• 월간산업보건
• /
• s.383
• /
• pp.42-55
• /
• 2020

협회에서는 최근 발생한 코로나바이러스감염증19와 관련하여 2020년도 감염병 관리사업지침을 소개합니다. 본 지침은 「감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률」 에 따른 감염병 감시, 역학조사, 실험실 검사, 감염병 환자 및 접촉자 관리, 감염병 예방, 방역, 지자체 역량강화에 관한 정확한 정보를 제공하여 업무수행의 효율성을 높이고자 제작하였습니다. 해당 내용은 질병관리본부의 <2020년도 감염병 관리사업지침>을 발췌하였습니다. 사업장 특성과 사정에 따라 참고하시길 바랍니다.

• Journal of Industrial Convergence
• /
• v.18 no.6
• /
• pp.9-17
• /
• 2020

COVID19 is causing many fundamental phenomena all over the world. Since January 2020, the number of confirmed medical examinations has increased significantly worldwide, and the medical systems in each country have become paralyzed. South Korea has taken a proactive approach and is doing well, befitting the name K-Peace Prevention. However, it can be said that there is still a lack of awareness of legal and administrative limits. In this study examines the shortcomings and limitations of the laws relevant to the current infectious disease prevention and management systems from the perspective of criminal policy based on the "Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act," and comparatively analyzes the laws in advanced countries to propose effective and practical criminal policy response measures for the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.197-225
• /
• 2015

The presentation of this paper was triggered by the spread of MERS in Korea in the year 2015. The analysis of the present acts related with MERS is necessary in order to cope efficiently with any probable spread of such infectious diseases as MERS in future. The acts that should be analyzed in this paper include 'Medical Service Act' and 'Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act' (hereafter, IDCAPA). At first the classification of the infectious diseases in IDCAPA should be referred to. The Act does not properly classify them because the scope of concept of each group of the infectious diseases overlaps each other. This overlap should be removed. The present system in IDCAPA is not proper for the efficient notification and reporting of the infectious disease patients. This is so in some viewpoints including the persons obligated to make the notification and reporting, the persons to whom they should notify and report such patients, and the process of notification and reporting. The efficient approach to the information related with the infectious disease is necessary for the rapid prevention of its spread. Cohort isolation and quarantine of the infectious patients and exposed contacts are the strongest and most efficient steps for the prevention of spread of the infectious diseases. One of the great problems related with such steps would be the conflict of powers or attributions, the likelihood of which is inevitable under the present system of IDCAPA. The IDCAPA distributed the power or attribution to take the steps to the three governments including the central government, the metropolitan government and the primary local government. The power should be concentrated in the central government, which could afford financially to compensate for the huge amount of damages caused likely by the steps. The power to take the steps would be actually just a useless thing for its holder without such financial capacity. The remedy for the victims by the fault of spreader should be approached to in the sense of national wealth. The general principle of tort law could not supply the victims with the sufficient remedy because the damages would be likely too huge for the wealth of such spreader to cope with. In future another parliamentary inspection could reveal another problems in the administration by the government of the MERS event in the year 2015. Any problem caused by defect in the legal system of the control and prevention of the infectious diseases should be taken into consideration when the legal system would be reformed in future.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.11 no.8
• /
• pp.14-22
• /
• 2021

As the Covid-19 outbreak spreads and prolongs around the world, visitor lists are prepared in various ways when entering the facility to prevent infection and identify confirmed people. In this study, we propose an access management system using beacons to solve the problems with the preparation and management of existing visitor lists. The research method searches the laws related to the collection of personal information and compares the current status of personal information collection and trends in the beacons. The proposed system compares and analyzes existing methods and security and efficiency, which confirm accurate and rapid access registration. By using Beacon access management system, it is effective in preventing and responding to the spread of new infectious diseases in the future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.263-291
• /
• 2015

