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
Tattoos is getting more attention to be one of important method of artistic, political, and religious expressions in the Korea as well as United States. But Korea medical the statutes permits medical behaviors for only doctors with license and Supreme Court has interpreted tattooing is one of the medical behaviors. Therefore the tattooing without medical license is illegal and the tattooists always are in the peril of criminal punishment, despites of the increasing number of those.
There are various state laws and regulations on tattoo artists, and zoning regulations on tattoo shop locations in the U.S.A. Some states had similar restrictions limited tattooing to medical professionals in the past decade. But the vanishing of such states banning tattooing by persons other than doctors is the evidence of the rapidly shifting cultural treatment of tattooing and a crucial role of the court in the movement for constitutional protection of tattooing. So I would like to introduce the court cases related tattoos regulation and the freedom of expression in U. S. Constitution with current restrictions of tattoos of health problems. Also there are new issues facing public and private employers related with new generation of employees with tattoos. Prohibiting tattoos or piercings can raise constitutional debates such as discrimination and invasion of freedom of expression. These general legal researches and analyses about tattoos will introduce good tips and guidelines to set new restrictions to protect professionalism for tattooists and their freedom of expressions and new legal issues about tattoo wearers and employers in public and private fields.
There are various state laws and regulations on tattoo artists, and zoning regulations on tattoo shop locations in the U.S.A. Some states had similar restrictions limited tattooing to medical professionals in the past decade. But the vanishing of such states banning tattooing by persons other than doctors is the evidence of the rapidly shifting cultural treatment of tattooing and a crucial role of the court in the movement for constitutional protection of tattooing. So I would like to introduce the court cases related tattoos regulation and the freedom of expression in U. S. Constitution with current restrictions of tattoos of health problems. Also there are new issues facing public and private employers related with new generation of employees with tattoos. Prohibiting tattoos or piercings can raise constitutional debates such as discrimination and invasion of freedom of expression. These general legal researches and analyses about tattoos will introduce good tips and guidelines to set new restrictions to protect professionalism for tattooists and their freedom of expressions and new legal issues about tattoo wearers and employers in public and private fields.
목차
국문초록
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 문신 시술규제와 표현의 자유
Ⅲ. 문신자에 대한 공ㆍ사적 규제와 위헌 논의
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (15)
참고문헌 신청
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Arnold H. Loewy / 1994 / Distinguishing Speech from Conduct 45 : 621 ~ 621
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Anthony Jude Picchione / 2004 / Tat-Too Bad For Municipalities: Unconstitutional Zoning of Body Art Establishment / B.U. L. Rev 84 : 829 ~
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Arnold H. Loewy / 1994 / Distinguishing Speech from Conduct / Mercer L. Rev 45 : 621 ~ 621
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Bobby G. Frederick / 2003 / Note, Tattoos and the First Amendment-Art Should be Protected As Art: The South Carolina Court Upholds the State's Ban on Tattooing / S.C. L. Rev 55 : 231 ~
6. [보고서] - Chemerinsky / 2002 / Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Anthony Jude Picchione / 2004 / Tat-Too Bad For Municipalities: Unconstitutional Zoning of Body Art Establishment / B.U. L. Rev 84 : 829 ~
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Arnold H. Loewy / 1994 / Distinguishing Speech from Conduct / Mercer L. Rev 45 : 621 ~ 621
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Bobby G. Frederick / 2003 / Note, Tattoos and the First Amendment-Art Should be Protected As Art: The South Carolina Court Upholds the State's Ban on Tattooing / S.C. L. Rev 55 : 231 ~
6. [보고서] - Chemerinsky / 2002 / Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (4)
-
대법원 1992. 5. 22. 선고 91도3219 판결
가. 의료행위라 함은 질병의 예방과 치료행위 뿐만 아니라 의료인이 행하지 아니하면 보건위생상 위해가 생길 우려가 있는 행위를 말한다.
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2010. 7. 29. 선고 2008헌가19,2008헌바108,2009헌마269,736,2010헌바38,2010헌마275(병합) 전원재판부
가. 비의료인도 침구술 및 대체의학 시술을 할 수 있도록 그 자격 및 요건을 법률로 정하지 아니한 입법부작위에 대한 심판청구는 비의료인의 침구술 및 대체의학 시술과 관련하여 헌법의 명시적인 입법위임이 존재하지 아니하고, 헌법해석상 그러한 입법의무가 새롭게 발생하는 것도 아니므로 작위의무를 인정할 수 없어 부적법하다.
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2005. 5. 26. 선고 2003헌바86 전원재판부
가.의료인이 아닌 자의 의료행위를 금지·처벌하는 구 의료법(2002. 3. 30. 법률 제6686호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 `법`이라 한다) 제25조 제1항 본문의 전단부분 및 제66조 제3호 중 제25조 제1항 본문의
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2007. 6. 28. 선고 2005도8317 판결
[1] 의료행위라 함은 질병의 예방과 치료행위뿐만 아니라 의학적 전문지식이 있는 의료인이 행하지 아니하면 사람의 생명, 신체나 공중위생에 위해를 발행시킬 우려가 있는 행위를 포함하므로, 질병의 치료와 관계가 없는 미용성형술도 사람의 생명, 신체나 공중위생에 위해를 발행시킬 우려가 있는 행위에 해당하는 때에는 의료행위에 포함된다.
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-362-000471747