• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.193-216
• /
• 2018

Das Leben des Embryos ist als solche ein Rechtsgut, das einen durch das Strafrecht hinreichend $gesch{\ddot{u}}tzt$ werden sollen. Daher versteht es sich von selbst, $da{\ss}$ auch bei der Schwangere die ihren eigenen $empf{\ddot{a}}ngenen$ Embryo beseitigenden Handlungen nicht $unbeschr{\ddot{a}}nkt$ gebilligt werden $k{\ddot{o}}nnten$. Es $k{\ddot{o}}nnte$ bei der Schwangere wegen ihrer $Interessenverh{\ddot{a}}ltnisse$ mit ihrem Embryo z. B. endlosen deren Verantwortlichkeiten nur die $Erlaubnism{\ddot{o}}glichkeiten$ ${\ddot{u}}bergelegt$ werden. Wie der Bundesverfassungsgericht schon ${\ddot{u}}berzeugt$ hat, $k{\ddot{o}}nnte$ das Leben des Embryos keinen vom Strafrechtschutz $ausschlie{\ss}enden$ Teil anerkannt werden, sondern nur in besonderen $F{\ddot{a}}llen$ ausnahmsweise dessen Verletzung erlaubt werden. ${\ddot{U}}ber$ die Reichweite der ausnahmsweisen anerkannten Erlaubnisse gegen einer Rechtsgutsverletzung sollte es im Allgemeinen $abh{\ddot{a}}ngig$ unter Zeitraum und Umwelt konkret ausgefargt werden. Daher kann eine konkrete Diskussion ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Rechtsfertigungsgrund des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs nur erstenmal anfangen, nachdem ein strafrechtlicher Schutz des Embryolebens $pr{\ddot{a}}zis$ ausgeforscht wird. Bis jetzt hat das Strafrecht das Rechtsgut als Leben des Embryos zu leicht bewertet und damit hat die Strafe des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs zu niedrig bestimmt. Die niedrige Strafe des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs $enth{\ddot{a}}lt$ die Gefahr, die die Erlaubnisreichweite des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs ungerecht ausdehnt. Die Handlung der Schwangere sollte minder bestraft werden, um das Sebstbestimmungsrecht der Schwangere hoch $w{\ddot{u}}rdigen$ zu $k{\ddot{o}}nnen$. Letztlich braucht der Versuch des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs zu bestrafen. Der Versuch und die Vollendung ${\ddot{u}}ber$ die Verletzung des Embryolebens sollten deren Unterschiede im ihren Unrechtsgehalt anerkannt werden, weil der Normzweck des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs im Schutz des Lebens des Embryos besteht. Und damit in den $F{\ddot{a}}lle$, die in Folge des versuchten Schwangerschaftsabbruchs die Schwangere verletzt oder gestorben wird, $k{\ddot{o}}nnten$ die Meinungsstreiten $aufgeh{\ddot{o}}rt$ werden.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.201-208
• /
• 2019

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.117-168
• /
• 2009

Generally, criminal law protect the human life after he/she has born. Before the birth, the life of fetus are protected by prohibition of abortion, not of murder. Also, the fetus is not considered as an object of infliction of injury. A popular opinion and case law say that the fetus becomes a person at the point of an outset labor pains. Recently, some theories allege that traditional opinions is not sufficient in the case of induced delivery, so it should be decided by norm, not by a simple fact, whether a unborn child is a fetus or a person, and that the fetus should be considered as an object of infliction of injury. These theories can be meaningful because these could protect human life more comprehensively. In the other side, however, these could harm the legal stability and bring the excessive punishment. Abortion of negligence is not punishable in criminal law, and there is little possibility of the fetus injury without the injury of the pregnant woman. And the Contergan Case, if it happened again, must be dealt with as crime about environment or public health more severely. These new approaches are in conflict with the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" and other fundamental rules of the criminal law, and should lead to the excessive punishment and criminal provisions. Accordingly, the decision of Supreme Court of Korea about the beginning point of human being should be maintained.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.197-257
• /
• 2008

