• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2023

Der Begriff der Heilkundeausübung ist im positiven Recht in Korea nirgends festgelegt. Der wurde jedoch indirekt durch die Auslegung der Heilkundeausübung ohne Erlaubnis gemäß § 27 Abs. 1 des "Medizingesetzes" geregelt. In der Vergangenheit beschränkte der kOGH(the Supreme Court of Korea) die Heilkundeausübung auf die "Behandlung von Krankheiten und stellte fest, dass "medizinische und technische Maßnahmen, die keine pathologischen Symptome oder Funktionsdefizite im Körper voraussetzen, nicht zur Heilkundeausübung gehören." Danach änderte der kOGH seine Rechtsprechung auf "Vorbeugung oder Behandlung von Krankheiten durch Durchführung ärztlicher Untersuchungen, Optometrie, Verschreibung, Medikation oder chirurgischer Eingriffe auf der Grundlage von Erfahrung und Fähigkeiten, die auf medizinischem Fachwissen basieren, und anderer Gesundheitsfürsorge, definiert "medizinische Maßnahmen" als "eine Handlung, die eine gesundheitliche Gefahr darstellen kann, sofern diese nicht von einem Mediziner durchgeführt wird". Der Begriff der Heilkundeausübung in der Rechtsprechung ist einerseits zu abstrakt und kann eine Leerformel sein, andererseits kann seine Einschränkung eine Gefahr für die öffentliche Gesundheit erbringen. Daher besteht Bedarf an einem Kriterium, das dar derzeitige Begriff der Heilkundeausübung entsprechend dem gesetzgeberischen Ziel reduzieren kann, das Risiko für das Leben, den Körper oder die öffentliche Gesundheit von Menschen zu verhindern, das durch die Durchführung medizinischer Arbeiten durch nichtmedizinisches Personal entstehen kann. Um ein Kriterium vorzustellen, das das aktuelle Konzept der Heilkundeausübung reduzieren kann, werden in diesem Artikel das positive Recht, Theorien und Rechtsprechung zum Begriff der Heilkundeausübung in Deutschland untersucht und nach einer Alternative gesucht.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.21 no.11
• /
• pp.291-300
• /
• 2020

Plagiarism concerns in the melody of popular music are on the rise. Despite these concerns, standards and methods for addressing these issues are lacking. This study is significant in the fact that it is the first case in the media which started as a controversy on plagiarism of popular music and even progressed to Supreme Court ruling. The first and second trial courts declared the existence of infringement of copyright by recognizing that the music in question was substantially alike as a result of comparing and reviewing the melody, rhythm, and harmony. However, the Supreme Court came to a different verdict on the infringement of musical work by reversing and remanding the case to the Seoul High Court. The Supreme Court indicated that even though the music presented in the first trial is a creative work entirely protected under the Copyright Act, expression without creativity is an area that is not protected under the law. Based on this case, this study seeks to compare and analyze the essential characteristics of melody in the judgment of infringement of copyrights in popular music, and factors related to the judgment of practical similarity and the judgment of idioms that are the criteria for judging infringement of musical work.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-153
• /
• 2023

The Supreme Court's en banc decision on December 12, 2022 (docket number 2016Do21314) presented a new standard for determining whether the use of diagnostic medical devices by Korean medical doctors constitutes oriental medical doctors constitutes unlicensed medical practice. Based on this standard, it was determined that the use of ultrasound by Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. Supreme Court's Decision 2016Du51405 on August 18, 2023, is the first case in which a new standard was applied to determine that an Korean medical doctor's use of electroencephalography to diagnose Parkinson's disease and dementia was not an unlicensed medical practice. The Supreme Court abolished the previous standard that Western medical knowledge and technology should not be required for Korean medical doctors to use medical devices. However, it was unclear whether Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors using diagnostic medical devices would be viewed as an an auxiliary method of diagnosis. Parkinson's disease and dementia are Western medical diagnoses. The Supreme Court judged that the Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. This clearly explains what an auxiliary method of diagnosis means. In addition, the Supreme Court excluded the principles of development and production of electroencephalography from its judgment criteria. Automatic extraction and automatic reading of test results were also excluded. The criminal court's view that the meaning of oriental medical practice should be clearly and strictly interpreted from the perspective of an oriental doctor, and it was clarified that diagnostic medical devices were excluded from criminal punishment unless it was clear that they were not related to the principle of oriental medical practice. As a result, the Supreme Court made it clear that the use of diagnostic medical devices is excluded from criminal punishment unless it is clear that they are not related to the principles of Korean medicine.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.27 no.11
• /
• pp.57-66
• /
• 2022

