• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• v.21 no.8
• /
• pp.51-54
• /
• 2021

The article is devoted to the study of the features of administrative liability for offenses in the informational sphere, the definition of the concept and features. Based on the examples of implementation of instruments of European legislation into the national legal system and examples of national legal practice, the authors have identified the features of informational and legal sanctions aimed at restricting the rights of access of subjects to information, prohibiting them to disseminate certain information, restricting the rights to disseminate certain information, and suspending informational activities. It has been substantiated that the administrative liability for informational offenses as a protective legal institution is created to contribute to the solution of such acute problems of legal support of human and society interests in the new informational dimensions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.295-316
• /
• 2011

If the medical staff privileges, which mean the eligibility to practice at open hospitals, are excluded in the United States, antitrust claims based on the violation of the Sherman Act have been raised a lot. The proliferation of these lawsuits in the United States, which are characterized as antitrust lawsuits, can be understandable situation. The reason is because doctors who don't belong to specific hospitals are seriously damaged, if the medical staff privileges are excluded and doctors cannot use facilities of open hospitals. In order to decide to allow the privileges of certain doctors, hospitals have to rely on peer review to maintain high quality of medical services, and it is not easy to find alternative of peer review in the professional areas like healthcare. However, there are possibilities that members of the peer review can abuse power to unfairly exclude privileges of potential competitors. In this sense, it is asserted in the U.S. antitrust lawsuits that the restraint of medical staff privilege can be the illegal restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of Sherman Act and can be monopolization or an attempt to monopoly by hospitals in violation of section 2 of Sherman Act. As Korea adopted open hospital system quite recently, there is still no case related with the exclusion of medical staff privileges. However, medical staff privilege system of Korea is not different from that of the United States in principle. Thus, the U.S. jurisprudence on the exclusion of medical staff privileges can be referred in the interpretation of "practice that interferes with or restricts the activities or contents of the business" based on Article 19.1.9 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law of Korea.