http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
宋吉雄 釜山工業大學校 1995 論文集 Vol.37 No.-
It is justified that the theory which principlely adopts a doctrine of indirect application and exceptionally admits direct effect in case of only elucidation provision of constitutional law. Quarantee of fundamental rights in between private person cause the collison problem of fundamental rights between them. In example, the protection of a private person's honor and secret makes it cestrict to the freedom of expression. As a result, suppoed that we would consider the one's fundamental rights and would not consider other's them, the problem of infringement of fundamental rights will occur. In the respect of private person's effective problem of fundamental rights, the opposing interest of each party should be adjusted in view of mutualism of fundamental rights. Third theory must be required further deepand detailed inquiry. Because the present situation in that a lots of doctrines and there is not an established opinion as an opinion which is existing a negative reaction.
宋吉雄 釜山工業大學校 1994 論文集 Vol.36 No.-
A Study on the Limits of Amendment of the Constitution the operation of Constitution Ame ndment, however owing to causing it to disturb the Constitution which is the fundmental law of nations is that there is one side of resulting in unstability of the national law order, the limit problems of the Amendment will have to be limited in respeet of harmonizing boss parties together, Even if the Constitution Amendment may be possible, it is likely that it is impossible to make undesirable Amendment.
宋吉雄 釜慶大學校 1997 釜慶大學校 論文集 Vol.2 No.1
Emerson's classificatory test and Ely'w categorization and balancing test, inclusing Nimmer's definitional balancing test may be grouped into the category of definitional balancing test, because they are directed into the same direction. According to Nimmer's definitional balancing test, the court takes the balance between the interrest in freedom of expression and interest in the opposite value on the definitional level. That is to say, the court takes the balance the interest in freedom of expression in general against the opposite interest in general. In the following reports, definitional balancing is differrent from ad hoc balancing. First, the sane considerations are not weighted in both definitional balancing and ad hoc balancing. In the letter it is the interests presented in the particular circumstances of the case before the court which are weighted. second , a more profound difference between the ad hoc balacing and definitonal balancing lies in the fact that a rule emerges from definitional balancing which can be employed in future cases without the occasion for further weighing of interests. Moreover such a rule should continud to be applicable nowithstanding the subsequent different manner attempts to protect an interest inimical to speech. But two concession must be made. First, neither definitional balancing nor any other technique can offer absolute assurance that a given court under sufficient internal or external pressure in some hard case will not depart from a defintional rule. Nevertheless, difinitional balancing can insulate a judge from legally irrelevant pressures to a considerable degree if the judge wishes such insulation. Second, in Vacuo, ad hoc balancing is more likely to consider fine nuances and therefore produce a more just result. Conclusively, definitional balancing of interests is defensible as a judicial function. The Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v.Sillivan implicitly recognized the need for definitional balancing and drew a definitional line which on the whole establishes a felicitous equilibrium between antithetical interests in speech and reputation. But the court's subsequent decision in Time, Inc. v. Hill is errorneous in that it assumes that the definitional balance appropriate to the speech and reputation context is equally applicable in balancing competing interests in speech and privacy. The content of Emerson's calssificatory test is as follows. The root purpose of the First Amendment was to assure an effective system of freedom of expression in a democratic society.