• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.37-80
• /
• 2022

By analyzing informed consent and the refusal of emergency medical treatment (called patient dumping) under the current Emergency Medical Service Act, this study suggests that an emergency medical professional is only liable for patient dumping if their duty to protect the patient's life takes precedence over the patient's right to self-determination. In emergency medical situations, as in general medical situations, medical treatment should be performed after the emergency medical professional informs the patient about the medical treatment, including its necessity and methods, and obtains consent from the patient. Refusing or evading the performance of emergency medical services on the excuse of the informed consent not considering a waiver or alteration of informed consent requirements without reasonable reasons violates the Emergency Medical Service Act and thus makes an emergency medical professional liable to administrative disposition or criminal penalty. In other words, depending on the existence of a waiver of alteration of the informed consent, patient dumping may be established. If the patient is a minor or has no decision-making ability, and their legal representative makes a decision against the patient's medical interests, the opinion of the legal representative is not unconditionally respected. A minor also has the right to decide over their body, and the decisions of their legal representatives should be in the patient's best interests. If the patient refuses treatment, in principle, the obligation of life protection of emergency medical professionals is the top priority. However, making these decisions in the aforementioned situations in the emergency medical field is difficult because of the absence of explicit regulations regarding these exceptional problems. This study aims to organize the following precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea. The court states that, when balancing the conflicting interests between the duty to provide emergency medical service and the duty to inform is unavoidable for emergency medical professionals, they should put the duty to protect the patient's life ahead of the duty to inform if the patient's life matters. Exceptionally, when a patient has seriously considered whether they should receive treatment before the emergency medical situation, their right to self-determination can be considered equal to the obligation of emergency medical professionals to provide emergency medical treatment. This research also suggests that an amendment of the Emergency Medical Service Act should include the following. First, the criteria for determining the decision-making ability of emergency patients should consist of medical content. Second, additional consent from a medical professional is unnecessary for first-aid treatment. Finally, new provisions for emergency medical obligations for minors, new provisions for the decision standard when there are conflicting opinions about the treatment of a patient, and new penalty provisions for professionals who suspend emergency medical examinations and treatments need to be established.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.73
• /
• pp.2-12
• /
• 2001

미 법무부의 독점금지국(the Antitrust of the U.S. Department of Justice)은, 지난달 제일제당과 두 일본기업이 미 독점금지법 위반을 인정하는데 동의했다고 발표하였다. 미 법무부 독점금지국은 미국 상거래에 영향을 주는 호전적 카르텔에 있어서는, 연루된 기업의 국적에 상관없이, 또한 그 기업이 미국 역내에 있느냐 역외에 있느냐를 불문하고 자국의 독점금지법을 일괄적으로 적용해 오고 있다. 따라서 이런 기업들은 미국 독점금지법하에서 벌금이나 심지어는 금고형으로부터 자유로울 수가 없는 것이 현실이다. 미 법무부의 독점금지국은 판사의 형 선고 재량권을 현저하게 약화시킨 형 선고에 관한 지침(United States Sentencing Guidelines), 그리고 카르텔 공동협력에 있어 공모에 대한 증거제공 및 공동행위를 신고한 기업에 대해 형량감경제도(Corporate Leniency policy)를 효율적으로 운영함으로써 지난 몇 년간 미국 역외에서 발생한 공동행위에 대해 수많은 형사적 유죄판결을 받아내었다. 지난 수십년간 독점금지국은 가격고정, 입찰담합, 시장할당 그리고 셔먼법에 의해 당연위법으로 인정되는 경쟁자간의 합의에 관련된 기업들과 개인들에 대해 조사하고 형사적으로 소추해왔다. 이 모두는 불합리하게 거래를 제한하는 합의로 독점금지법에 의해 금지되는 행위들이다. 연방법은 현재 셔먼법 위반에 대한 벌칙으로 거래를 제한하는 공모에 합의함으로써 셔먼법을 위반한 기업에게는 최고 1,000만 달러, 개인에게는 최고 35만 달러의 벌금을 부과할 수 있으며 최장 3년간의 징역에 처해 질 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 그러나 벌금액은 1987년의 형사벌금개선법(The Criminal Fines Improvements Act: 법원이 개인 및 기업에 대한 범죄에 의해 야기된 이익이나 손실의 두 배에 해당하는 금액 중 더 큰 금액을 선택적으로 부과할 수 있다는 규정)에 의해 극적으로 늘어나고 있다. 이 논고에서는 미 법무부 독점금지국이 글로벌 카르텔과의 전쟁을 성공적으로 수행하게 된 과정을 간략하게 검토하고, 그 과정에서 다루어진 중요한 사건 중 두 사례를 선정해서 고찰해 보기로 하겠다.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.333-355
• /
• 2013

