• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.205-236
• /
• 2010

This article deals with international space law for the environmental protection in outer space especially for space debris arising from space activities. After studying 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement, we could find few provisions dealing with space environment in those treaties. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international law makers was the establishment of the basic rules of space law governing the states' activities in outer space. Consequently the environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of the space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. Although the phrases such as 'harmful contamination', 'harmful interference', 'disruption of the environment', 'adverse changes in the environment' and 'harmfully affecting' in relation to space environment were used in 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement, their true meaning was not definitely settled. Although 1972 Liability Convention deals with compensation, whether the space object covers space debris is unclear despite the case of Cosmos 954. In this respect international lawyers suggest the amendment of the space treaties and new space treaty covering the space environmental problems including the space debris. The resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are also studied to deal with space environment and space debris. In 1992 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 47/68 titled "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space" for the NPS use in outer space. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee; IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of "the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" approved by COPUOS in its 527th meeting. In 1994 the 66th conference of ILA adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". Although those resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are not binding states, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and softs laws.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.35-77
• /
• 2023

As the amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act, which newly established the basis for the right to request transmission of personal information, was promulgated through the plenary session of the National Assembly, MyData, which was previously applied only to the financial sector, could spread to all fields. The right to request transmission of personal information is the right of the information subject to be guaranteed for the realization of MyData. However, since the right to request transmission of personal information stipulated in the Personal Information Protection Act is designed to be applied to all fields, not a special field such as the medical field, it has many shortcomings to act as a core basis for implementing MyData in Medicine. Based on this awareness of the problem, this paper compares and analyzes major legal trends related to the right to portability of personal health information at home and abroad, and examines the limitations of Korea's Personal Information Protection Act and Medical Act in realizing Medical MyData. Under the Personal Information Protection Act, the right to request transmission of personal information is insufficient to apply to the medical field, such as the scope of information to be transmitted, the transmission method, and the scope of the person obligated to perform the transmission, etc.. Regulations on the right to access medical information and transmission of medical records under the Medical Act also have limitations in implementing the full function of Medical My Data in that the target information and the leading institution are very limited. In order to overcome these limitations, this paper prepared a separate and independent special law to regulate matters related to the use and protection of personal health information as a measure to improve the legal system that can effectively guarantee the right to portability of personal health information, taking into account the specificity of the medical field. It was proposed to specifically regulate the contents of the movement and transmission system of personal health information.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.479-490
• /
• 2021

As a part of Korean accounting reforms through the improvement of the accounting and audit related systems, the amendment bill of 'Act on External Audit of Stock Compamies's was passed in the Natinal Assembly plenary session in 2017, the amended act has been enforced except some regulations since the business year on November 1, 2018, and all the amended matters will be applied from the business year of 2024. The reasons for auditor designation in 2019 are 'pre-IPO' 331 companies, 220 periodic designation companies, 197 companies that had operating loss for three consecutive years, 112 companies with issues for administration, 108 companies with excessive debt ratio and 66 companies with no auditors. Regarding the reasons for the increase of auditor designation, 475 companies were increased in accordance with the new designation standard by the amended bill of Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, 114 companies were increased due to the abolition of the considered designation system of companies to be listed, and 90 companies were increased based on the increase of listed companies incorporated to issues for administration. In 2020, 462 companies had periodical designation (434 listed, 28 non-listed), adding 242 companies (110%) over a year. In terms of direct designation, 'pre-IPO' accounted for the most (362 companies), followed by '3 consecutive years of operating loss' (245 companies), then by companies with administration issues (133 companies), and CEO & largest sharholder replacement. Regarding the designation of auditors according to accounting firms in 2020, A group that includes(top 4) accounting firms(Samil, Samjeong, Hanyeong, Anjin) had 526 companies(34.6%), which ia an incease of 72 companies from the previous year(454 companies, 37.1%), but the weight decreased by 2.5%.