요추부 수술 후 경막외 무통방법과 지속적 정맥 주입에 의한 통증 조절의 효과 비교

오규성,신문수,길현주,허륭,최훈규,안정용,권성오,Oh, Kyu Sung,Shin, Moon Soo,Gil, Hyun Joo,Hur, Ryoong,Choi, Hun Kyu,Ahn, Jung Yong,Kwon, Seong Oh 대한신경외과학회 2001 Journal of Korean neurosurgical society Vol.30 No.12

Objective : The purpose of this non-randomized prospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous intravenous nalbuphine-ketorolac-droperidol(CIA) versus continuous infusion of epidural morphine-bupivacaine(CEA) for pain control after lumbar spinal surgery. Methods : Twenty-one patients who underwent spine surgery including laminectomy, fusion with fixation were assigned to receive an intravenous bolus of nalbuphine 5mg and ketorolac 15mg, followed by a continuous infusion of nalbuphine 25mg, ketorolac 105mg, and droperidol 5mg mixed with normal saline 98cc(2cc/hr). Twenty patients received a bolus infusion of morphine 2mg and 0.125% bupivacaine 8cc followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 100cc 0.125% bupivacaine and morphine sulfate 8.0mg(2cc/hr). Pain score was measured on a visual analogue scale(VAS). It's safety and efficacies were compared with the results of continuous infusion of epidural morphine-bupivacaine, which was reported previously by same authors. A continuous infuser was used to give epidural morphine-bupivacaine and intravenous nalbuphine-ketorolac-droperidol. Results : In general, mild pain, pain less than 3 VAS scores, was observed postoperatively from 30minutes to 72hours in CEA group, and from 6 hours to 72 hours in CIA group. The early postoperative pain was controlled easily in 6 hours in CEA group, compared to CIA group(p<0.05). However, there was no statistical significance in 72 hours on pain scores between CEA and CIA groups after 6-12hours of pain managements. Pruritus, nausea and vomiting, and urinary retention were more frequent in CEA group. Conclusion : CIA and CEA are considered effective methods in postoperative pain managements. However, adequate doses in early intravenous infusion and continuous intravenous analgesia with nalbuphine-ketorolac-droperidol will be needed for better control in early postoperative pain with less side effects.

Phenylephrine 점안후의 전신적 부작용에 대한 고찰

조용오 , 오규성 , 조해완 ( Yong Oh Cho , Kyu Sung Oh , Hae Wan Cho ) 대한안과학회 1979 대한안과학회지 Vol.20 No.4

한 가족에 발생한 Crouzon 씨 병 3예

오규성(Kyu Sung Oh),한경숙(Kyung Sook Hahn) 대한안과학회 1980 대한안과학회지 Vol.21 No.4

미국의 소각하에 관한 연구

오규성(Oh, Giu Sung) 사법정책연구원 2017 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2017 No.-

