• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.83-107
• /
• 2019

This article focuses on §10 of Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea to discuss how to determine criminal responsibility of a perpetrator suffering from mental disorders, while reviewing existing process and standards of mental examination at each stage of the criminal procedure as well as exploring suggestions regarding how they should be complied. The determination of the sanity or criminal responsibility of the mentally ill as defined in the §10 of Criminal Act, by its nature, cannot be approached with a traditional, clear-cut dichotomy of biology by medical practitioner and psychology·normative science by lawyer. Looking into the actual procedure of determining mental and physical disorder with special consideration of mental illness reveals the inevitability of collaboration between lawyers and psychiatrists. In the meantime, the process and standards of mental examination at each stage of the criminal procedure must be definitive and clear. First of all, during the investigation stage, examination prior to prosecution should be more actively encouraged, considering that judging sanity of the perpetrator at the time of committing a criminal act is important. During the trial stage, the mandatory examination must be conducted depending on the sensitivity and gravity of the case. Next, medical examination to determine criminal responsibility and the one to order treatment and custody must be separately conducted in order to properly execute medical treatment and custody. Obligatory mental examination could be considered both during the stage of request for and execution of the treatment and custody. Lastly, the procedure of examination and format of examination documents need to be standardized for better objectivity and reliability.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2019.07a
• /
• pp.195-198
• /
• 2019

연명의료결정법의 정식 명칭은 '호스피스 완화의료 및 임종 과정에 있는 환자의 연명의료 결정에 관한 법'이다. 이 법은 호스피스 완화의료에 대한 것과 환자의 연명의료 결정에 대한 것을 규정하고 있다. 특히, 후자의 연명의료결정에 관한 부분은 법제정 과정에서 법 종교 의료 윤리 등 다양한 분야에서 논박이 있었지만 2018년 2월 4일부터 시행되고 있다. 법학에서는 이 법이 생명이라는 법익과 관련되어 있어 형사법적, 민사법적으로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 이 법이 탄생되기 위해 두 번의 변곡점이 있었다. 첫째, 1997년 '보라매병원 사건'에서 의사를 작위에 의한 살인방조죄로 판결한 사건 둘째, 2009년 '김 할머니' 사건에서 회생할 수 없을 경우 가족 등이 진술한 환자 의사에 따라 연명 의료를 중단할 수 있다는 대법원 판결이다. 연명의료결정법은 헌법상 생명권과 자기운명결정권이라는 기본권 충돌이 발생한다. 두 기본권이 서로 상충 할 때에는 어떠한 기본권을 우선해야 하는지가 실질적으로 문제되는데, 이익형량을 통한 규범의 조화로운 해석을 통해 해결해야 한다. 또한 이 법의 흠결과 문제점을 고찰하여 개정작업이 진행되어야 한다.

• Journal of Industrial Convergence
• /
• v.18 no.6
• /
• pp.9-17
• /
• 2020

COVID19 is causing many fundamental phenomena all over the world. Since January 2020, the number of confirmed medical examinations has increased significantly worldwide, and the medical systems in each country have become paralyzed. South Korea has taken a proactive approach and is doing well, befitting the name K-Peace Prevention. However, it can be said that there is still a lack of awareness of legal and administrative limits. In this study examines the shortcomings and limitations of the laws relevant to the current infectious disease prevention and management systems from the perspective of criminal policy based on the "Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act," and comparatively analyzes the laws in advanced countries to propose effective and practical criminal policy response measures for the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.399-434
• /
• 2014

A criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution is faced a new aspect in the connection with development of the medical techonology. Especially, a division of labor in the medical-institution in Korea will be greatly increased in the foreseeable future. A general hospital will be frequently confronted with sofisticated techniques such as MRI, CT-screen. Accordings to the nature of its functions, a general hospital may make accommodation or services or both available for patients who give undertakings (or for whom undertakings are given) to pay, in respect of the accommodation or services (or both) such charges as the government may determine. It shall be the duty of the government to develop, promote and regulate a criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution. Above all, the government shall have to determine the standard of a criminal liability of the medical-institution in the horizontal specialization and the vertical specialization. But, the court may give finally by directions the standard of the criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.107-135
• /
• 2007