In May, 2015, a 68 years old man, who has been Middle East Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, had high fever, muscle aches, cough and shortness of breath. he went two local hospital near his house and the S Medical Center emergency center. He was diagnosed MERS(Middle East respiratory syndrome) and the diseases had put South Korea the fear of epidemics for three months. Especially, this disease has firstly reported in Middle East Asia in September 2012 and spreaded to twenty-six countries. In 21, July, 2015, European Center for disease prevention and control reported 533 people were died and in South Korea, 186 people were infected, 36 people were died and 16,693 people were isolated from MERS. South Korea government were faced into epidemic control and blamed from public. Especially, hospital acquired infection, disease control chain, opening of information, ventilation, lack of isolation bed, the problem of function of local health center, the issue of reparation for hospital and insurance cover rate, the classification of disease, the role of Korea Centers for disease control and prevention, the culture of visiting hospital to see sick people, the issue of hospital multiple room and other related social support policy. it is time to study and discuss to solve these problems. South Korea citizens felt fear and fright from MERS. What is wore, they thought the dieses were out of their government control. It was unusual case for word except Middle East Asia. numerous tourists canceled visiting korea. South korea economic were severly damaged especially, tourism industry. South korea government should admit that they had failed initial action against MERS and take full reasonability from any damages. The government have to open information to public in terms of epidemic diseases and try to prevent any other epidemic diseases and try to work with local governments.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Disaster Information Conference
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.329-330
• /
• 2017

재난은 인류의 발전과 더불어 다양하게 발생되어왔다. 최근 21세기 들어 발생하는 재난은 그 현상이 더욱 다양하고 복잡하며 그 피해의 정도가 대규모로 진행되는 경우가 많아 졌다. 태풍, 집중호우, 강풍, 폭설, 지진, 황사 등의 자연재난은 지구온난화현상으로 국내뿐만 아니라 전 세계적으로 커다란 영향력을 미치고 있으며, 화재, 구축물의 붕괴, 지하철사고, 테러 및 감염병 등의 사회 재난도 더욱더 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 나아가 사스, 메르스, 지카 바이러스 및 대형 테러 등 전 세계적 차원의 사회 재난의 발생 또한 급증하고 있다. 이와 같이 현대사회에서 발생하는 재난는 개인이나 국가의 정책만으로 예방하고 관리할 수 없는 특성이 있다. 따라서, 자본주의 경제의 한축을 이루고 있는 기업의 재난을 관리하여 연속성을 확보하고 더나아가 리질리언스(Resilence)를 보장하기 위한 일환으로 2007년 7월 재해경감을 위한 기업의 자율 활동 지원에 관한 법률(이하, 기업재해경감법 이라함.)이 공포된 지 약 10여년이 경과하였다. 이는 법 제도화를 통하여 기업의 재해경감활동을 지원하기 취지에서 출발한 것 이다. 그 후 현재 까지 어느 정도의 발전이 있었지만 경과 년 수에 비해 아직 미흡한 실정이다. 이후 그 기업들이 좀 더 원활하게 재해경감활동을 위한 계획을 수립, 실행, 검토 및 유지하기 위한 지침으로서 기업재난관리표준을 2010년 4월 2일 제정하였고 이후 재해경감활동 수립계획을 제정하여 시행하기에 이르렀다. 또한, 기업재난관리표준은 제정된 이후 2013년 12월 9일 전면 개정작업을 통해 경영관리 프로세스 모델(Plan-Do-Check-Act)이 적용된 관리체계를 접목시키고 용어정의를 국제표준과 일치시켜 기업재해경감활동 상의 혼선을 방지하기 위한 노력을 하였다. 현 정부에서는 주무부처가 바뀌고 조직이 변화되어 행정안전부고시 제2017-1호(2017.07.26.일)로 개정되어 현재에 이르고 있다. 본 논문에서는 기업재난관리표준과 연관된 제반 법령 및 규정 등에 대한 법적성격 과 지위를 규명하고, 기업재난관리표준의 관련분야 적용 시 문제점 및 바람직한 제도개선 방향을 제시하고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.