미국의 민사소송절차는 법정에서의 변론 및 증거조사를 위한 단계와 이를 준비하는 단계가 엄격히 구분되어 있어 쟁점을 정리하고 증거조사준비를 한 다음 배심원에 의한 사실 심리 후 평결을 거쳐 판결을 하는 것이 원칙적인 모습입니다. 이러한 미국의 민사소송절차에서는 소송의 초기 단계에서 본안심리의 필요성이 적은 사건들을 조기에 걸러내고 충실한 본안심리가 필요한 사건에 사법자원을 집중할 필요성이 큽니다. 따라서 미국 민사소송에서는 조기 소각하 제도 및 소각하신청이 중요한 의의를 가집니다. 미국 민사소송에서는 법원의 명령 불이행, 법령 위반, 소송수행의 불성실, 부당소송 등이 소각하 사유에 해당합니다. 특히 법원은 부당한 소송행위에 대한 제재로서 재량으로 소를 각하할 수 있는 권한이 있고, 이를 법원 고유의 권한으로 봅니다. 또한 소장 기재 주장만으로는 청구를 인용하기에 부족함 도 실무상 주요 소각하 사유 중의 하나인데, 이는 실질적으로 사실심리나 증거조사 없이 조기에 청구를 기각하는 것과 같습니다. 요컨대, 형식적인 소송요건의 흠결만이 소각하 사유에 해당하는 우리 민사소송제도에 비하여, 미국의 민사소송에서는 법원의 소각하 권한이 폭넓게 인정됩니다. 한편, 미국에서는 부당소송을 소각하 사유로 명시적으로 입법화한 주도 있고, 일정 요건하에서 부당소송인의 소제기 자체를 금지하는 법을 제정하여 시행하는 주도 있으며, 이른바 전략적 봉쇄소송을 별도의 소각하 사유로 입법화한 주도 있습니다. 이와 같이 각 주 별로 자신들의 실정에 맞는 특정한 소각하 사유를 입법화하여 운용하기도 합니다. 미국의 소각하 제도는 미국의 민사소송절차의 특성에 맞추어 자리잡은 제도라 할 것이나, 한정된 사법자원의 효율적인 분배를 통하여 민사소송의 신속과 소송경제를 추구한다는 측면에서는 우리 민사소송에도 시사하는 바다 큽니다. 미국의 소각하 관련 제도를 참고하여, 소각하 사유를 구체화하는 방안, 법원모욕 관련 제재를 강화하는 방안, 부당소송 내지 남소를 방지하기 위한 입법 등을 고려할 수 있습니다. 이 연구보고서에서 다룬 미국 민사소송의 소각하 제도에 관한 제반 내용들이, 우리 민사소송의 이상인 적정과 공평을 해하지 아니하면서도 신속과 소송경제를 실현하는 방법에 관한 논의를 활성화할 수 있기를 기대합니다. The U.S. federal and state civil procedures are divided into two stages: pretrial and trial. At the pretrial stage, the plaintiffs and the defendants prepare for trial by means of pleading, discovery and other ancillary proceedings. Most cases are disposed of by settlement or dismissed without a trial. If a case is not settled, it will proceed to a trial. At the trial stage, the jury will determine what the facts of the case are unless the parties waive their right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial the court will deliver a judgment to the parties. Considering the structure and process of civil litigation, it is important to screen out in the beginning of the process the cases that the court does not need to adjudicate on and to concentrate judicial resources on the cases that need thorough reviewing on the merits. Therefore motions to dismiss and the dismissal of actions or claims in the early stages of litigation is important in the U.S. civil procedure. In the U.S. federal and state civil procedures, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with codes and rules of civil procedure or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it and a court may sua sponte dismiss such action or claim. In some states the court may also dismiss a complaint as a frivolous lawsuit. The court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal in a proper case or to dismiss a case for litigant misconduct. In addition, a court may dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Actually in motion practice, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not rare, and courts often grant such motions. Such dismissals essentially amount to adjudication on the merits in the early xii stages of the civil litigation procedure without the fact finding and the examination of evidence. In comparison to the civil procedure in Korea where courts can dismiss a complaint only for limited procedural defects, U.S. federal and state courts enjoy a greater degree of authority and discretion in dismissing cases on various grounds. In the U.S. some states have statues or codes that provide for the right to dismiss a case as a frivolous lawsuit. Moreover, several states have enacted vexatious litigant acts or vexatious litigation law which prohibit vexatious litigants from filing lawsuits without the permission of the court. Many states have also legislated against so-called “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, SLAPP”, in which state defendants can file an early motion to dismiss for SLAPP. This shows how states utilize dismissals for their respective needs. Dismissals in the United States have developed by reflecting the characteristics and the practices of the U.S. federal and state civil litigation procedures. Nevertheless the speedy and economical resolution of claims by means of the efficient allocation of limited judicial resources provides important implications for Korean civil procedure. By referring to the institution of dismissals in U.S. civil procedure, it may be possible to improve certain aspects of the Korean civil litigation procedure such as specifying the grounds for dismissal, investing the court with more authority for sanctions against contempt of court and legislating against vexatious litigation or frivolous lawsuits. Hopefully, this research will contribute to the growing discussion about securing a just, speedy and inexpensive outcome for civil litigation in Korea.