In preparation of the medical examination records, the failure to correctly write the taken medical behaviors on the medical examination records, is subject to criminal conviction due to the breach of the Article 21-1. The false or overstated writings on the medical examination records is subject to the same punishment due to the Article 21-1, which $\underline{additionally}$ may lead to the administrative measures such as the suspension of license according to Article 53-1. The interpretation is considered as proper in light of the function of the medical examination records, hazard to the patients, and the doctors' ethics. In light of the attitude of The Supreme Court for the preparation obligation of the medical examination records specified in the medical law Article 21-1(Purport : The doctors may continue to use their opinions on the patient's status and treatment process on the medical examination records, may provide the proper information to other medical staff, and ought to specify the details enough to decide the appropriateness of such medical behaviors after the recent treatment.), the false writings of the doctors on the medical examination records of the non-treated patient as faithfully treated one during the entire period before the present hospitalization, will be regarded as the fulfillment obligation of the preparation of the medical examination records in the medical law Article 21-1.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2021

Bisher wurde kein Beruf zwischen Recht und Berufsethik so diskutiert wie Ärzte. Diskussionen über die Qualifikation(od. Approbation) von Ärzten sind nicht nur eine Frage Koreas, sondern in den meisten zivilisierten Ländern ein wichtiges Diskussionsthema, wenn ein Arzt insbesondere für eine Straftat bestraft wird. Vor kurzem hat sich die koreanische Ärztekammer (the Korean Medical Association) weitgehend gegen das, "Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Reform des Medizingesetzes" stark ausgesprochen, das die Grunde für den Entzug einer Approbation für ein Verbrechen eines Arztes erweitert. Vor allem wird auf die Gefahr hingewiesen, eine Approbation für Straftaten zu entziehen, die nicht mit beruflichen Pflichten zusammenhängen. Es ist jedoch vernünftig, den Beruf bzw. das Gewerbe zu verbieten, wenn ein Fachmann unter Missbrauch seines Beruf oder grober Pflichtverletzung die Tat begangen hat und die Gefahr bestehet, dass er bei weiterer Ausübung seines Berufs erhebliche rechtswidrige Taten der bezeichneten Art begangen wird. Die Untersagung der Berufsausübung soll die Allgemeinheit gegen die spezifischen Gefahren schützen, die mit der Ausübung eines Berufs oder Gewebes verbunden sind. Da das Berufsverbot nur die Berufsausübung untersagt, die Approbation selbst aber bestehen lässt, kann die Approbationsbehörde in eigener Entscheidungskompetenz die Approbation zurücknehmen, wiederrufen, oder in Ruhen anordnen. Entsprechend dem Verhätnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz ist aber auch das Berufsverbot auf bestimmte Tätigkeiten im Bereich des Berufs zu beschränken, wenn dies zur Erreichung des Maßregelzwecks, dem schutz der Allgemeinheit, ausreichend ist. In diesem Beitrag wurden die Voraussetzunen des Berufsverbots und die tatsächlich an Ärzte bzw. medizinische Personal gerichteten Fälle untersucht.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.47-79
• /
• 2019

