• 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-56
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has cancelled four cases of thirty-nine Arbitral awards made by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Three cases of them were cancelled by the reason of the arbitrator's disqualification in relation to impartiality or independence and the other to arbitration agreement enable to select the lawsuit or arbitration. When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator or has already been appointed as such, he shall without delay disclose all circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence according to the one of the article 13 of Korean Arbitration Act. Upon being notified of the appointment as an arbitrator, each arbitrator shall immediately disclose in writing to the Secretariat any circumstances which might cause reasonable doubt about impartiality or independence. An arbitration agreement shall be made clearly and in writing not to appeal to the court or to be brought in the court. However most of the korean construction contracts have the arbitration agreement clause enable to appeal to the court or the arbitration on government official's advice. Many of these disputes are resolved by litigation after the precedent(Law case number : 2003da318) set by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2003 between the Korea(government) and the Korea Railroad or abandoned its attempt to arbitration. But each year, about four hundreds of arbitration business transactions were resolved arbitration, the voluntary submission of a dispute to an impartial person or persons for final and binding determination. Arbitration has proven to be an effective way to resolve these disputes privately, promptly, and economically.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.22 no.5
• /
• pp.430-443
• /
• 2016

This paper involves the constitutionality of the restrictive by-laws established by the 'College of Maritime Science' at the 'Korea Maritime and Ocean University' when they affect the cadet's fundamental rights, particularly, in connection with the training system of the 'Merchant Cadet Dormitory.' The issue in question is whether the school regulations may fall within a judicially permissible boundary in light of the general principles of constitutional rights in that the rules are enacted by the school itself in accordance with the Article 31, Section 4 of the Constitution and largely regulate the cadets' living conditions on a campus. However, the general scrutiny standard the courts apply requires the school enactments to pass three tests to be justified: (1) legislative authorization, (2) proportionality and (3) non-infringement on the essential elements of the fundamental rights as articulated under Article 37, Section 2 of the Constitution. The review in this paper shows that, first, the by-laws at issue find themselves statutorily authorized by the 'Higher Education Act' and the 'Decree of the Establishment of National Schools', with the proportionality as a second part observed within a justifiable scope and the essential elements of the fundamental rights as the third point not being marred. In conclusion, the school's dormitory training system is not found to cross the line and, however, the school authorities still need to keep overseeing the overall training course to secure the constitutional proportionality.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.

• Journal of Science of Art and Design
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.39-60
• /
• 2008

Nature/Landscape is surrounding space in which we make living. It is considerably comprehensive tenn. but on the other hand, the site can be existence, experience, and certain circumstance with boundaries. Based on these places, through contemporary art criticism, this study is to contemplate how art since 1960s, especially, site-specific art in three-dimensional space intervene in the environment. Artists of today put more value on the process and act of art making founded on the external, and they tend to create the characteristic of site or to indicate linguistic documentation. Moreover, a large-scale tendency of contemporary sculpture and 'occupation of specific site' seems to accede spatial conception from architecture. The core that recognizes these artworks is with body, that is to say, the space in which Self becomes the subject by changing the structure of the work while moving around it. In particular, 'Site-specific Art (in situ)' sometimes determines the form inward or outward It also relates directly on viewer's five senses by looking, hearing, and feeling, touching, and interacting. For example, in Richard Serra's , the viewer who moves around the work has the role to manipulate the movement of the work by perception. Works of In situ and works that planned for specific site suggest 'occupation of site' as of the function of the work These sites are ideal and special as well as being independent. Ultimately, it seems that the creative process of contemporary artists is to carry those intended form on the structure of perception. Furthermore, law of nature such as entropy, and acceptance of contingency helped organic structure of artwork become more abundant. For Robert Smithson, entropy suggests of reaching to a state of equilibriumin which everything is the same. This means that any core is justifiable and any rank is possible. Because the world without a core is a labyrinth of boundless exploration.