인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
Whereas Our Constitution Article 101(1) provides that Judicial power shall be invested in courts composed of judges. Whereas Article 107(1) provides that when the constitutionality of a law is at issue in a trial, the court shall request a decision of the Constitutional Court, and shall judge according to the decision thereof.
With regard to the above said clauses, 2012. 12. 27. Korean Constutional Court ruled that a claim for unconstitutionality in the context is lawful basically, reversing its own precedent that a claim for the unconstitutionality in the context is unlawful basically but lawful exceptionally in the following 3 cases: (ⅰ) in case that can be taken as a claim for the indefiniteness of provisions on review, (ⅱ) in case that provisions on review which are concretized by the ordinary court are unconstitutional, (ⅲ) in case that can be taken as a claim for the provisions on review and the like(2011Hun-Ba117)
But the above-said decision ought to be criticized for the following reasons.
(ⅰ) the decision conflicts with the Constitution Article 101(1) and the Constitutional Court Act Article 68(1) that prohibits decision of the ordinary court from adjudication on constitutional complaint.
(ⅱ) it is not clear that tell interpretation from connotation. in this case whether the applicant comes under the government official in the Criminal Act 129 is not the problem of the law but the connotation of the law.
(ⅲ) KCC"s ruling that interpretation that nonofficial commissioner without fictitious-government official clause comes under the government official who is the subject of the bribery.
(ⅳ) according to the established Supreme Court’s precedent, the applicant can"t be protected through a retrial. Revision of the Constitutional Court Act that permits the ministerial arm of the Constitutional Court’s decision is necessary.
With regard to the above said clauses, 2012. 12. 27. Korean Constutional Court ruled that a claim for unconstitutionality in the context is lawful basically, reversing its own precedent that a claim for the unconstitutionality in the context is unlawful basically but lawful exceptionally in the following 3 cases: (ⅰ) in case that can be taken as a claim for the indefiniteness of provisions on review, (ⅱ) in case that provisions on review which are concretized by the ordinary court are unconstitutional, (ⅲ) in case that can be taken as a claim for the provisions on review and the like(2011Hun-Ba117)
But the above-said decision ought to be criticized for the following reasons.
(ⅰ) the decision conflicts with the Constitution Article 101(1) and the Constitutional Court Act Article 68(1) that prohibits decision of the ordinary court from adjudication on constitutional complaint.
(ⅱ) it is not clear that tell interpretation from connotation. in this case whether the applicant comes under the government official in the Criminal Act 129 is not the problem of the law but the connotation of the law.
(ⅲ) KCC"s ruling that interpretation that nonofficial commissioner without fictitious-government official clause comes under the government official who is the subject of the bribery.
(ⅳ) according to the established Supreme Court’s precedent, the applicant can"t be protected through a retrial. Revision of the Constitutional Court Act that permits the ministerial arm of the Constitutional Court’s decision is necessary.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-300-003338449