This paper is to examine the issues of the right of portrait and to suppose practical guideline for performing arts archives. The right of portrait protects external looks of the human beings based on the constitutional human dignity, privacy of a secret and freedom. But sometimes these rights are limited in case of the right to know of the public shall have precedence to the interests of the privacy of individuals. It is hard to regard Performing Arts as a private life in two respects: first, Performing Arts is just one of societal expressions, two, performers are conducting a given role as a performing character. Producing database with the photos and videos under the reasonable agreement from the performers and making it available as a service can be disclaimers of the right of portrait. It is hard to be acknowledged, however, as disclaimers in case of being undermined sameness in the course of using the portraits of the performers.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.5-24
• /
• 2009

This study is aimed to analyze the concept of media consumer and legal principles for consumer movements protection. Based on the concept and legal principles, this research is to review the characteristics of the advertisement boycott campaign. Article 124 of the Constitution prescribes that the state should guarantee the consumer protection movements. According to the Article 4 of the Framework Act on Consumer, consumers have the fundamental right to obtain proper compensation for damages sustained due to use of goods and etc. according to prompt and fair procedure. The type of boycott can be classified into two pattern on the basis of boycott's target or object. They are primary boycott and. secondary boycott. Consumer's boycott independent of primary or secondary, are under the protection of the consumer's right. Media consumers use scarce resources to satisfy their wants and needs to acquire news information and advertising information. Their resources are time and money. Therefore, ads boycott campaign or media boycott campaign is the primary boycott. Consumer's right should be guaranteed to the maximum. The Constitution and consumer protection law should protect the practice of consumer's right, especially consumer's boycott campaign.

• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.74-90
• /
• 2012

This thesis analyzes the Apple Inc.'s case from the viewpoint of the necessity for the protection of information privacy related to location data as for information society and ubiquitous community. Meanwhile, the regulatory conformity to equilibrium of contradictional value between personal data protection and utilization of information is debated from the fundamental right as for constitutional law concept to the commercial and technological structure in terms of economic and business point. Therefore, this paper reaches the conclusion that the legislative system should form a harmonious relationship between legal protection and lawful utilization to reappraise the present condition of legalization on personal data protection from guaranteeing rights and interests of information subject in the perspective of human rights to information guarantee consequently. As a result, it is required to revaluate the lawfulness of the fine on the violation of administrative duty levied by KCC(Korea Communications Commission).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-74
• /
• 2022

As social disasters occur under the Disaster Management Act, which can damage the people's "life, body, and property" due to the rapid spread and spread of unexpected COVID-19 infectious diseases in 2020, information collected through inspection and reporting of infectious disease pathogens (Article 11), epidemiological investigation (Article 18), epidemiological investigation for vaccination (Article 29), artificial technology, and prevention policy Decision), (3) It was used as an important basis for decision-making in the context of an infectious disease crisis, such as promoting vaccination and understanding the current status of damage. In addition, medical policy decisions using infectious disease data contribute to quarantine policy decisions, information provision, drug development, and research technology development, and interest in the legal scope and limitations of using infectious disease data has increased worldwide. The use of infectious disease data can be classified for the purpose of spreading and blocking infectious diseases, prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases, and the use of information will be more widely made in the context of an infectious disease crisis. In particular, as the serious stage of the Disaster Management Act continues, the processing of personal identification information and sensitive information becomes an important issue. Information on "medical records, vaccination drugs, vaccination, underlying diseases, health rankings, long-term care recognition grades, pregnancy, etc." needs to be interpreted. In the case of "prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases", it is difficult to clearly define the concept of medical practicesThe types of actions are judged based on "legislative purposes, academic principles, expertise, and social norms," but the balance of legal interests should be based on the need for data use in quarantine policies and urgent judgment in public health crises. Specifically, the speed and degree of transmission of infectious diseases in a crisis, whether the purpose can be achieved without processing sensitive information, whether it unfairly violates the interests of third parties or information subjects, and the effectiveness of introducing quarantine policies through processing sensitive information can be used as major evaluation factors. On the other hand, the collection, provision, and use of infectious disease data for research purposes will be used through pseudonym processing under the Personal Information Protection Act, consent under the Bioethics Act and deliberation by the Institutional Bioethics Committee, and data provision deliberation committee. Therefore, the use of research purposes is recognized as long as procedural validity is secured as it is reviewed by the pseudonym processing and data review committee, the consent of the information subject, and the institutional bioethics review committee. However, the burden on research managers should be reduced by clarifying the pseudonymization or anonymization procedures, the introduction or consent procedures of the comprehensive consent system and the opt-out system should be clearly prepared, and the procedure for re-identifying or securing security that may arise from technological development should be clearly defined.