except in the case and to the extent such a review is allowed by a specific statute. Those who say that over the recent years major changes have occurred to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty quote some developments in proof thereof -such as the UK’s entry into the European Communities(now the European Union) in 1972, the devolution of some legislative power to regional bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the making of the “Human Rights Act 1998”, and the passing of the statute to establish a Supreme Court of the UK in 2009 which replaces the House of Lords’ function as the UK’s final court of appeal. But in law of the UK, the parliament can repeal any one of them at any time, for tomorrow’s parliament will not be bound by today’s parliament. Therefore, it is fairly safe to say that “in theory at least”, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains to be not undermined fundamentally.
일반논문 : 이중위험금지 규칙은 불변의 진리인가? -영국의 Stephen Lawrence 피살 사건을 중심으로
김대순 ( Dae Soon Kim ) 영산대학교 법률연구소 2014 영산법률논총 Vol.11 No.2
영국 형사법에는 동일 범죄에 대해서는 -처음 재판에서 무죄로 석방되었건 유죄선고를 받았건-나중에 다시 재판에 회부할 수 없다는 오래된 보통법(common law)의 규칙이 있는데, 이 규칙은 흔히 이중위험금지 규칙(rule against double jeopardy), 혹은 간단히 이중위험 규칙(double jeopardy rule)으로 불리운다. 그러나 1993년에 발생한 십대 흑인 로렌스(Stephen Lawrence) 피살 사건에 자극 받은 영국 사회는 “2003년 형사재판법”(Criminal Justice Act 2003)을 제정하여 지난 800여년간 지속되어 온이중위험금지 규칙을 부분적으로 폐지하였다. 본 소고에서는 이 사건의 진행을 개관하면서 영국에서 이중위험금지 규칙이 일부 침식되는 과정을 소개하였다. 실질적으로 동일한 법리를 가진 한국에도 이제 그같은 취지의 입법에 대해 논의를 할 때가 되지 않았나? According to the common law of England, a person may not be tried twice for the same offence, whether he was acquitted or convicted on the first occasion. This is the rule against double jeopardy, which roughly corresponds to the idea of ne bis in idem of the Continental legal system. In order to scrap this around 800 year old rule, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the “Criminal Justice Act 2003”, which came into effect in 2005. This Act was the result of the reaction by the British society to the murder of a teenage black boy, Stephen Lawrence, which took place in 1993. This paper surveyed this murder case leading to the Act. The writer wishes to express his personal hope that now is the high time for the Korean lawyers to begin to debate whether or not to adopt the British exception to the rule against double jeopardy.