예제에 의한 숭례문과 팔달문의 중층구조 차이에 관한 연구

오규성(Oh, Kyusung),김왕직(Kim, Wang-Jik) 대한건축학회 2015 대한건축학회논문집 Vol.31 No.10

The purpose of this study was to reinterpret the structures of Sungnyemun and Paldalmun through the analysis of the royal ritual. Both buildings were gates of the main cities in the Joseon dynasty which was used as a ruling place by the king in the late 18th century. For this alter of use, it turned out that Sungnyemun utilized its existing structure but had limitations while on the other hand, Paldalmun was thoroughly planned from the start on top of earlier experiences. The results of the analysis are as follows; firstly, as a result of differences in the circulation systems Sungnyemun used the lower floor as the ruling place while Paldamun used the upper floor, secondly, the opening size of the upper floor of Paldalmun was influenced by both Sungnyemun and Donhwamun. This enabled the lower floor to be uninfluenced by the king and led to reinforcing the offensive functions in frontal parapets of Paldalmun. Thirdly, Paldalmun gained the center alignment between the outer stairway and the side entrance. Fourthly, the inner staircase of Paldalmun was made under the principles of confucian and practicalism. Fifthly, the knee-brace-type-beam structure was adapted by most of multi-floored gates because of its usefulness of installing the inner staircase. Lastly, while the exterior model of Paldalmun can be defined as Sungnyemun, the model building that influenced the interior space planning is assumed to be Donhwamun.

지역난방 이용 공동주택 통합배관시스템의 효용성 검증

오규성(Gyu Sung Oh),김영일(Young Il Kim),김선혜(Sean Hay Kim) 대한설비공학회 2018 설비공학 논문집 Vol.30 No.10

This study validates effectiveness of a combined piping system for an apartment using district heating. The existing district heating system is composed of four pipes (four-pipe system), but the suggested combined piping system is composed only of two pipes (two-pipe system). Thanks to this simplification, the two-pipe system will reduce heat loss of supplied heating energy. Performance of the four-pipe system and the two-pipe system were analyzed using TRNSYS 17 in the aspect that 1) If it can provide sufficient heating energy for space heating and hot water simultaneously, and 2) How much of the heat loss of the hot water supply pipe may be reduced. Measured energy consumption were compared with simulation results, that revealed good agreement. This study also proposes an optimal operation strategy of the hot water set temperature for the two-pipe system. It is confirmed that the two-pipe system can provide sufficient heating energy and uses less energy compared to the four-pipe system.

미국 해외부패방지법에 관한 연구

오규성 ( Oh Giu Sung ) 사법정책연구원 2018 연구보고서 Vol.2018 No.12

In 1977, the Congress of the United States of America enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in response to revelations of widespread bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies. Seeking to restore public confidence in the business community, Congress passed the FCPA, outlawing bribery and imposing accounting requirements on certain securities issuers. These restrictions, however, competitively disadvantaged U.S. businesses operating in international markets and competing against foreign business that were unrestrained by similar provisions. Congress took this issue into consideration and twice amended the FCPA, first in 1988 and then again in 1998. These amendments expanded the FCPA’s reach to impose liability on some foreign nationals in an attempt to encourage international anti-corruption efforts and to create a level playing field for business. The FCPA contains both anti-bribery and accounting provisions. First, the anti-bribery provisions prohibit 1) U.S. persons and businesses[domestic concerns], 2) U.S. and foreign public companies listed on stock exchanges in the United States or which are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”)[issuers], and 3) certain foreign persons and businesses acting while in the territory of the United States[foreign non-residents] from making corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. In particular, the Department of Justice(“DOJ”) and SEC have continued to take an expansive approach to jurisdiction against foreign non-residents by liberally construing the phrase “while in the territory of the United States”. Very recently, however, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the DOJ’s attempt to expand the extraterritorial reach of the FCPA by holding that a foreign national who does not otherwise fall under “the categories of persons directly covered” by the FCPA cannot be held liable for violating the statute under the conspiracy and compliance doctrines. Whether the Supreme Court will rule on the Second Circuit Appeals Court’s decision, or how the above decision will affect DOJ’s enforcement of the law, is a matter of interest. Second, the accounting provisions require issuers to make and keep accurate books and records and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. The accounting provisions also prohibit individuals and businesses from knowingly falsifying books and records or knowingly circumventing or failing to implement a system of internal controls. The FCPA can result in criminal or civil liability for companies and for their individual officers, directors, employees, and agents. DOJ has the authority to pursue criminal actions. Under the Alternative Fines Act{18 U.S.C. §3571(d)}, courts may impose significantly higher fines than those provided by the FCPA - up to twice the benefit that the defendant obtained by making the corrupt payment. Both DOJ and SEC have civil enforcement authority under the FCPA. Notably, since 2004, SEC has been seeking disgorgement of profits and prejudgment interests from issuers in FCPA cases. Today, disgorgement often constitutes a majority of the total amount paid by corporations in FCPA resolutions. There are different types of resolutions with DOJ. Charges against individuals and companies can be brought by DOJ under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures. DOJ may agree to resolve criminal FCPA cases against companies either through a declination or, in appropriate cases, a negotiated resolution resulting in a plea agreement, deferred prosecution agreement, or non-prosecution agreement. For individuals, a negotiated resolution will generally take the form of a plea agreement. When negotiated resolutions cannot be reached with companies or individuals, the matter may proceed to trial. SEC can seek a court order compelling the defendant to obey the law in the future. Also, SEC has the ability to institute various types of administrative proceedings against a person or an entity that it believes has violated the law. SEC often resolves FCPA matters through a declination, deferred prosecution agreement, or non-prosecution agreement. The FCPA and its enforcement can provide important implications for both Korean lawmakers and businesses. First, it is necessary to reform our anti-bribery laws so that we can impose a criminal penalty on companies and other business entities in a more active way. Second, it is essential to deprive a person or a company of ill-gotten gains through making corrupt payments in order to deter bribery crimes. Third, Korean companies which are operating globally and their officers, directors, employees, and agents must be aware of the significance of the FCPA, substantially implementing a system of internal controls and setting a high value upon compliance. Hopefully, this research will contribute to understanding the FCPA in general and discussing its recent issues for many global companies and legal professionals.

