• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.143-166
• /
• 2012

This paper deals in depth with airline over-booking practices and legal questions therefrom in the light of public interests. Chapter I as an introduction gives clear ideas of what are the over-booking, fact-revealing current state of denied boarding and nature of the problems inherent but veiled in those practices. In Chapter II, it is reviewed whether legal instruments for DBC(Denied Boarding Compensation) are adequately equipped for airline passengers in R. O. K. Upon the results of the review that international law to which Korea is a party, domestic law and administrative preparedness for the DBC are either null or virtually ineffective, the Chapter by contrast illustrates how well the U. S. and the E. U. safeguard civil rights of their passengers from such an 'institutionalized fraud' as the over-booking. In Chapter III on which a main emphasis lies, it is examined whether the over-booking practice constitutes a criminal offense: Fraud. In section 1, the author identifies actus reus and mens rea required for fraud then compares those with every aspect of the over-booking. In conjunction with the structural element analysis, he reviews the Supreme Court's precedents that lead the section into a partial conclusion that the act of over-booking judicially constitutes a crime of fraud. Despite the fulfillment of drawing up an intended answer, the author furthers the topic in section 2 by arguing a dominant view from Korean academia taking opposite stance to the Supreme Court. The commentators assert, "To consummate a crime of fraud, there must be property damage of the victim." For this notion correlates with a debate on legally protected interest in criminalization of fraud, the section 2 shows an argument over 'Rechtgut' matters specific to fraud. The view claims that the Rechtgut comes down rather to 'right to property' than 'transactional integrity' or 'fair and equitable principles'. However, the section concludes that the later values shall be deemed as 'freedom in economic decision-making' which are the benefit and protection of the penal law about fraud. Section 3 demonstrates the self-contradiction of the view as it is proved by a conceptual analysis that the infringement on freedom in economic decision-making boils down to the 'property damage'. Such a notion is better grounded in section 4 by foreign court decisions and legislation in its favour. Therefore, this paper concludes that the airline's act of over-booking is very likely to constitute fraud in both theory and practice.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.15 no.6_2
• /
• pp.79-87
• /
• 2015

In order to clearly recognize illegality of insurance crime, declaring the provisions on insurance crime is preferable. An insurance fraud differentiated from Configuration Requirements of general fraud should be established And differentiation in accordance with the act type of insurance crime the degree of organizational involvement is required. Also the introduction of civil sanctions and creation of additional punishment provision about Organized insurance fraud are required. To notice duplicate insurance when sign up life insurance, the revision of the provisions is required. To limit unnecessary long-term hospitalization, hospitalization standard is required. Introduction of private investigator is required as a method for endowing with investigation to the staff of insurance companies. By providing information sharing laws between relevant agencies including insurance companies and law enforcement agencies, the foundation of information database, and the introduction of SNA Techniques in the IFAS,, you can detect Organized collusion crime.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2023

This paper reviewed the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act issues in case of self-administration of medicines by medical personnel without going through the general process (prescription, dispensing, distribution, administration). If a medical personnel self-medicates, the medicine supplier or medical personnel may be subject to criminal punishment under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The core reprehensibility of the punishment lies in undermining the order in distribution of medicines stipulated in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. First, the sale of medicines by a medicine supplier to medical personnel may be the violation of Article 47 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. However, if it was distributed for the case where medical personnels can dispense it directly under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, it can be justified under the general provision of the Criminal Act (justifiable act, the exclusion of illegality). If medicine suppliers distribute medicines knowing that the medical personnel acquires medicines for selfadministration, they can be punished as the violation of Article 47 of Pharmaceutical Act. Second, when a medical personnel acquires a medicine for the purpose of self-administration, the medicine supplier distributes the medicine under the false pretense that the medical personnel acquires the medicine for the case in which the medical personnel can directly dispense the medicine according to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. At this time, even if the medicine supplier has received all the payment for the medicines, the distribution of the medicines by deceit can constitute the fraud under the Criminal Act. Third, self-administration by medical personnel is a the violation of Article 23 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. It is not a justifiable act under the general provision of the Criminal Act. This is because it is the abuse of the special status granted to medical personnel in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which undermines the order in distribution of medicines.