• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.351-380
• /
• 2018

In every society, citizens must decide how to punish criminals, uphold the virtue of justice, and preserve the security of the community. In doing so, the members of society must ask themselves how they will punish those who carry out the most abhorrent of crimes. Many common responses to such a question is that death is an acceptable punishment for the most severe crimes. But to draw some theoretical distinction between a crime that deserves incarceration and a crime that is so heinous that it deserves capital punishment is subject to three errors. First, what possible line could be drawn? To decide on a particular number of deaths or to employ any standard would be arbitrary. Second, the use of a line would trivialize and undermine the deaths of those whose murderers fell below the standard. Third, any and all executions still are unjust, as the State should not degrade the institution of justice and dehumanize an individual who, although he or she has no respect for other human life, is still a living person. Simply put, all murders are heinous, all are completely unacceptable, and deserve the greatest punishment of the land; however, death as punishment is inappropriate. Also, while this article arrives at the conclusion that the death penalty is an inappropriate form of punishment, I have not offered an acceptable alternative that would appease those who believe capital offenders deserve a punishment that differs in its quality and severity. This is a burden that, admittedly, I am unable to meet. I finally conclude that the death penalty is unjustified retribution. This is the only claim that can effectively shift the intellectual paradigms of the participants in the debate. The continued use of the death penalty in society can only be determined and influenced by the collective conscience of the members of that society. As stated at the outset of this article, it is this essentially moral conflict regarding what is just and degrading that forms the backdrop for the past changes in and the present operation of our system of imposing death as a punishment for crime.

• 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.

• Journal of Labour Economics
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.213-220
• /
• 1989

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.10 no.7
• /
• pp.107-114
• /
• 2012

Self-defense is defined as 'an act which is performed in order to prevent impending and unjust infringement of one's own or another person's legal interest'(Article 21, the Criminal Act). To establish such a self-defense, it is generally suggested that it requires an intent for defense as subjective element as well as objective precondition of impending and unjust infringement of one's own or another person's legal interest' and considerable reason. Intent for defense which means an awareness for objective circumstance of self-defense is recognized as objective justification element for self-defense. With regard to intent for defense, there are various discussions on not only necessity of such an intent for defense but whether it is necessary for both actor's recognition of circumstance and specific purpose or motive and which should be applied for its punishment in case of lack of the intent for defense: consummated, unconsummated or semi-consummated. However, there is no clear regulations. This article reviews the contents of intent for defense based on opinion that it is necessary for intent for defense and then examines contents on criminal effect in case of lack of intent and intent for defense in case of criminal negligence.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.148-156
• /
• 2016

Party is the main factor in modern country. Therefore, there are a lot of articles about the difference of public policies and citizen's recognition according to their supported party. However, there is few research about the regulation recognition according to citizen's supported party. This study focuses on the differences of a regulation recognition according to citizen's supported party. In result, there are a lot of differences of regulation recognition according to citizen's supported party. The people who support Saenuri Party have a positive recognition about a necessity of regulation, a fairness of regulation, a reliability of a regulation. But the people who don't support Saenuri Party have a negative recognition about those. In Korea, government regulations have a lot of relationship with a party and politics.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.96
• /
• pp.2-7
• /
• 2003

실익이 없는 무리한 강제 조사권의 도입보다는 혐의가 드러난 담합의 경우 직접 검찰에 고발하거나 내부밀고자 보호 및 보상 강화를 통하여 절차적 정당성 및 정책 실효성을 동시에 확보할 필요가 있다. 각 국의 경쟁당국이 압수$\cdot$수색권을 행사하여 부당한 공동행위를 적발한 경우는 극히 일부분이기 때문이다. 그리고, 유사사례에 대해 향후 엄격하게 공정거래법을 집행함으로써 부당한 공동행위에 대한 사전적인 억제력을 제고해야 한다. 한편으로는 공정위의 시정조치가 있기 전에도 부당한 공동행위의 결과 피해를 본 사적 당사자가 법원에 직접 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 하고, 전문가들을 활용하여 담합으로 인한 손해발생 입증과 손해배상액을 추정하여 부당이득을 환수할 수 있어야 한다.

