• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.239-262
• /
• 2011

The Korean government's recent large-scale termination and modification of welfare benefits revealed a procedural problem under the National Basic Living Security Act. Under the Act, welfare recipients have a legal right to make complaints only after the termination or modification is enforced; the Act fails to provide the recipients with an opportunity for a hearing before termination or modification, and this creates serious threats to the recipients, whose livelihoods are dependent on welfare benefits. Korean jurisprudence has adopted the due process of law principle. The principle originated from the due process in US jurisprudence, and Korea has applied it broadly to any government actions that restrict individuals' constitutional or legal rights. This paper reviews the termination or modification procedure under the Act with the lens of the due process principle and criticizes that the current law is not in compliance with the principle. In supporting that such termination and modification procedure infringes on welfare recipients' protected rights, this paper discusses two theories as to what rights are protected. First, termination or modification of welfare benefits can be considered as deprivation of property. The 'property' theory may be weak under Korean jurisprudence, because the concept of property under the Korean Constitution is narrowly construed. Second, this paper relies on the constitutional provision that recognizes "the right to a life worthy of human beings," which requires the State to guarantee minimum standard of living for all. As welfare recipients are deemed to receive benefits as a right under the Constitution, any deviation from the minimum requirement would constitute a violation of constitutional rights. In any case, termination or modification of welfare benefits that are concretized under the Act should be protected under the due process principle, because the principle would cover any government actions that restrict established legal rights. This paper argues that the procedural due process requires the recipients be guaranteed an opportunity to have a hearing before the termination or modification is enforced. An independent decision-maker should hear the proceedings, and the recipients should have an option to orally present their opinions in front of the decision-maker. The hearing process under the Administrative Procedures Act of Korea offers elements that would satisfy these procedural requirements. Thus, this paper concludes that the National Basic Living Security Act should be amended to adopt the hearing process under the Administrative Procedures Act in its termination and modification procedure.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.7
• /
• pp.156-168
• /
• 2012

As the increase of violent crimes such as robbery, murder, and rape has become a social problem, the government is considering institutionalizing the identification of criminals to prevent crime and to guarantee people's right to know. Such an atmosphere led to the approval of the revision of 'Special Law On the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes' in the National Assembly in April 2010. The revision allows the revelation of the profiles of crime suspects including the pictures of their faces at the investigation stage. However, whether the revision had been effective in preventing crime has not been demonstrated empirically. Moreover, identity revelation is a grave intrusion into privacy and an abuse of human rights such as personal rights and the right to a fair trial, since personal information of criminal suspects would be released to the media prior to the court's final judgements. Also it violates the principle of presumption of innocence, the principles of due process, the principle of double jeopardy, the principle of prohibition against excessive, the principles of clarity, and the principle of liability.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2020.07a
• /
• pp.187-188
• /
• 2020

형사소송법 제106조에서 '범위를 정하여 출력 또는 복제하는 방법이 불가능하거나 압수의 목적을 달성하기에 현저히 곤란하다고 인정되는 때에는 정보저장매체 등을 압수할 수 있다'의 규정과 제122조에서 '급속을 요하는 때'의 예외 규정을 근거로 스마트폰 압수·수색과정에서 범죄혐의와 관련성에 대한 구분 없이 정보가 무분별하게 탐색 복제되는 등 기본권을 침해하고 있으며, 영장주의 원칙에 반하는 위법한 집행이 되고 있는 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 긴급압수 후 사후영장 발부 전에 별건의 범죄혐의를 확인하거나 증거로 활용한다면 위법한 압수에 해당할 수 있는 디지털증거 압수·수색 원칙의 문제, 디지털정보의 검색과 추출과정에서 참여권 보장의 문제, 스마트폰 정보에 대한 무결성 확보 등을 문제점으로 도출하였다. 이러한 문제점을 개선하기 위해 사전영장 없는 범죄사실과 관련성이 없는 정보의 탐색이나 추출 금지, 정보검색이나 추출과정에서 피압수자의 참여권 보장 및 디지털증거 분야 전문가로부터 조력을 받을 권리 보장, 무결성 확보를 위한 절차적·실체적 적법절차 준수 등 개선방안을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.337-374
• /
• 2017

