• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.155-176
• /
• 2014

The previous researches of gambling have been rather focused on the legal gambling industry and gambling addiction and ignored the issue of illegal gambling. But, illegal gambling in Korea has been continuously growing in its volume and the numbers of the relevant mental and social problems such as gambling addiction, crimes, suicides, and etc. have been increasing rapidly. The present study investigated the psychological characteristics of illegal gamblers with comparing gamblers who never experienced illegal gambling (NE), who experienced illegal gambling but participate mainly in legal gambling (EIG), and who participate mainly in illegal gambling (MIG). 1317 NEs, 177 EIGs, and 37 MIGs were recruited and completed an online survey that measured individual dispositions (risk-taking tendency, regulatory focus, locus of control), attitudes towards gambling regulations, misconception of illegal gambling, motives (monetary, excitement, socialization), and emotions. First, EIGs and MIGs, compared to NEs, preferred risk-taking, and EIGs were more promotion focused than NEs. Also, EIGs perceived illegal gambling as less illegal and tended to hold more misconceptions about illegal gambling, compared to NEs. Furthermore, EIGs and MIGs had stronger monetary and excitement motivation than NEs. Finally, MIGs were more likely to feel anxious than other groups. Focusing on the illegality of gambling, the characteristics of illegal gamblers are discussed and political implication on illegal gambling is suggested.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.41-74
• /
• 2020

The monetary penalties system inherently has efficiency as DNA. In the event that administrative measures to recover unfair profits from businesses that violate the law, deprive business licenses, or order to suspend business, infringe the interests of ordinary consumers, a system that can achieve the same effect through financial sanctions. It is a monetary penalties. In addition, it is convenient for the government because it takes effect only by the administrative agency's unilateral imposition order compared to the trial process, which takes a long time and huge cost to prove the illegality. However, it is questionable whether procedural legitimacy is well established in Korea's aviation monetary penalties. Compared to foreign legislation, Korea's aviation monetary penalties system need to be improved. This paper was for the purpose of studying the improvement direction of the monetary penalties system disposed of in the Korean aviation field. This study suggests the direction by examining the US system, which is an aviation advanced country, in the aviation safety area. The research was conducted with the intention of exploring the direction as follows: First, the characteristics of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation administrative sanctions and the US aviation penalty system will be outlined. Furthermore, with the recent paradigm shift in aviation safety management, this paper tried to look at new trends that focus on autonomous reporting of aviation safety as a proactive and preventive measure in conventional post-airline accident management administration, focusing on various systems including ASAP. This article also reviewed the formal process for imposing monetary penalties adopted by the FAA. Based on the above review, this paper also looked at ways to improve the reporting system for aviation safety in Korea.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.187-220
• /
• 2020

Today, administrative legislation is becoming more and more important in that it not only sets the legal life relationship of the people in great detail and detail, but is closely related to the occurrence, extinction, and alteration of rights and obligations held by prisoners. In the United States, the types of administrative legislation are divided into substantive and interpretative regulations, so-called substantive regulations, which give prior notice and opportunity to comment on interested parties through formal or informal administrative procedures in accordance with Article 553 of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. On the other hand, the interpretation regulation, which is "the regulation established by the Administration for the simple interpretation of statutes," does not require prior notice or comment because it does not affect the people's rights obligations. The Azar v. Allina Health Service, 587 U.S. 1804, 2019 ruling by the U.S. Constitutional Court, subject to this research paper, is about a dispute over a new decision to require Medicare to determine the amount of compensation for care providers that provide medical services for the poor, and should the regulations be regarded as substantive under the Administrative Procedures Act and should not be given a hearing or a simple internal process for processing. Given that the current administrative procedure law of our country stipulates the procedures for administrative pre-announcement through Articles 42.1 and 44.1, but that our courts have not judged violations of legislative pre-announcement procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act so far as to judge the illegality of administrative legislation, the dispute of the U.S. Constitutional Court will provide new implications for controlling legal orders beyond simple legal interpretation and has great significance in terms of readjustment of relevant regulations under future administrative procedures.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

NHIS claimed for damages to doctors that by doing the treatment breaching medical insurance criteria caused by doctors, NHIS paid for medicine cost to pharmacy; as a result, the doctors caused the tort to NHIS. Following consecutive rulings afterwards, NHIS also argued that the medicine cost violating medical law or medical treatment expense paid to medical organizations are both the tort in civil law. NHIS claimed for all the damages, and the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment. However, within our national health insurance system, the subject of insurance payment is NHIS and the subject of medical treatment expense are also NHIS since the treatment expense is also insurance payment by asking the treatment to medical organizations. Further, national health insurance law is not made to control the violation of medical treatment cases; therefore, the breach of medical law cannot be covered by illegality of tort in civil law regarding NHIS. If that is the case, in the case that if the patients are treated according to treatment criteria via the doctors delegated the doctors' permission by Health and Welfare minister, NHIS acquired the benefits to remove the duty to give treatment payment to doctors in civil law; thus, even though the doctors have breached the medical law, NHIS does not have any damages. The fact that supreme court confirmed the ruling that the treatment is the tort in civil law towards NHIS is the judgment not counting the benefits of insurance payment as the subject but only considering the fact that NHIS paid to the doctors and this ruling have gone against the principle under civil code section 750. If the doctors have breached the medical law, the case should be sanctioned by medical law not national health insurance law, and the ruling of supreme court is assumed that they have confused both with the principle of national health insurance law and civil law.