• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2015

Recently, a plastic surgery hospital in Seoul, has been raided following suspicions that ghost surgery was performed by an unauthorized substitute surgeon on a chinese woman who lapsed into a death. Following the incident, an organization to eradicate ghost surgery was created in March by Consumers Korea, founded to protect consumer rights, and the Korea Alliance of Patients Organization. The organization has received reports of illegal medical practices. To substitute another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution is fraud and deceit and a violation of a basic ethical concept. The patient as a human being is entitled to choose his own physician and he should be permitted to acquiesce in or refuse to accept the substitution. It should be noted that it is the operating surgeon to whom the patient grants his consent to perform the operation. The patient is entitled to the services of the particular surgeon with whom he contracts. The surgeon, in accepting the patient, obligates himself to utilize his personal talents in the performance of the operation to the extent required by the agreement creating the physician-patient relationship. He cannot properly delegate to another the duties which the patient authorizes him to perform personally. 'Ghost surgery' comes under Article 257(Inflicting Bodily Injury on Other or on Lineal Ascendant) of the Criminal Code. Substitution another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution shall be performed Inflicting Bodily Injury. This is a controversial issue that'ghost surgery' comes under Article 347(Fraud) of the Criminal Code. It maybe controversial that operation substituted by another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution becomes the component of Fraud. Also, Ghost surgery' comes under Article 27 (Prohibition of Unlicensed Medical Practice, etc.), Article 22 (Medical Records, etc.), Article 33 (Establishment) of the Medical Service Act. The surgeon's obligation to the patient requires him to perform the surgical operation: (1) within the scope of authority granted him by the consent to the operation; (2) in accordance with the terms of the contractual relationship; (3) with complete disclosure of all facts relevant to the need and the performance of the operation; and (4) to utilize his best skill in performing the operation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.143-166
• /
• 2012

This paper deals in depth with airline over-booking practices and legal questions therefrom in the light of public interests. Chapter I as an introduction gives clear ideas of what are the over-booking, fact-revealing current state of denied boarding and nature of the problems inherent but veiled in those practices. In Chapter II, it is reviewed whether legal instruments for DBC(Denied Boarding Compensation) are adequately equipped for airline passengers in R. O. K. Upon the results of the review that international law to which Korea is a party, domestic law and administrative preparedness for the DBC are either null or virtually ineffective, the Chapter by contrast illustrates how well the U. S. and the E. U. safeguard civil rights of their passengers from such an 'institutionalized fraud' as the over-booking. In Chapter III on which a main emphasis lies, it is examined whether the over-booking practice constitutes a criminal offense: Fraud. In section 1, the author identifies actus reus and mens rea required for fraud then compares those with every aspect of the over-booking. In conjunction with the structural element analysis, he reviews the Supreme Court's precedents that lead the section into a partial conclusion that the act of over-booking judicially constitutes a crime of fraud. Despite the fulfillment of drawing up an intended answer, the author furthers the topic in section 2 by arguing a dominant view from Korean academia taking opposite stance to the Supreme Court. The commentators assert, "To consummate a crime of fraud, there must be property damage of the victim." For this notion correlates with a debate on legally protected interest in criminalization of fraud, the section 2 shows an argument over 'Rechtgut' matters specific to fraud. The view claims that the Rechtgut comes down rather to 'right to property' than 'transactional integrity' or 'fair and equitable principles'. However, the section concludes that the later values shall be deemed as 'freedom in economic decision-making' which are the benefit and protection of the penal law about fraud. Section 3 demonstrates the self-contradiction of the view as it is proved by a conceptual analysis that the infringement on freedom in economic decision-making boils down to the 'property damage'. Such a notion is better grounded in section 4 by foreign court decisions and legislation in its favour. Therefore, this paper concludes that the airline's act of over-booking is very likely to constitute fraud in both theory and practice.