• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.48-62
• /
• 2005

In aviation criminal law is negligence different from in civil law and in general criminal law. The Interpretation of aviation criminal negligence must be elucidated in characteristic own way. The thesis considers the principle of trust, permissible risk and the accomplice offender.

• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.21-32
• /
• 2011

The recently revised "Telecommunications Business Promotion and Personal Data Protection Act" is an important legal milestone in promoting the Korean telecommunications infrastructure and industry as well as protecting individuals' personal data and individuals' rights to privacy. Special characteristics of information security and privacy protection services including public goods' feature, adaptiveness, relativity, multi-dimensionality, and incompleteness, are reviewed. The responsibility of chief security/privacy officers in the IT industry, and the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal negligence in the Telecommunications Act are analyzed. An assessment of the rationale behind the act as well as a survey of related laws and cases in different countries, offers the following recommendations : i) revise the act and develop new systems for data protection, ii) grant a stay of execution or reduce the sentence given extenuating circumstances, or iii) use technical and managerial measures in data protection for exemption from criminal negligence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.11-40
• /
• 2012

National Health Insurance Act has been enforced all over the People as part of the effort to assure the minimum constitutional human worth and dignity in the aspect of the right to pursue health for preventing misfortune that comes to death without even a chance to be received treatment for illness or injury. Meanwhile auto insurance is compulsory in certain parts in order to promote benefits of everyday life and the rapid recovery of the damage caused by traffic accident when one have negligently driven a car which has become the necessities in daily life. Any injured driver in a traffic accident can be treated by National Health Insurance without getting an auto insurance in various circumstances, but Article 3 paragraph 2 of Traffic Accident Act don't allow exception of criminal punishment when he has driven a car without license, drunken, or tresspassing the centerline, etc. When the injury occured by his own certain negligence is judged to 'when he has intentionally or through gross negligence caused a criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident' of National Health Insurance Act, insurance benefits can be restricted. Such a restriction could harm the right to pursue happiness and health of People by depriving the poor, who cannot afford to pay, of chances to get treatment. Here we will see benefit restriction by 'gross negligence' of National Health Insurance Act Article 48 paragraph 1, which has largest portion of such restriction. It is desirable to delete 'gross negligence' clause from above paragraph and to interpret 'when' clause restrictively for diminishing confusion of interpreting and guaranteeing the right of health.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.10a
• /
• pp.367-367
• /
• 2001

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2012

Defamation on the Internet is a criminal offense. Of late, the damage it has been causing has grown exponentially. Here, we suggest some ideas to expand the use of arbitration in Korea. We suggest that all disputes arising in connection with current contracts be settled under the rules of conciliation and arbitration. As a countermeasure to the requirements for defamation or damages, the field of criminal arbitration regulations needs to be defined strictly. In conclusion, the UK does not make provisions for arbitration as a specific subject. With respect to foreign legislation, it is necessary to take a look at ways to expand arbitration in our country. The scale of arbitration must be expanded to allow for greater protection of criminals in exchange for their cooperation in arbitration cases and relative to the amount of the damages in dollars. There must also be detailed instructions regarding the eligibility criteria for and proper handling of these arbitration cases.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.10 no.7
• /
• pp.107-114
• /
• 2012

Self-defense is defined as 'an act which is performed in order to prevent impending and unjust infringement of one's own or another person's legal interest'(Article 21, the Criminal Act). To establish such a self-defense, it is generally suggested that it requires an intent for defense as subjective element as well as objective precondition of impending and unjust infringement of one's own or another person's legal interest' and considerable reason. Intent for defense which means an awareness for objective circumstance of self-defense is recognized as objective justification element for self-defense. With regard to intent for defense, there are various discussions on not only necessity of such an intent for defense but whether it is necessary for both actor's recognition of circumstance and specific purpose or motive and which should be applied for its punishment in case of lack of the intent for defense: consummated, unconsummated or semi-consummated. However, there is no clear regulations. This article reviews the contents of intent for defense based on opinion that it is necessary for intent for defense and then examines contents on criminal effect in case of lack of intent and intent for defense in case of criminal negligence.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.11 no.2 s.23
• /
• pp.41-49
• /
• 2005

In general, the criminal responsibility of seaman should always be directly assumed by the seamen, according to the principle of self-incrimination. Therefore, the only possible countermeasures for the criminal responsibility of seamen may be to reduce the responsibility by using criminal procedures (ex. the warrant substance examination system, the review system of legality for confinement as much as possible. Another possibility is to reduce the penalty through the revision of the law. In detail, concerning the problem of fine, the maximum fine for oil spill accidents by criminal negligence is KRW 30,000,000 under the current Ocean Pollution Prevention Act, and when an oil spill occurs, the maximum fine tends to be levied regardless of the amount of the spilled oil; thus, it is judged that grading the fine according to the amount of spilled oil may be worth considering. Regarding P & I's payment of fine, contrary to general belief, it is only possible to make up the loss when P & I takes up the legal responsibility or acknowledges its payment. In order to solve the problem, it is possible to consider the option of introducing new collective insurance program or mutual aid system. Also, as seamen are not specialists in legal issues, the ship owners' association or the marine afficers' association need to develop some program through which they can receive systematic assistance from legal specialists including lawyers when they encounter any legal problems (ex. free legal aid programs for farmers and fishermen). Finally, it may be possible to establish enact new laws or revise the existing Act on Special cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to insert a new section on marine accidents.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.117-168
• /
• 2009

Generally, criminal law protect the human life after he/she has born. Before the birth, the life of fetus are protected by prohibition of abortion, not of murder. Also, the fetus is not considered as an object of infliction of injury. A popular opinion and case law say that the fetus becomes a person at the point of an outset labor pains. Recently, some theories allege that traditional opinions is not sufficient in the case of induced delivery, so it should be decided by norm, not by a simple fact, whether a unborn child is a fetus or a person, and that the fetus should be considered as an object of infliction of injury. These theories can be meaningful because these could protect human life more comprehensively. In the other side, however, these could harm the legal stability and bring the excessive punishment. Abortion of negligence is not punishable in criminal law, and there is little possibility of the fetus injury without the injury of the pregnant woman. And the Contergan Case, if it happened again, must be dealt with as crime about environment or public health more severely. These new approaches are in conflict with the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" and other fundamental rules of the criminal law, and should lead to the excessive punishment and criminal provisions. Accordingly, the decision of Supreme Court of Korea about the beginning point of human being should be maintained.