미국의 소각하에 관한 연구

오규성 ( Oh Giu Sung ) 사법정책연구원 2017 연구보고서 Vol.2017 No.12

The U.S. federal and state civil procedures are divided into two stages: pretrial and trial. At the pretrial stage, the plaintiffs and the defendants prepare for trial by means of pleading, discovery and other ancillary proceedings. Most cases are disposed of by settlement or dismissed without a trial. If a case is not settled, it will proceed to a trial. At the trial stage, the jury will determine what the facts of the case are unless the parties waive their right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial the court will deliver a judgment to the parties. Considering the structure and process of civil litigation, it is important to screen out in the beginning of the process the cases that the court does not need to adjudicate on and to concentrate judicial resources on the cases that need thorough reviewing on the merits. Therefore motions to dismiss and the dismissal of actions or claims in the early stages of litigation is important in the U.S. civil procedure. In the U.S. federal and state civil procedures, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with codes and rules of civil procedure or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it and a court may sua sponte dismiss such action or claim. In some states the court may also dismiss a complaint as a frivolous lawsuit. The court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal in a proper case or to dismiss a case for litigant misconduct. In addition, a court may dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Actually in motion practice, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not rare, and courts often grant such motions. Such dismissals essentially amount to adjudication on the merits in the early stages of the civil litigation procedure without the fact finding and the examination of evidence. In comparison to the civil procedure in Korea where courts can dismiss a complaint only for limited procedural defects, U.S. federal and state courts enjoy a greater degree of authority and discretion in dismissing cases on various grounds. In the U.S. some states have statues or codes that provide for the right to dismiss a case as a frivolous lawsuit. Moreover, several states have enacted vexatious litigant acts or vexatious litigation law which prohibit vexatious litigants from filing lawsuits without the permission of the court. Many states have also legislated against so-called “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, SLAPP”, in which state defendants can file an early motion to dismiss for SLAPP. This shows how states utilize dismissals for their respective needs. Dismissals in the United States have developed by reflecting the characteristics and the practices of the U.S. federal and state civil litigation procedures. Nevertheless the speedy and economical resolution of claims by means of the efficient allocation of limited judicial resources provides important implications for Korean civil procedure. By referring to the institution of dismissals in U.S. civil procedure, it may be possible to improve certain aspects of the Korean civil litigation procedure such as specifying the grounds for dismissal, investing the court with more authority for sanctions against contempt of court and legislating against vexatious litigation or frivolous lawsuits. Hopefully, this research will contribute to the growing discussion about securing a just, speedy and inexpensive outcome for civil litigation in Korea.

