RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재
      • 합리적인 양형을 위하여 (上)

        박용철 서강대학교 법학연구소 2007 서강법학 Vol.9 No.1

        Sentencing law must accomodate many structural and individual constitutional interests: federalism, the separation of powers, democratic experimentation, individualization, consistency, efficiency, and procedural fairness and notice. The Court, however, has lurched from under-to over-regulation without carefully weighing competing principles and tradeoffs. A nuanced, modem sentencing jurisprudence would emphasize that a trial is a backward-looking, offense-oriented event well suited for a lay jury. Sentencing, in contrast, includes forward-looking, offender-oriented assessments and calls upon an expert, repeat-player judge to exercise reasoned judgment. Juries should find offense facts, but judges may find offender facts and also exercise judgment at sentencing. Part I of this Article begins by discussing principles that should inform the development of sentencing law. Constitutional sentencing rules should respect federalism and democratic experimentation, while also recognizing the virtues of input from various branches and actors. This part explores some missteps in the Court's sentencing jurisprudence, which further highlight why the Court should avoid writing Cunningham too broadly.

      • 서강대 법조인동문 대상 설문조사 연구

        김평우 서강대학교 법학연구소 2007 서강법학 Vol.9 No.1

        Recently Sogang University is trying to increase the number of people who will pass the bar examination. In 2006 Sogang University increased the number of students of law department that is one hundred per a scholastic year, and since 2007 law department has been a college. But these efforts are just for readying to introduce the law school system, actually they are not of help. So to increase the number of people who will pass the bar examination, as many lawyer alumni said, the increase of support for bar examination class is necessary. And the difficulty that candidates for bar examination have during the beginning is insufficiency of information about bar examination. Especially, non-college of law students have a little information about barl examination, and college of law students who don't have interaction with seniors also have a little information about bar examination. To solve this problem, establishing the consultation office of bar examination and home page will be effective. By this way, candidates for bar examination will have many information about the examination.

      • 공법교육에서의 이론교육과 실무교육의 조화

        이은기 서강대학교 법학연구소 2008 서강법학 Vol.10 No.2

        Korean law school system aims to change the system of choosing lawyers from selective examination system which has lasted for about sixty years to educating lawyer system. Now we meet a turning point of adequately mixing deductive reasoning method of legal education and inductive reasoning method by introduction of U. S. law school system. This two methodologies are contrary to each other. But these days the countries of Anglo- American law system and those of Continental law system are using other's methodology in legal education. So we must to pay attention to the fact that two methodologies are approaching mutually. Some professors misunderstand that 'practice' of practical education in korean law school is mere activity of writing legal documents like a complaint or a letter of complaint for lawsuit and learning lawyer's skills. Practical learning in law school is synthesis of every legal education on legal reasoning methods as like discovering law (involving legal theory and statutes)or improving ability of legal reasoning to resolve actual human problems. These activities are comprehensively called "lawyering" in U. S. law school. Professors who have practical career as an attorney at law or a judge or a prosecutor(as they say 'practical professors')have used judical precedents for resolving actual cases during practical working period. Therefore practical professors have to teach precedents discriminately to students analyzing reversely and reproducing concerned cases as complete actual case in comparison to theoretical professors' teaching method. Theoretical professors and practical professors who have to produce capable lawyers(problem-solver) must cooperate to achieve congruence between theoretical education and practical education of public law in korean law school. Basically law school is the educational institute where they educate practically capable lawyers. And jurisprudence is practical study. The relationship between legal theoretical education and practical education is same as the relationship of wagon's two wheels which can't operate respectively. Legal theories which don't correspond with legal practices will gradually disappear and legal practices without back-up of legal theories are mere forms. Communication between legal theoretical professors and practical professors have to be made everywhere and every time. That is the shortcut to reduce trior and error relating to legal education in a short time. Finally, we must abstain from making light of teaching public law in law school. We have to be afraid of making a mistake which ignores the reality that law school graduates will be not only lawyer but also public official, politician and pressman. In this thesis I emphasized the importance of proper understanding on 'practice' of legal practical education and of achieving congruence between legal theoretical education and practical education in korean law school.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