• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.611-653
• /
• 2013

An whistle-blowing is recognition of acts of misconduct or corruption by individuals(laborers) or party which belongs to a certain organization and it refers to the act of informing to the senior organization or to the outside public agency to avoid jeopardies that could be potentially lead against benefit of the public. These whistle-blowings can be a Ansatz that improve corporation's transparency and accountability by prevention of enterprise's misconduct as well, it has been recognized as an important role for the establishment of corporate ethics, moreover, social justice. What to be treated primarily as labor law problem is arousing some controversies of the possibility that the public announcement could be whether a disciplinary punishment or not because it brings some mischievous effects for the honor and the reputation to the company which conducted the illegal actions and the action of the contrary to the social value. And futhermore, recently, the matter of compensational responsibility according to the arrangement conversion, bullying followed by the informant has been brought up. The fundamental standpoint of precedent related with the judgement of justification for the punishment as reason of the whistle-blowing ought to do the sincere duty for the labor contract which is the employees are supposed to consider the employer's profits. For that reason, if the emploee release the inside fact to the public and give any damages to employer's secret or confidence or honor, it will be a causing reasong of the disciplinary punishment, but in specific cases, the relevant and level of punishment limitation can be judged by the contents of public announcement and the truth, the purpose of the acts and details and the way of announcement. Precisely, on the assumption that there are necessity of the characteristic profit or the freedom of expression for the informant, with overall consideration whether or the basis part of the informant is true or there is a fair reason which make the informant believe is true or the purpose of informant has the public profit or the contents of the whistle-blowing are important for relevant organization or the means and the way was suitable, if the whistle-blowing are approved to be resonable, the organization are not permitted the reprimand or dismiss Futhermore, to find the solution for the issues of the disciplinary punishment and the treatment of all sorts of disadvantages, for the reason of whistle-blowing, since the protection law for public declarer which was enacted in last 2011 have the position as the general law, the purport of the equal law has to be considered sytematically and also the judicial precedent which is related to the justification of whistle-blowing are needed to be considered as well.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.166-177
• /
• 2016

This essay explores the problems with applying the concept of "original form" to natural heritage when it is based on originality and diachronic, historical period. It also suggests an alternative perception that the concept of "original form" can be considered based upon "integrity". First, the conceptual framework for applying the concept of "original form" falls into three types: one that centers on the time point at which heritage originated; another that respects the diachronic characteristics of the concept of "original form"; and the last that bases original form on a particular time after the heritage originated. Second, the national policy for the conservation of natural monuments and scenic sites stayed at the level of consulting the Decree on the Preservation of Treasures, Historical Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments of Joseon, under Japanese colonial rule. And after the legal framework was established through enacting and proclaiming of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962, 564 cases have been designated as natural monuments. Third, the natural conservation movement, the first national policy for natural heritage, was initiated from the heritage field, but the Environment Ministry subsumed all nature-related policies and ever since the heritage agency (Cultural Heritage Administration) has implemented only heritage policies regarding "cultural" heritage. The present state of the coexisting policies about the natural heritage by the Environment Ministry and the Cultural Heritage Administration resulted in leading the public confused about official terms and main policy agency of natural heritage. Fourth, the difficulty of applying the concept of "original form" to natural heritage stems from the fact that natural heritage is inherently distinct from cultural heritage, which is placed at the center of the heritage policies implemented by the heritage agency. In addition, natural heritage, similarly distinct from the overall natural environment, has evolved in a way that incorporates human culture and thus diversely includes characteristics of originality, diachrony, and historical period. Under these circumstances, an incorporative, professional approach is required rather than independent approaches for each type of natural heritage. In conclusion, this essay suggests that issues related to the restoration of original conditions of natural heritage should be resolved through the application of the "integrity" concept by restoring "the characteristics of an object or a place that imbue it with meaning and value," with consideration given to efforts for alleviating logical contradictions within the concept of "original form" through the preparation of standards and guidelines for the restoration of original condition.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-115
• /
• 2024

In Korea, exposure to stress has been accompanied by mental pain in the process of achieving many growth along with rapid development, various social problems, and the frequency of emergency hospitalization is increasing.. In the case of mentally ill patients, "unwanted hospitalization" is a problem, and police and 119 paramedics try to suppress the body of mentally ill patients, and many problems are exposed This is because the constituent requirements of the provisions of emergency hospitalization under the Mental Health and Welfare Act do not reflect reality, and each institution has a different position on one mentally ill person, and emergency hospitalization does not proceed smoothly or leads to friction between related organizations, and the safety of the mentally ill or others is not secured. Emergency hospitalization is defined as "a person who finds a person who is presumed to be mentally ill and is at high risk of harming his or her health or safety or others," and if the situation is so urgent that he or she cannot afford time to go through the hospitalization procedure to decide on his or her own hospitalization, he or she can request emergency hospitalization with the consent of a doctor and a police officer. In this case, 119 paramedics are escorted to a psychiatric institution. This provision of emergency hospitalization poses many problems in the process of transferring to psychiatric institutions. If a police officer or 119 paramedics in charge of practice use "physical force" during the emergency hospitalization process, side effects will inevitably occur, and professional negligence can be a problem. Specifically, when exercising physical force, the minimum necessary physical restraint based on laws and regulations and proportional principles is required, and the lack of the duty of care of 119 paramedics or police officers under the laws and regulations will eventually be resolved by applying other laws and regulations. Accordingly, it will be an opportunity for mentally ill patients to be transferred to psychiatric institutions in a safe environment by changing the subject of emergency hospitalization provisions under the Mental Health Welfare Act, defining and prescribing the use of physical protection guards as the enforcement regulations of the Mental Health Act, setting the duty of care for 119 paramedics and police officers, and creating an environment for transportation so that mentally ill patients can be treated safely.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.155-206
• /
• 2023

When a person with diminished mental capacity refuses necessary medical care, normative judgments about when paternalistic intervention can be justified come into question. A typical example is involuntary hospitalization for people with mental disabilities, traditionally governed by mental health law. However, Korean civil law reform in 2011 introduced a new form of involuntary hospitalization through guardianship legislation, leading to a dualized system to involuntary hospitalization. Consequently, a conflict has arisen between the 'best interest and surrogate decision-making' paradigm of civil law and the 'social defense and preventive detention' paradigm of mental health law. Many countries have criticized this dualized system as not only inefficient but also unfair. Moreover, the requirement for the presence of 'mental illness' for involuntary hospitalization under mental health law has faced criticism for unfairly discriminating against people with mental disabilities. In response, attempts have been made to integrate guardianship legislation and mental health law based on mental capacity. This study examines the legislative process and framework of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which reorganized the mental health care system by fusing guardianship legislation with mental health law based on mental capacity. By analyzing the case of Northern Ireland, which has grappled with conflicts between guardianship legislation and mental health law since the 1990s and recently proposed mental capacity as a single, non-discriminatory standard, we aimed to offer insights for the Korean guardianship and mental health systems.