• 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 Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.7 no.5
• /
• pp.157-167
• /
• 2017

This study aims to establish measures to prevent emotional abuse by analyzing court precedents related to emotional abuse at daycare centers of Korea. For this, ten precedents of first trial and four precedents of appellate trial related to emotional abuse were analyzed in depth. In the results of study, there were diverse types of emotional abuse at daycare centers such as assaulting(hitting head, face, and buttocks with hands and feet), throwing things, neglecting, forcefully feeding food, stopping mouth with handkerchief and wet tissue, skipping meals, and showing scary images. And the main issues of precedents included the matter of justifiable act as circumstances precluding wrongfulness, and the matter of applying the joint penal provision. Based on such results, the measures to prevent emotional abuse at daycare centers were suggested.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.496-532
• /
• 2009

With the turn of the 21st century, corporate legitimacy is at risk. The society is demanding even greater responsibility to the corporations in return of exercising its enlarged influencing power. As the legitimacy is threatened, entrepreneurial activities have become even more important than ever in order to obtain trust from the public and to be accepted as an ethical enterprise. This study assumes corporate legitimacy as the necessary element in overcoming the crisis. With this respect, it further states what kind of effect the exercise of corporate reputation and social responsibility have on ensuring corporate legitimacy in crisis. To verify the purpose of this study, two research hypotheses and one research question were set. The major research results and the implications are as follows. First, the corporate reputation of Samsung Heavy Industries affects the corporate actional legitimacy in case of crisis. Second, recognition on corporate legitimacy varied in accordance with the public’s perception of the corporate social responsibility. Third, the interaction between corporate reputation and social responsibility plays a role in determining corporate legitimacy. This result denotes that it is necessary to exercise social responsibility and build up corporate reputation in order to obtain corporate legitimacy in crisis.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.611-653
• /
• 2013

An whistle-blowing is recognition of acts of misconduct or corruption by individuals(laborers) or party which belongs to a certain organization and it refers to the act of informing to the senior organization or to the outside public agency to avoid jeopardies that could be potentially lead against benefit of the public. These whistle-blowings can be a Ansatz that improve corporation's transparency and accountability by prevention of enterprise's misconduct as well, it has been recognized as an important role for the establishment of corporate ethics, moreover, social justice. What to be treated primarily as labor law problem is arousing some controversies of the possibility that the public announcement could be whether a disciplinary punishment or not because it brings some mischievous effects for the honor and the reputation to the company which conducted the illegal actions and the action of the contrary to the social value. And futhermore, recently, the matter of compensational responsibility according to the arrangement conversion, bullying followed by the informant has been brought up. The fundamental standpoint of precedent related with the judgement of justification for the punishment as reason of the whistle-blowing ought to do the sincere duty for the labor contract which is the employees are supposed to consider the employer's profits. For that reason, if the emploee release the inside fact to the public and give any damages to employer's secret or confidence or honor, it will be a causing reasong of the disciplinary punishment, but in specific cases, the relevant and level of punishment limitation can be judged by the contents of public announcement and the truth, the purpose of the acts and details and the way of announcement. Precisely, on the assumption that there are necessity of the characteristic profit or the freedom of expression for the informant, with overall consideration whether or the basis part of the informant is true or there is a fair reason which make the informant believe is true or the purpose of informant has the public profit or the contents of the whistle-blowing are important for relevant organization or the means and the way was suitable, if the whistle-blowing are approved to be resonable, the organization are not permitted the reprimand or dismiss Futhermore, to find the solution for the issues of the disciplinary punishment and the treatment of all sorts of disadvantages, for the reason of whistle-blowing, since the protection law for public declarer which was enacted in last 2011 have the position as the general law, the purport of the equal law has to be considered sytematically and also the judicial precedent which is related to the justification of whistle-blowing are needed to be considered as well.