The Korean Society of Law and Medicine has faithfully played the role of professional academic organizations last 20 years in terms of academic activities, accumulated achievements, diversity, professionalism, and influence on academic circles. The Korean Society of Law and Medicine and the Journal of Medical Law serve as a platform for academic information and exchange of opinions on medical law. Medical law began in the midst of increasing conflicts and disputes caused by medical malpractice and the enactment and legal coercion of medical care as pressure on medical workers. It tried to find a way to coexist with each other through the encounter and convergence of medicine and law. Medical criminal law extends from traditional crimes in the realm of life and body protection to bioethics violations caused by the development of biomedical technology, corruption and economic crime in the medical field. Medical law has evolved into a comprehensive legal area dealing with legal issues raised in medical treatment, healthcare, bioethics, and life sciences technology. On the legal side, medical law is not independent legal areas. It is overlapping with traditional law areas such as civil law, administrative law, criminal law, social law, civil and criminal procedure law. However, it is now established as a convergence study in medicine, bioethics, life science, as well as in various fields of law. It has become an area where collaboration is needed with the field of law, medicine, ethics, sociology and economics. Medical criminal law has undergone a dynamic development over the last two decades. The development of medicine and medical technology provides new and innovative methods of diagnosis and treatment. The achievements and risks of revolutionary developments in biotechnology, genetic engineering and medicine coexist. While there is a dazzling achievement that mankind has hoped for: combating disease and improving health, it also creates unwanted side effects and risks to humans. There is a need to reconsider ethical and legal principles. The discovery and development of patient identity and autonomy has changed the medical doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, it was complicated by the triangle relationship of patients, medical doctors and insurance. Legal matters are also complicated. This is why the necessity of legislation is emerging. Criminal punishment provisions are also required. The Medical Law and Biomedical Law are systematically and coherently deformed as mosaic-based legislation that takes place whenever there are social issues, citizens' needs, and medical organizations' interests, rather than sufficient enactment and revision procedures. It needs a complete overhaul, and this is possible through interdisciplinary collaboration which is the strength of The Korean Society of Law and Medicine.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.41-72
• /
• 2018

In the division of labor (or teamwork) in medicine, the responsibility of medical and nursing staff should be separated or distributed to justify negligent criminal offenses. The present work refers to the standards by which the due diligence and responsibility of the individual persons are to be determined and delimited. In this context, it has been proven that objective theory as a measure of due diligence is appropriate. From a moral point of view, when assessing due diligence, it makes sense to impose greater individual or higher performance demands on the perpetrator, but law and order require that due diligence should result from socially relevant human behavior. To give objective measure of negligence and to provide the highest level of personal responsibility, so that man can not be burdened too much responsibility and it is accordingly with an equality theorem. Afterwards some points are presented, which should be considered in a concrete fact in the determination of the medical negligence. Medical action has specific characteristics such as professionalism, discretionary and exclusive, unbalance of information. These characteristics distinguish medical actions from general negligence. The general level of knowledge, the urgency, working condition and working environment of the medical facility, duration of the professional practice, assessment of the medical activity are crucial in this context. As a standard of delineation of due diligence, I have used the permitted risk and the principle of trust. In the horizontal division of labor, the principle of trust applies. The principle of trust applies in principle in cases of division of labor interaction, when doctors in the same hospital exercise their own specific occupational field or everyone works in another hospital. However, this is not true for every case. In the vertical division of labor, the principle of trust does not apply and the senior physician can not trust the assistant doctors. In this case, the principle of trust is converted into a duty of supervision for assistant doctors by the senior physician. This supervision requirement could be used as a random check.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2022

In relation to telemedicine in Korea's medical law, there are Articles 17, 17-2, and 34 of the Medical Act. Since 'direct examination' in Articles 17 and 17-2 of the Medical Act can be interpreted as 'self-examination' rather than 'face-to-face examination', it is difficult to see the above regulation as a regulation prohibiting telemedicine. Prohibiting telemedicine only with the concept of medical examination or the 'principle of face-to-face treatment' is against the principle of "nulla poena sine lege"(the principle of legality). However, in order to qualify as 'examination', it must be faithful enough to replace face-to-face examination, so issuing a medical certificate or prescription after a poor examination over the phone is considered a violation of the Medical Act. In that respect, the above regulation can be said to be a regulation that indirectly limits telemedicine. On the other hand, most lawyers interpret that telemedicine between medical personnel and patients is completely prohibited based on Article 34, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that such telemedicine is not permitted even if there is a patient's request. However, this interpretation is not only far from the legislative intention at the time when telemedicine regulations were introduced into the Medical Act of 2002, but also does not match the needs of reality or the legislative trend of foreign countries. The reason is that telemedicine regulations are erroneously legislated. The premise of the legislation is wrong, and there are considerable problems in the form and content of the legislation. As a result, contrary to the original legislative intent, telemedicine was completely banned. In foreign countries, it is difficult to find cases where telemedicine is completely banned and criminal punishment is imposed for it. In order to fundamentally solve the problem of telemedicine, Article 34 of the Medical Act needs to be deleted.