• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.211-244
• /
• 2007

Article 17 and 18 of the Korean Constitution respectively prescribe the violation of individual's right to privacy and the secrecy of wire communication. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act which is conducted within the ambit of laws or pursuant to accepted business practices or which does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable. In 1999, the Constitutional Court held that media reports on public matters of public figures must be given strong constitutional protection, and treated differently from reports on private matters of private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. This study analyzes the issue of media liability for publication of illegally intercepted wire communication by a third person. Particularly, it reviews Seoul High Court's ruling on 'X-file scandal' which disclosed intercepted wire communications between notable public figures regarding a slush fund for a presidential candidate. In the light of this analysis, the study concludes that the media reporting of the intercepted communication does not violate social norms of Article 20, and therefore it is entitled to a constitutional privilege.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.141-176
• /
• 2003

This paper examined how Korean courts conceptualized and applied public interest defense of Penal Code to the libel cases raised by socially influential persons. For this, this paper analyzed a total of 58 libel cases in which 'public interest' was mentioned by Korean courts between 1981 and 2000. It was found that whereas truth or believed-to-be-true defense is emphasized In libel cases by politicians or public officials, public interest defense was emphasized in the cases by private figures. It was also found that Korean courts tended to think of matters related with 1) national security and social order, 2) prevention of asocial crime, 3) enlightening of public, and 4) protection of consumers' interest as public interest. Conclusively, 'public interest' is not simply applied as an independent legal defense, because Korean courts insistently concentrated on the truth of a story and did not even specifically define what is public interest. Constitution Court recently maintained that the slope of legal defense should be broadened when a story is about public matters. However, Korean courts will not be likely to accept public interest defense as an independent one for the time being.

• The Korean Journal of Franchise Management
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.119-133
• /
• 2011

The objective of this study is to establish the basic concepts for franchise agreements in consideration of both theoretical and practical conditions, to set the parameters for the discussion regarding the practical business matters pertaining to franchise agreements, and to analyze the criteria for determining the illegality of unfair trade practices based on research into actual practices in franchise transactions and on case studies of the implementation of laws by the Fair Trade Commission. The study aims to thereby contribute to the stabilization of laws in franchise transactions, benefiting all parties including franchise-related institutions, participants in franchise transactions, and related consumers. In conclusion, even in cases where regulatory exceptions are applied within the Fair Franchise Transactions Act when determining the illegality of franchised businesses, it is impossible to eliminate illegality unless all necessary and sufficient conditions have been included, and even if the procedure for evading illegality has been undertaken, illegality may not be eliminated unless the contents thereof are legitimate.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.88
• /
• pp.2-19
• /
• 2002

행정지도는 법률상의 강제권한에 기초하는 것은 아니고, 상대방의 협력을 전제로 하여 실현되는 것이며, 가격, 수량 등 본래 각 사업자가 경쟁에 기초하여 자주적으로 결정하여야 할 사업활동에 관하여 행정지도가 행하여지면, 사업자는 공동하여 행정지도에 따라 경쟁을 제한하는 경향이 있게 된다. 한편, 독점규제법은 사업자가 가격, 수량 등에 관하여 공동하여 결정하는 것을 부당한 공동행위로서 원칙적으로 금지하고 있다. 따라서 이들의 관계에 있어서, 경쟁제한행위가 성립$\cdot$존속하고 있다고 보아야 하는지 여부라는 사실문제와, 경쟁제한행위가 성립$\cdot$존속하고 있는 경우에 행정지도에 의하여 경쟁제한행위의 구성요건 해당성 또는 위법성이 조각되는지 여부라는 법률문제가 발생한다.

• 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.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.12
• /
• pp.869-879
• /
• 2013

Modern medicine has not yet conquered behavior therapy for cancer radiation treatment, which is one of the professional groups involved in the justification of the act and reasonable human resources was analyzed. Radiation Oncology(Therapeutic Radiology) installed the role of the medical physicist in the current law, the act must have been within the limits given licenses, but the legitimacy of the act which can be given the current laws and regulations are not clear. Thus, certification and testing outside the medical physicist's research institutions, including the measures to be reflected in national legislation sought. Medical physicists, with the inherent illegality act because one of the areas to precluding the illegality of the content-based "medical law" and "Nuclear Safety Law", "medical technology in the field of radiation safety standards on management" was based on the interpretation. In conclusion, "medical law" and "in the field of medical technology on the management of radiation safety standards" that are consistent with the recognition of qualifications, increased activity in the radiation therapy and radiation safety management must deal with this will be feasible.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2012

There are so many personal experiences and innermost feelings in oral history resource. Thus, when we use the oral history resource, it has a lot of the possibility to arise ethical and legal issues. To prevent the problems and to protect interviewee, it is needed to comply the guideline for ethical and legal issues through the oral history project. The ethical issues are applied to every step of the project. The most important principle for ethical issues are the mind to protect the dignity of interviewee. The moral right is classified the right of privacy and defamation issues. The right of privacy is basic human rights to guard for the freedom of the individual. The defamation is defined as a false statement of the fact about a person which tend to injure that person's interest.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

Medical practice with medical adaptability is not illegal. Consent to medical practice is also not intended to exclude causes of Illegality. The patient's consent to medical practice is the exercise of the right to self-determination, and the patient's right to self-determination is take shape through the doctor's information. If a doctor violates his duty to inform, failure to inform or lack of inform constitutes an act of illegality of omission in itself. As a result, the legal interest of self-determination is violated. The patient has the right to know and make decisions on his or her own, even when it is not connected to the benefit of life and body as the subject of the body. If that infringed and lost, the non-property damage shall be recognized and the immaterial damage must be compensated. On the other hand, the violation of the duty of information does not belong to deny the compensation for physical damage. Which the legal interest violated by violation of the obligation to inform is the self-determination, and loss of opportunity of choice is recognized as ordinary damage. However, if the opportunity of choice was lost because of the infringement of the right to self-determination and the patient could not choice the better way, that dose not occur plainly bad results, under the prove of these causal relationship, that bad results could be compensated. But the unexpectable damage could not be compensated, because the physical damage is considered as the special damage due to the violation of the right of the self-determination.