Current crown law punishes crime related to unborn child with abortion crime. So we might think that any infringement on unborn child is pretty well protected. But, in terms of illegal abortion, a charge of injuring person and homicide, there are lots blind spots in punishing criminals. Especially, there are numerous unclear cases in illegal abortion. If a doctor killed an unborn child by accident in medical operations, we can't punish him because it was an accident. There still exist controversial cases such as, if an unborn child was somehow damaged and was dead after birth, or was born with disabilities, how are we supposed to punish that? Recently, in a case where a doctor left alone a mother who had a baby and the baby died, our Supreme Court of Korea (Supreme Court of Korea 2007.6.29 2005do 3832) had given a verdict of "not guilty". It looked like they were very fair with current crime law. But, we want this case to be investigated if there weren't any logical contradictions as well as concurrent translation within Constitution Law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.323-361
• /
• 2009

In Korea, Abortion in the Criminal Law is an illegal act in exception of on which abortion may be carried out through the grounds are very limited and related such a emergency situation of women's physical health, rape, incest and genetic diseases. The Criminal Law regulates the mother's act of abortion and the doctor's surgical performance of abortion. The Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. Many people tend to abuse of abortion even though they are fully aware of its illegality. The law lead to be inconsistent with its enforcement. In this paper, I would like to suggest some proposals about the legal analysis of the Abortion Regulations th reform the existing regulation and increase th effectiveness of the regulations. Recently, in a case of the a maternity hospital where a midwife left alone a diabetes pregnancy women who had a baby, and the overweight baby(5.2Kg) died in the uterus due to hypoxic states. Supreme Court of Korea 2007.6.29. 2005do3832) had given a verdict of "not guilty". It looked like there were very fair with current crime law. But, we want this case to be investigated if there weren't any logical contradictions as well as concurrent translation within Constitution Law. Now the Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. But this law does not include social and economic grounds.

• Journal of Popular Narrative
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.133-185
• /
• 2021

This study is an attempt to connect television drama M, which deals with abortion issues, with theoretical focus such as materiality, relativity, and agency, to understand diffractively as an cartography of agential reality. According to Karen Barard's Agential Realism, Television drama M is a sociocultural phenomenon produced by the agential intra-actions of material-discursive apparatuses such as medical technology, ghost stories and legends, and male-affect. The 1990s repeatedly revealed "hate" through apparatuses such as technology, discourse, and affect, which are directed at women's gendered bodies. The material -discursive practice of plastic surgery and abortion proves that the agential reality surrounding the body is closely intertwined with medical technology, as well as with the genderized hate. Another related material-discursive phenomenon is rediscovery of the legend and fad of the ghost story, which is also produced from the hate of the denaturalized body, which is once again expanded and reproduced. Appearing in this environment of affect, M enacts diffraction, which is based on backlash, lacking posthuman implications for the materialization of the techno-body. M puts humanistic assumptions about "Man" as a universal definition, historically framed and defined in context. But it is not universal and it is gendered. The current time when the political turmoil surrounding medical technology, discourse, and bodily matters is violently intra-acted is the time to carefully account and respond to the alternative definitions of human beings that M has rejected.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.205-290
• /
• 2007

In Korea, abortion in the Criminal Law is an illegal act in exception of limited cases stated in the Mother and the Child Health Law. There are grounds on which abortion may be carried out - though the grounds are very limited and related such as emergency situation of woman's physical health, rape, incest and genetic diseases. The Criminal Law regulates the mother's act of abortion and the doctor's surgical performance of abortion. The Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. Many people tend to abuse of abortion even though they are fully aware of its illegality. The law lead to be inconsistent with its enforcement. In this paper, I would like to suggest some proposals about the legal analysis of the Abortion Regulations to reform the existing regulations and increase the effectiveness of the regulations. A national survey was carried out using telephone interview with Korean citizens from August 1th to August 31th in 2005. A total of 1,025 citizens (male: female = 49.2%:50.8%) were randomly sampled in proportion to the number of population of 17 regions. The major findings of this survey were as follows. First, 91.4% of the respondents approved of abortion based on the medical grounds. Second 83.3% of the respondents perceived that abortion may be carried out based on ethical grounds for example rape. Third, 74.3% were agreed to abortion based on genetic diseases. Forth, 64.7% were approved the abortion that unmarried woman may be carried out. In contrast 45.0% were approved the abortion that girls may be carried out, whereas 46.4% were perceived that the abortion may not be permitted. Fifth, 58.3% were disagreed the permission of abortion based on social and economic grounds. According to the survey Korean citizens seem to have positive perception on the abortion that may be carried out based on medical, ethical and genetic grounds. Whereas they worried about the abortion based on social and economic grounds. Now the Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. But this law does not include social and economic grounds. In cases of when the mother has a impossibility to breed her child because of her social situations and financial conditions, we should accepted the legal acceptance of abortion due to social and economic grounds.