망막아세포종으로 오진된 Coats 씨 병 1예

한경숙(Kyung Sook Han),오규성(Kyu Sung Oh),최광훈(Kwang Hoon Choi) 대한안과학회 1981 대한안과학회지 Vol.22 No.4

덕수궁 석조전 정원의 조성과 변천

김해경 ( Hai Gyoung Kim ),오규성 ( Kyusung Oh ) 한국전통조경학회 2015 한국전통조경학회지 Vol.33 No.3

본 연구는 석조전 정원 조성 과정과 변천을 사회적 배경에 따른 덕수궁 권역의 변천과 연계하여 분석하였다. 그 결과 정원의 변천 과정을 4단계로 구분하였다. 첫째, 개항기 말인 1896년에서 1914년이다. 1896년부터 1897년까지 경운궁은 법궁으로 조성되어 고종의 거처로 중화전과 석조전이 마련되었다. 석조전 건립 초기에는 브라운이 관여했고, 준공과 정원은 데이빗슨이 마무리했다. 정원 조성 과정에서 중화전 회랑이 훼철되고 돈덕전이 편입되었다. 정원은 중심부에 원형 기식화단과 축선을 겸한 동선을 지닌 단순한 형태였고 독수리 조각상을 세웠으나 곧 철거되었다. 둘째, 1915년에서 1932년으로 17년간 형태가 유지되었던 시기이다. 1911년 대한제국 말기 궁내부를 계승한 이왕직이 1915년에 주전과를 설치하여 덕수궁 내 건물들을 조사했다. 당시의 정원은 1차 조성 형태 요소 중 중심축선은 유지하였지만, 녹지대는 비대칭형으로 하였다. 세부화단은 원형이고 오픈 노트 기법과 경계부 식재를 했고, 세분된 동선을 조성했다. 셋째, 1933년에서 1937년까지로 석조전이 개방된 시기이다. 1932년 석조전을 상설미술관으로 개방하기 위해 많은 건물을 훼철했다. 새로 조성한 정원은 중심축과 연계된 동선 중심에 거북이 조각상이 놓인 직사각형 수반이 있는 형태이다. 넷째, 1938년에서 해방까지로 덕수궁이 공원화된 시기이다. 이왕가미술관을 건립하여 석조전과 브리지로 연결하였고, 정원은 선큰(sunken) 정원으로 변모했다. 분수대, 파고라가 도입되었고 이후 부분적인 변형이 있었으나 현재까지 지속되고 있다. 이처럼 현재 남겨진 석조전 정원은 최초의 모습이 아니며, 따라서 본 연구는 석조전 정원에 대한 언설이 재작성되어야 함을 밝힌 것에 의의가 있다. As a result of analyzing the forming and the transformations of Seokjojeon Hall garden by linking it to the changes of Deoksugung Palace influenced by the social atmosphere, the Seokjojeon garden can be classified into four phases. The first phase starts from 1896 to 1914. Gyeongungung was built in the late 19th century(1896-1897) as an official palace and Junghwajeon Hall and Seokjojeon Hall was built for Gojong. J.M.Brown was in charge of the construction of Seokjojeon in the beginning but H.W.Davidson saw the end also set up the garden. In the process of forming the garden the incorporating of Dondeokjeon Hall and the demolishing of the west wing corridors of Junghwajeon Hall occurred. At this phase of the garden a statue of an eagle was put up in the garden but was soon taken down. The shape of the garden was quiet simple with a central axial pathway, a round assorted flower bed placed in front of Seokjojeon Hall. The second phase starts from 1915 to 1932 which lasted for 17 years. At the last years of the Great Han Empire the duties of Gungnaebu(宮內府) was transferred to Leewangjik(李王職) in 1911 and a research on the existing buildings was done by Jujeonkwa(主殿課) in 1915. According to the research drawings, the garden still maintained the axial pathway formed in the previous phase but the garden had an asymmetric form. The flower bed was formed in a round shape and an open-knot technique and boundary plantation was applied to the garden. The third phase starts from 1933 to 1937 and is the period when Seokjojeon Hall was made public. By the year of 1932 many buildings of Deoksugung Palace had been demolished in the preparation of the opening of Seokjojeon Hall as a permanent exhibition hall. The central axial pathway still remained in the new garden and added a pond with a turtle statue in the center. The fourth phase starts from 1938 until the liberation from Japan and is the period when Deoksugung Palace became a park. Yi Royal-Family Museum was built and linked to Seokjojeon Hall with a bridge and the garden transformed into a sunken garden. The garden adopted a fountain and a pagora. Despite the minor changes in the after years the garden still posses most of its form from the fourth phase. As we can see the current garden of Seokjojeon Hall is not the same as the initial garden and therefor the importance of this study lies in the fact that modifications to the statements regarding to Seokjojeon Hall garden should be made.