Wer wegen eines Wahldelikts zu Geldstrafe von mehr als 1 Million Won verurteilt wird, verliert nach ${\S}$ 18 Abs. 1 Satz 3, ${\S}$ 19 Satz 1, ${\S}$ 266 des Koreanischen Wahlgesetzes $f{\ddot{u}}r$ die Dauer von $f{\ddot{u}}nf$ Jahren die $F{\ddot{a}}higkeit$, ${\ddot{o}}ffentliche$ ${\ddot{A}}mter$ zu bekleiden und Rechte aus ${\ddot{o}}ffentlichen$ Wahlen. Bei Verurteilung zu Freiheitsstrafe wegen eines Wahldelikts ${\ddot{A}}mter$ sich die Dauer des Verlusts der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ und des aktiven bzw. passiven Walhrechts auf 10 Jahre. Dies erfolgt kraft Gesetzes. Das $hei{\ss}t$, dass die Entscheidung ${\ddot{u}}ber$ das Ob und die Dauer des Verlusts nicht im Ermessen des Gerichts steht. Allerdings sollte $diesbez{\ddot{u}}glich$ nicht verkannt werden, dass ein deratriger Entzug von $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$, $W{\ddot{a}}hlbarkeit$ u.s.w., mit dem eine Straftat geahndet werden soll, selber von Natur aus eine Art Strafen darstellt. Der im ${\S}$ 41 des Koreanischen StGB geregelte Strafen-Katalog $enth{\ddot{a}}lt$ $n{\ddot{a}}mlich$ eine zeitlich begrenzte Aberkennung des oben genannten ${\ddot{o}}ffentliche$n Rechtsstatus als eine Art Ehrenstrafen. Nicht einleuchtend ist, warum das Wesen der Sanktion $gem{\ddot{a}}{\ss}$ ${\S}$ 18 Abs. 1 Satz 3, ${\S}$ 19 Satz 1, ${\S}$ 266 des Koreanischen Wahlgesetzes, die den gleichen Zweck und die gleiche Rechtsfolge wie die im ${\S}$ 41 des Koreanischen StGB geregelte Ehrenstrafe hat, nicht als Strafe aufgefasst werden sollte. Handelt es sich bei der oben genannten Sanktion um eine Art Ehrenstrafen, so stellt sich die Anforderung, sie je nach der Eigenart der begangenen Tat bzw. des $T{\ddot{a}}ters$ zu individualisieren. Das Gebot der Individualisierung der Strafen, welches $haupts{\ddot{a}}chlich$ vom materiellen Rechtsstaatsprinzip ableitbar ist, kann im Grunde nur verwirklicht werden, wenn das Gericht dazu befugt ist, unter $Ber{\ddot{u}}cksichtigung$ der konkreten $Umst{\ddot{a}}nde$ jedes Einzelfalls ${\ddot{u}}ber$ eine angemessene Strafe zu befinden. Somit ist der kraft Gesetzes eintretenden Verlust der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ und der $W{\ddot{a}}hlbarkeit$ nur schwer mit dem Gebot der Individualisierung der Strafen vereinbar. Es $w{\ddot{a}}re$ deshalb $w{\ddot{u}}nschenswert$, wenn der Gesetzgeber eine Reform in Betracht ziehen $w{\ddot{u}}rde$, welche den Ersatz des kraft Gesetzes automatisch eintretenden Entzugs der $Amtsf{\ddot{a}}higkeit$ bzw. des Wahlrechts durch die gerichtliche fakultative Aberkennung von diesen Statusrechten beinhaltet.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.209-279
• /
• 2016

