• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.61
• /
• pp.333-352
• /
• 2019

In January and August 2019, there were amendments to the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Protection Act (UCPA) and the Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA). These amendments will contribute to technology protection. But these amendments need to be supplemented further. In the area of civil remedies, despite the introduction of treble damages in the case of the UCPA and ITPA, the provisions related to the submission of supporting data have not been maintained. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the claim of the other party as true if it is maintained at the level of the revised Patent Act and the scope of submission of supporting data. And the enforcement of the case of compulsory submission for the calculation of damages, and the order of filing documents are not followed. ITPA, on the other hand, has introduced the compensation for damages, but there is no provision for estimating the amount of damages. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the amount of lost profits, profits, and royalties. In the area of criminal remedies, both the UCPA and ITPA have raised the penalty, but the sentencing regulations are not maintained. In addition, although the recent outflow of technology has expanded beyond organizational deviations to organizational outflows, amendments need to be made in relation to the serious consequence for the punishment of related juristic persons, such as companies involved in it. It should be noted that Japan and the United States have corporate regulations and regulations. In addition, in relation to the confiscation system, Act on Regulation and Punishment of criminal proceeds concealment require that domestic defenses be confiscated by defense industry technology, while trade secrets and industrial technologies are confiscated only by "foreign" outflows, and an amendment is necessary.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Child Welfare
• /
• no.56
• /
• pp.69-99
• /
• 2016

Taking the perspective of children's welfare, this study aimed at critically analyzing the system of notification disposition which institutionalized children have experienced. Notification disposition is a juvenile justice process that, when a child (10 th 18 years old ) has been delinquent or is at risk for delinquency, is initiated without investigation or prosecution procedures by direct notification to a judge from the caregivers, school principals, chief probation officers, or directors of child care institutions. The data used in the analysis included case records of probation offices, and court sentencing documents of juvenile protective dispositions. Results showed that notification cases were initiated by directors of child shelters/care institutions. The most common reasons of notification were theft, runaway, physical violence, drinking, and smoking. Furthermore, there were more controversial reasons, such as "bad influence on another institutionalized children", "showing no remorse", "no sense of guilt"and "challenge of rearing in institutions" Based on the results, we discussed three problematic aspects of the direct notification system by directors of childcare institutions : (1) too much reliance on the judicature judgment of juvenile court; (2) less stability of the judicial status of notified children, and (3) inadequacies of the notifying eligibility for directors of child care institutions.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.111-122
• /
• 2021

Objectives: There was a judgment of acquittal for the manufacturer SK Chemical and the vendor Aekyung regarding humidifier disinfectant (HD) containing 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one/2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one (CMIT/MIT). The rationale used in this judgement is discussed here in the light of scientific consideration. Methods: The sentencing document for the judgements was obtained from the Korea Supreme Court Service. In particular, the judgements made by the court related to the risk of HD and external and internal exposure to CMIT/MIT are discussed based on scientific evidence. Results: Rendering a determination in a criminal trial of insufficient evidence of causation, the court dismissed the prosecution's motion that humidifier disinfectant-associated lung injuries (HDLI) and asthma were associated with the utilization of these products. However, CMIT/MIT, a strong sensitizing and corrosive substance, has been reported to be associated with brain toxicity, allergic contact dermatitis, and asthma. Furthermore, the judgment did not consider total consumption amounts or the cumulative dose of CMIT/MIT in the humidifier. Lastly, there are several cases supporting the fact that exposure to water-soluble substances including CMIT/MIT can cause lower respiratory tract diseases. In addition to cases of asthma among the workers exposed to CMIT/MIT, we identified lung injury victims who were exposed to HDs exclusively containing CMIT/MIT. Conclusions: We conclude that there is sufficient evidence supporting the assertion that HDs containing CMIT/MIT cause lung injuries, including asthma, contrary to the court's judgement.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.193-204
• /
• 2021

Objectives: In January 2021, the former heads of the manufacturer SK Chemical and the vendor Aekyung were acquitted for manufacturing and selling humidifier disinfectant (HD) containing 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one/2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one (CMIT/MIT). In this article, we analyzed the rationale used in this judgement in the light of scientific consideration. Methods: The sentencing document for the judgements was obtained from the Korea Supreme Court Service. In particular, the judgements made by the court related to the toxicological and individual association with HD perspectives were discussed based on scientific evidence. Results: The ruling stated that the necessary conditions for causality between CMIT/MIT and such diseases were not met based on the fact that asthma and lung damage were not found in the inhalation exposure animal experiments. The judgment overlooked the inevitable limitations of using animal experiments for verifying health effects in humans, which are often inconsistent with the observations in animals. Among 11 governmentaffirmed lung injury cases with CMIT/MIT usage, three patients' humidifier disinfectant-associated lung injury (HDLI) pathology proved that CMIT/MIT could cause lung injury similar to that caused by PHMG and PGH. In addition, five children showed decreased lung function related to damage caused by humidifier disinfectant exposure. Conclusions: We conclude that there is sufficient evidence supporting the assertion that HDs containing CMIT/MIT cause lung injuries, including asthma, contrary to the court's decision.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.147-167
• /
• 2022

This study was conducted to find out the difference in judgment of murder cases by participants' generation according to the type of murder. 196 adults in their 20s and older were randomly assigned to one of the scenarios of parricide, filicide, and murder, then responded to the judgment(ex. judgment of the perpetrator, degree of deviation from social norms, and judgment of victim responsibility). Finally, 128 responses were used in the analysis. As a result, it was found that the main effect of the murder type and the interaction effect of the generation and the murder type were not shown in all dependent variables. However, the difference between generations was statistically significant in the judgment of the perpetrator (e.g., perpetrator blame, perpetrator responsibility, intentional crime, etc.), indicating that millennials made unfavorable judgments to the perpetrator. Especially, in the case of parricide, it was found that millennials made unfavorable judgments to perpetrators than older generations. Also, it was found that the participants of the older generation tended to make unfavorable judgments toward the perpetrator of murder rather than the perpetrator of parricide. Finally, based on these results, this study proposed the need to reconsider the 'victim of survivors' factor, which is considered as a weighing of an offense for special sentencing factors.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.25-45
• /
• 2020

Intentionality judgement in criminal cases is a core area of fact finding that is root of guilty and sentencing judgment on the defendant. However, the third party is not sure the intentionality because it reflects subjective aspect of agent. Thus, mechanism behind intentionality judgment is an important factor to be properly understood by the academia and the criminal justice system. However, previous studies regarding intentionality judgment models have shown inconsistent results. Mental-state models proposed foreseeability(belief) and desire of agent at the time of the offence as key factors in intentionality judgment. These factors consistent with central things on intentionality judgment in criminal law. However, key factors in moral-evaluation models are blameworthiness of agent and badness of outcome reflected on the consequent aspect of act. Recently, deep-self concordance model emerged suggesting important factors on intentionality judgment are not mental states and moral evaluations but individual's deep-self. However, these models are limited in that they do not consider the important features of criminal cases, that the consequence of the case is inevitably negative, and therefore the actor who is a party to legal punishment rarely expresses his or her mental state at the time of the act. Therefore, this study suggests that, based on the existing intentionality judgment studies and the characteristics of the criminal case, the inference about who the agent was originally will play a key role in judging the intentionality in the criminal case. This is the moral-character model. Futhermore, In this regard, this study discussed what the media and criminal justice institutions should keep in mind and the directions for future research.