• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2010.04a
• /
• pp.422-427
• /
• 2010

The judgement of 'Koreon Maritime Safety Tribunal'(KMST) influences criminal/civil trials, and thus the judgement must be decided very carefully. The Judge must bear in mind the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence is restricted by the admissibility of evidence, in dubio proreo and others. Also, empirical role must be used very carefully with strict proof. Therefore the reasons of the proof shall be expressed on the adjudication.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.35-43
• /
• 2018

Currently, digital evidence takes judicial discretion in adopting it, which does not clarify the criteria for adoption, and it can shorten the analysis time of digital evidence with distributed processing techniques. However, due to the development of cryptographic techniques, there is a problem in that it is not suitable for the 48 hour limit of the warrant request. In this paper, we analyze the precedents for admissibility of evidence and the probative power in the civil/criminal proceedings, and discuss the need for objective and detailed adoption criteria to replace judicial discretion. In addition, we'd like to propose a preliminary application form for analysis of digital evidence as a problem for limit time for warrant claims from the perspective of forensics and a solution to the problem.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2017

Medical certificate is a document to demonstrate a patient's health status, made up and signed by a physician, dentist, or oriental physician who attended the patient. It serves as an evidence in many official process including civil or criminal law suit, especially for one's personal injury. The Korean legal system also acknowledges and protects the evidentiary function of medical certificate by mandating physicians etc. to issue medical certificate in good faith and only when they personally attended the patient, and by criminally punishing them when they do not comply with these legal requirements. There are some reasons, however, that medical certificates often do not reflect the true health status of the patient: When physicians attend the patient and collect information regarding the health status of the patient, their priority is and should be the most cost-effective way to meet the health needs of the patient. It does not necessarily correspond to the accurate examination of the health status of the patient. Even when the patient's report on the history of the illness or the injury seems suspicious, physicians might have to avoid disproving it because that kind of attitude might harm the rapport between the physician and the patient. All these can distort the perception of the physicians and this distortion can be reproduced in the medical certificate they made up. Some of these problems might be resolved or at least enhanced by introducing new form of medical certificate which would guide physicians to reveal the nature, factual and theoretical grounds, and the limit of their findings more accurately. Others, however, would not be able to address, because it stems from the conflict between the physician's primary duty, duty to be loyal to the patient's life and health, and his secondary duty to serve as a public or neutral witness on the health status of the patient, and when both values or duties conflict with each other, they should choose the duty to the patient sacrificing the duty to the public or the court.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.417-428
• /
• 2020

With the rapid development of information and communication technology, mobile devices have become an essential tool in our lives. Mobile devices are used as important evidence in criminal proof, as they accumulate data simultaneously with PIM functions while working with users most of the time. The mobile forensics is a procedure for obtaining digital evidence from mobile devices and should be collected and analyzed in accordance with due process, just like other evidence, and the integrity of the evidence is essential because it has aspects that are easy to manipulate and delete. Also, the adoption of evidence relies on the judges' liberalism, which necessitates the presentation of generalized procedures. In this paper, a mobile forensics model is presented to ensure integrity through the generalization of procedures. It is expected that the proposed mobile forensics model will contribute to the formation of judges by ensuring the reliability and authenticity of evidence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

There were also many medical-related rulings in 2021, among which the rulings reviewed in this paper are as follows. The first relates to a case in which the medical record, which is the primary judgment data regarding the presence or absence of medical negligence, has been modified. The court judged whether there was negligence on the basis of the first written medical record without considering the contents of the medical record that was later modified. Next, the ruling on the case of asking for liability for damages for prescription of anti-obesity drugs recognized negligence related to prescription, but denied liability for property damage by denying a causal relationship, and recognized only alimony for violation of the duty of explanation. The a full-bench ruling on the scope of subrogation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which subrogates the claims for compensation for medical expenses against the perpetrator of the patient, changed the existing precedent that had taken the 'deduction method after offsetting negligence' and judged it as 'the method of offsetting negligence after deduction'. In addition, in the ruling on whether or not there was negligence, the court was not bound by the medical record appraisal result. Lastly, in relation to the National Health Insurance Service's disposition of reimbursement for medical care benefit costs, we reviewed the ruling that discretion should be exercised even when a non-medical person makes a refund to a medical institution opened by a non-medical person. And we also reviewed the ruling that the scope of reimbursement for medical institutions jointly using facilities and manpower specifically should be determined.