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
오류제보하기
After passing the motion for impeachment, domestic politics situation have been strained to the breaking point. But fortunately, under Ko-gun's acting President system, national government is carrying out well. Merely, a conflict between national each other, contraposition of an agreement and an opposite about President impeachment, is showing trend to spread through a conflict between generations. And these conflicts are deepened gradually with coming of the April 15. general election.
But an issue related to this impeachment must not be degenerated in a problem of preference for a specific person. It must be set up thoroughly, only on the ground of the constitution and logic of law.
Regarding procedural requirements of impeachment judgment; there is possibility to be violated by National Assembly Act Article 93('In deliberating a bill, the plenary session......shall put the bill to a vote through an interpellation and debate). The reason is that the National Assembly has not a interpellation and debate procedures about a motion for impeachment judgment bill.
Regarding substantial requirements of impeachment judgment; if democratic legitimation of President and a constitutional basic principle(especially, principle of proportion) are considered, this is not proper that the President is dismissed because of simply violating the law. The performance of official includes not only a simple duty act but also an act which have an external form of the performance of official. Therefore, the President's broadcasting interview can be included in the performance of official. Public officials's political neutrality duty about an election is applied to the President, too. Just, "something that is likely to have an effect on election result" can be violated by the doctrine of vagueness in constitution. Therefore, we need to consider an Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractices Article 9 Cl. 1 as attention regulation. Otherwise, we have to restrictively interpret 'something that is likely to have an effect on election result' as 'something that is likely to have some influence over the election by using official's status or authority'.
Regarding acquaintance corruption, these corruptions were not identified to be concrete. Until now, there is no obvious evidence that the President was involved in these corruptions.
A problem about an economic mismanagement is a problem not to be appealed to law but a problem to be solved politically.
But an issue related to this impeachment must not be degenerated in a problem of preference for a specific person. It must be set up thoroughly, only on the ground of the constitution and logic of law.
Regarding procedural requirements of impeachment judgment; there is possibility to be violated by National Assembly Act Article 93('In deliberating a bill, the plenary session......shall put the bill to a vote through an interpellation and debate). The reason is that the National Assembly has not a interpellation and debate procedures about a motion for impeachment judgment bill.
Regarding substantial requirements of impeachment judgment; if democratic legitimation of President and a constitutional basic principle(especially, principle of proportion) are considered, this is not proper that the President is dismissed because of simply violating the law. The performance of official includes not only a simple duty act but also an act which have an external form of the performance of official. Therefore, the President's broadcasting interview can be included in the performance of official. Public officials's political neutrality duty about an election is applied to the President, too. Just, "something that is likely to have an effect on election result" can be violated by the doctrine of vagueness in constitution. Therefore, we need to consider an Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractices Article 9 Cl. 1 as attention regulation. Otherwise, we have to restrictively interpret 'something that is likely to have an effect on election result' as 'something that is likely to have some influence over the election by using official's status or authority'.
Regarding acquaintance corruption, these corruptions were not identified to be concrete. Until now, there is no obvious evidence that the President was involved in these corruptions.
A problem about an economic mismanagement is a problem not to be appealed to law but a problem to be solved politically.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
Ⅱ. 탄핵심판제도의 의의ㆍ기능ㆍ연혁과 절차
Ⅲ. 탄핵결정의 적법성 여부(= 절차적 요건)
Ⅳ. 탄핵결정의 정당성 여부(= 실체적 요건)
Ⅴ. 기타
Ⅵ. 마치는 글
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
탄핵심판절차에 관한 연구- 대통령(박근혜) 탄핵사건 탄핵사유와 증거법을 중심으로 -
헌법재판연구
2020 .01
-
대통령 탄핵심판제도의 문제점과 개선방안 : 노무현 · 박근혜 대통령 탄핵심판사건을 중심으로
서강법률논총
2018 .02
-
미국탄핵제도의 헌법적 연구
공법학연구
2006 .11
-
대통령에 대한 탄핵심판 : 헌재 2004. 5. 14. 2004헌나1 사건의 주요쟁점을 중심으로
공법학연구
2004 .12
-
대통령 권한대행의 대통령 권한행사범위
법학연구
2017 .02
-
탄핵심판청구 취하에 관한 비판적 고찰
저스티스
2007 .06
-
일본탄핵제도의 헌법적 의의와 과제
공법학연구
2007 .05
-
Impeachment as Legislative Oversight
공법학연구
2011 .05
-
대통령 탄핵사유에 대한 소고 - 박근혜 전 대통령 탄핵결정의 탄핵사유를 중심으로 한 판례평석 -
법학논총
2019 .05
-
미국 연방헌법의 탄핵사유
미국헌법연구
2005 .09
-
브라질 딜마 호우세피 대통령의 탄핵과 민주주의
강원법학
2017 .06
-
탄핵무효운동은 우리에게 무엇이었나
시민과세계
2004 .10
-
미디어 이용이 정치 지도자 평가와 정당지지에 미치는 효과
한국방송학보
2004 .12
-
탄핵요건으로서 헌법이나 법률 위반의 중대성 : 헌법 제65조 제1항과 헌법재판소법 제53조 제1항의 해석을 중심으로
저스티스
2017 .08
-
대통령 탄핵과 야당의 책임성에 관한 고찰 - 노무현 대통령 탄핵 과정을 중심으로 -
입법과 정책
2018 .01
-
대통령 탄핵위기 및 대응 커뮤니케이션 전략에 대한 미디어 인식 비교 - 노무현 vs 박근혜 대통령 탄핵관련 언론 보도 비교 분석 -
Crisisonomy
2018 .01
-
제16대 대통령 선거과정과 결과분석
社會科學
2002 .12
-
신생 민주주의 국가 국회의원의 대통령 탄핵안 투표 성향 분석: 필리핀 하원의 사례 연구
동남아시아연구
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016109380