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

      KCI등재

      교육법에서의 명확성 원칙의 법리에 관한 헌법재판소 결정 비판

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76461767

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

        The major purpose of the study is to analyze the Constitutional Court of Korea cases on the legal theory of the principle of definiteness in education law critically. The major findings are as follows. First, the court related this principle to the Equal Protection Clause, the over-restriction principle, and the principle of non-infringement of the essential content of fundamental rights. However this relationship is inappropriate because they are different in their nature and meanings.<BR>  Second, the court suggested the different subject of the judgement for definiteness by the area of its application. For example, the reasonable person in the case of the restriction of fundamental rights, the law enforcer when free speech is restricted, the sound judge and the reasonable person in the case of the principle of nulla crimen, and the people and the administrative body in the case of the delegated order. However, the reasonable person standard has a weakness since not this person but the Justice judges definiteness from the reasonable person"s viewpoint. Next, the law enforcer and the sound judge are not consistent with the purpose of requiring definiteness in the case of the restriction of free speech and the principles of nulla crimen. Finally, it is desirable that in the case of the elementary school students the parent judges definiteness considering their linguistic development.<BR>  Third, the court approached to the reasonable person in terms of the ability of judgement, common sense, legal emotion, and the intelligence. This approach has some weaknesses. First, what they are and who should judge them are unclear. Also, they need the normative proving. Next, by distinguishing the have"s and the have-not"s this approach can oppress the possibility of the latter"s, in particular the teacher"s, litigation on the basis of the principle of definiteness. Finally, the meaning and the court"s interpretation of the law is not necessarily consistent with the legal emotion.<BR>  Fourth, the court used the less restrictive standard in the case of the law with ever-changing and various facts, the collection of the less sensitive information, deregulation, and the delegated order while the more strict standard in the case of the restriction of free speech, the principle of nulla crimen, and the burdensome law. However this usage has two weak points. First, in the case of the delegated order it is necessary to use different standard by what is regulated. Further, which standard should be used is unclear in the case of the burdensome law with ever-changing and diverse facts. Finally, it is desirable to use the less restrictive standard in the case of delegation to the school regulation and rule.<BR>  Last, the court usually used vagueness and overbreadth as the criteria for judging definiteness in the case of the restriction of the fundamental rights and free speech and the principle of nulla crimen. However the court did not distinguish between vagueness and overbreadth and factually make the requirements for definiteness loose through the judges"s compensatory interpretation and the constitution-consistent one. Also, the court used foreseeability and intelligibility as the criterion for judging definiteness in the case of the delegated order. However, the former is not appropriate as this criteria because this order is the problem of power distribution between the legislative and the executive. Also, there is a possibility that the judge"s compensatory interpretation does not reflect the unique logic of education.
      번역하기

        The major purpose of the study is to analyze the Constitutional Court of Korea cases on the legal theory of the principle of definiteness in education law critically. The major findings are as follows. First, the court related this princip...

        The major purpose of the study is to analyze the Constitutional Court of Korea cases on the legal theory of the principle of definiteness in education law critically. The major findings are as follows. First, the court related this principle to the Equal Protection Clause, the over-restriction principle, and the principle of non-infringement of the essential content of fundamental rights. However this relationship is inappropriate because they are different in their nature and meanings.<BR>  Second, the court suggested the different subject of the judgement for definiteness by the area of its application. For example, the reasonable person in the case of the restriction of fundamental rights, the law enforcer when free speech is restricted, the sound judge and the reasonable person in the case of the principle of nulla crimen, and the people and the administrative body in the case of the delegated order. However, the reasonable person standard has a weakness since not this person but the Justice judges definiteness from the reasonable person"s viewpoint. Next, the law enforcer and the sound judge are not consistent with the purpose of requiring definiteness in the case of the restriction of free speech and the principles of nulla crimen. Finally, it is desirable that in the case of the elementary school students the parent judges definiteness considering their linguistic development.<BR>  Third, the court approached to the reasonable person in terms of the ability of judgement, common sense, legal emotion, and the intelligence. This approach has some weaknesses. First, what they are and who should judge them are unclear. Also, they need the normative proving. Next, by distinguishing the have"s and the have-not"s this approach can oppress the possibility of the latter"s, in particular the teacher"s, litigation on the basis of the principle of definiteness. Finally, the meaning and the court"s interpretation of the law is not necessarily consistent with the legal emotion.<BR>  Fourth, the court used the less restrictive standard in the case of the law with ever-changing and various facts, the collection of the less sensitive information, deregulation, and the delegated order while the more strict standard in the case of the restriction of free speech, the principle of nulla crimen, and the burdensome law. However this usage has two weak points. First, in the case of the delegated order it is necessary to use different standard by what is regulated. Further, which standard should be used is unclear in the case of the burdensome law with ever-changing and diverse facts. Finally, it is desirable to use the less restrictive standard in the case of delegation to the school regulation and rule.<BR>  Last, the court usually used vagueness and overbreadth as the criteria for judging definiteness in the case of the restriction of the fundamental rights and free speech and the principle of nulla crimen. However the court did not distinguish between vagueness and overbreadth and factually make the requirements for definiteness loose through the judges"s compensatory interpretation and the constitution-consistent one. Also, the court used foreseeability and intelligibility as the criterion for judging definiteness in the case of the delegated order. However, the former is not appropriate as this criteria because this order is the problem of power distribution between the legislative and the executive. Also, there is a possibility that the judge"s compensatory interpretation does not reflect the unique logic of education.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