http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
최양수 서울市立大學校 法律行政硏究所 1993 法律行政論集 Vol.1 No.-
The purpose of this study is to analyze problem of institution and operation of the doctrine of due process of law in the US, Japan and Korea. Direct equivalents of procedural due process are found in most legal systems, since the concept of a fair trial is fundamental to the idea of law itself. The historical origin of due process may be traced to chapter 39 of Magna Carta(1215), which declared that no free man should be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed of property of privileges except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. These words influenced developments in English criminal procedure: judgment by peers evolved into trial by jury, and 'the law of the land' was interpreted by parliament in the fourteenth century and by Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century as meaning due process of common law. The fifth Amendment of the United State Constitution proclaims that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the fourteenth Amendment extends the same principle to state action. Upon these declarations has been built a vast superstructure of constitutional law that serres to ensure that governmental power is not used against individuals except in accordance with the law and with due regard for their rights. In Criminal law an accused is entitled to a fair trial which entails inter alia prior notice of any charges, opportunity to prepare a defence, the right to counsel, the right to submit eridence and cross-examine, the right to a JURY verdict and a impartial judge. In US law such values also extend to civil proceedings between individual and to decision making by administrative agencies whose powers may affect an individual's right or freedom. In 1970 the Supreme Court opened up the application of procedural due process to a wide variety of the individual's relation with government, holding in Goldberg v. Kelly that an eridentiary hearing must be given before a social welfare agency decides to terminate the payment of benefit. One controversial branch of the due process doctrine, known as substantive due process, empowers court to protect individual rights against regulatory measures in executive or legislative from which in substance intrude further upon in individual antonomy than the Judges consider reasonable, first seen early in this century (in Lochner v. New York 1905), when legislation affecting economic and property rights was struck down, but subsequently diseredited as palitical opinion changed, substantive due process has been given new like more recently in the protection of personal privacy against laws banning abortion and the use of contraception. Japanese and Korean Constitution have adopted the doctrine of due process of law in 1945 and 1988 respectively. But in these two countries, the legal system is different from that can be functioning in American Constitution. In conclusion, the doctrine of due process of law can serve for the promotion of fundamental rights of an individuals.
崔良秀 서울市立大學校 1982 論文集 Vol.16 No.-
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. The statement is equally true today. It is well known that American government is so called judiociocracy or governmern by judges and the Supreme Court is a third chamber of the legislature. Judge-made law plays a much larger part in the government of the American people than of the British. American judges are less attentive to the letter of the law or to precedent. They move freely in wider orbits. Both bench and bar make greater use of stat istical and other social studies, and the line between law and policy is often blured. These characteristics reach their peak in constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court of the United States and the inferior federal courts. The author's aims in these articles about constitutional adjudication are three: The first is to indicate the kinds of questions with which the Supreme Court dleals and extent of the constitutional protection accorded individuals and minorities. The second purpose is to inquire into the uses and abuses of constitutional adjudication as an instrument of social policy. Here the emphasis will be less on results than on the proper institutional limits of the judicial function. The third, the article inquire into the sources of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions. These three purposes underlie all this article and Contents of this article are as follows Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. The Court's role in Governmental Process. Ⅲ. The Court's role in Garantee of Individual Liberty 1. In troductory 2. The Court's and Individual Liberty 3. Equality and the Constitution. Ⅳ. The Affirmative duties of Government Ⅴ. Summary and Couclusion.
최양수,박종일,전윤선,이태진 서울産業大學校 2005 논문집 Vol.54 No.3
Biodegradation of naphthalene in aqueous solution was conducted with incubation of the mixed culture and the isolate. The mixed cultures were obtained from activated sludge at a wastewater treatment plant, petroleum contaminated soil in Bupyeong-city and Shiheung-city. The degradation was faster with the culture from the activated sludge than the contaminated soil in both cities with the incubation under 30 °C. The growth of microorganism was increased with degradation of naphthalene. With the incubation of the cultures under 15°C, the patterns are different under 30 °C. The degradation of naphthalene was faster with the contaminated soil in both cities than the activated sludge. The pseudo-first order degradation constant at 30°C was 1.6 times faster than 15°C.