The Korean Mental Health Act was amended 2016 overall. This paper examines and evaluates the old Korean Mental Health Act since 1995 and the new Korean Mental Health Promotion Act 2016 from the Perspective of Human Rights and Inclusion of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities. The persons with mental disabilities was separated and ruled out from society by the enactment of the Mental Health Act in 1995 and five times amendment. That has been justified and institutionally supported by medical viewpoint. The medical approach which reconsider the persons with mental disabilities as patients conceal that the aims of the involuntary admission in Mental Hospital are protection of society and the relief of the family member's duty of support for person with mental disabilities. This is institutionally supported in the 1995 Korean Mental Health Act by involuntary admission through the consent of family members as protectors. According to the old Act, the family members as protectors are authorized to consent to involuntary admission of persons with mental disabilities. Also, the psychiatrist that diagnoses the person with mental disabilities and evaluates the need for treatment by admission is not impartial in this decision. Family members as protectors may want to lighten their burden of support for the person with mental disabilities in their home by admitting them into a mental hospital, and the psychiatrist in the mental hospital can be improperly influenced by demand of hospital management. Additionally, Article 24 of the Korean Mental Health Act for the Involuntary Admission by the Consent of Family Members as Protector might violate personal liberty, as guaranteed in the Korean Constitution. The Mental Health Promotion Law was amended to reduce the scope of the persons with mental illness which are subject to forced hospitalization and to demand that a second diagnosis is made by another psychiatrist and screening by the committee concerning the legitimacy of admission in the process of the involuntary admission by the consent of family members as a method of protection. The amended Mental Health Promotion Law will contribute to reducing the number of the involuntary admissions and the inclusion of persons with mental disabilities. But if persons with mental disabilities are not providing some kind of service to the community, the amended Mental Health Promotion Law does not work for Inclusion of them.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.221-254
• /
• 2015

The amendment of the Korea Civil Code will take place July 1, 2013. One of the most import issues related to adult guardianship system is a part. Though more than 100 new provisions, the revised Civil Code fundamentally reformed the guardianship system to establish a system to meet the diverse and complex needs of those who need a guardian and ensure due process. The new adult guardianship system intended to respect dignity and human right of mentally incapacitated adults, to guaranee their autunomy and to minimize the public interventions for assisting them. The new guardianship system for vulnerable adult has three kinds of legal guardianship system (adult guardianship, limited guardianship and specific guardianship). Mental patients forced the hospitalization of the mental health code and will be treated as an agreement incapable person. In principle an agreement incapable person has capacity of consent. The consent of the mental patients are admitted first. It is advisable to medical care only by the consent of the guardian when the the mental patient do not agree ability. If the mental patient do not agree with the mentally ill, but there should be a supervisory capacity for a guardianship of the couple guardian supervision. In conclusion, it not lost the capacity to consent to inpatient mental illness called. Therefore, we must discuss in detail the scope of the agreement for the mental patients. Mental Health Act amendments are necessary in accordance with the amended Civil Code.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.67-102
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to analyze the human rights found in the North Korean Constitution and their core problem by focusing on elements of human rights suggested by Daesoon Jinrihoe's doctrine of Haewon-sangsaeng (解冤相生 the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence). Haewon-sangsaeng is seemingly the only natural law that could resolve human resentment lingering from the Mutual Contention of the Former World while leading humans work for the betterment of one another. Haewon-sangsaeng, as a natural law, includes the right to life, the right to autonomous decision-making, and duty to act according to human dignity (physical freedom, the freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc.), the right to equal treatment in one's social environment, and the right to ensure the highest level of health through treatment. The North Korean Constitution does not have a character as an institutional device to guarantee natural human rights, the fundamental principle of the Constitution, and stipulates the right of revolutionary warriors to defend dictators and dictatorships. The right to life is specified so that an individual's life belongs to the life of the group according to their socio-political theory of life. Rights to freedom are stipulated to prioritize group interests over individual interests in accordance with the principle of collectivism. The right to equality and the right to health justify discrimination through class discrimination. The right to life provided to North Koreans is not guaranteed due to the death penalty system found within the North Korean Criminal Code and the Criminal Code Supplementary Provisions. The North Korean regime deprives North Koreans of their right to die with dignity through public executions. The North Korean regime places due process under the direction of the Korea Worker's Party, recognizes religion as superstition or opium, and the Korea Worker's Party acknowledge the freedoms of bodily autonomy, religion, media, or press. North Koreans are classified according to their status, and their rights to equality are not guaranteed because they are forced to live a pre-modern lifestyle according to the patriarchal order. In addition, health rights are not guaranteed due biased availability selection and accessibility in the medical field as well as the frequent shortages of free treatments.