In this paper, we propose a legal document search method that uses the Sentence-BERT model. The general public who wants to use the legal search service has difficulty searching for relevant precedents due to a lack of understanding of legal terms and structures. In addition, the existing keyword and text mining-based legal search methods have their limits in yielding quality search results for two reasons: they lack information on the context of the judgment, and they fail to discern homonyms and polysemies. As a result, the accuracy of the legal document search results is often unsatisfactory or skeptical. To this end, This paper aims to improve the efficacy of the general public's legal search in the Supreme Court precedent and Legal Aid Counseling case database. The Sentence-BERT model embeds contextual information on precedents and counseling data, which better preserves the integrity of relevant meaning in phrases or sentences. Our initial research has shown that the Sentence-BERT search method yields higher accuracy than the Doc2Vec or TF-IDF search methods.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2013.07a
• /
• pp.155-158
• /
• 2013

사회 전반에 의료의 다원화 혹은 다변화를 요구하는 열망이 높아져 가고 있다. 이는 '대체의학'의 도입과 직결된 문제라 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는, 최근 법률정보에 따르면 헌법재판소의 의료법에 대한 합헌결정으로 불거진 대체의학의 제도화 움직임을 시작으로 향후 대체의학의 제도화 모델을 결론으로 그 내용을 담았다. 이는 대체의학을 '왜' 도입하여야 하는 가의 논의단계를 지나 '어떻게' 대체의학을 도입할 것인가의 문제로 논의의 방향성을 제시함과 동시에 선행연구들을 면밀히 분석하여 재조명하므로 써 지금까지 축적되어온 연구 자료들을 충분히 고찰 하고자 하였다. 헌법재판소 판결 및 대법원 판례를 바탕으로 대체의학으로 야기되는 법적 쟁점 사항을 분석하고 대체의료행위가 제도화 되기 위한 선결요건을 도출하였다. 또한 무분별하게 사용되고 있는 대체의학에 관한 용어 사용을 재정립하고 향후 대체의학을 공인화 한다면 그 방법은 어떻게 되어야 하는지 그 방안을 제시, 방안 별 장단점을 분석하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.213-244
• /
• 2004

This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2015

As hostile online reviews can have a negative impact on a company's reputation, it is not surprising that online reviewers and business owners often get involved in conflicts which sometimes evolve into legal disputes. This research examines the legal dispute case in which the business owner charges an online reviewer for a defamation. Further, this research compares the supreme court's decision with general public's view on this defamation case, using a survey method. From the legal point of view, an online reviewer's primary motive determines whether the online reviews are defamatory statements or not. Specifically, if an online reviewer's primary motive is to increase the overall benefits for the public society, the online review does not bear any legal liability. According to our survey, consumers' view aligns with the final decision of the supreme court. They believe that online reviews should bear a minimum level of legal liability as online reviews often contain useful and valuable information which can enhance overall public benefits.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.34 no.10
• /
• pp.833-838
• /
• 2010

The Supreme Court in Korea judged the conduct of vessels in narrow channel was applied in order to prevent a ship collision in narrow channel, regardless of kind of a ship or weather situation, as application was not excluded as vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre without other special circumstances such as receiving the right of keep her course and speed from the other vessel, any priority was not guaranteed for vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre in regard to the other vessel following the conduct of vessel in narrow channel. In this judgement, there is concern to cause disorder to interpretation in the rule of narrow channel and responsibility between vessels. Therefore, this study aims to suggest correct interpretation about the rule concerned.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2023

Medical act divides unlicensed medical practice into medical practice by non-medical practitioners and unlicensed practice by medical practitioners. In the past, it was a common approach to strictly distinguish between western and Korean medicine, but the Supreme Court's Decision of December 22, 2016, Do. 21314, provided a new direction regarding the criteria for determining whether a Korean medicine practitioner is acting outside license. This paper analyzes the new criteria in detail, examines the significance of the new criteria, and explores its impact on the dualistic medical system. The difference between the new criteria and the previous criteria in the precedents is that the judgment is not based on the connection between Korean medicine principles and Western medicine principles. It is an advanced standard that actively accepts the overlap and variability of medical practice, moving away from dichotomous thinking that exclusively distinguishes between Korean medicine and Western medicine.