• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2006

This article deals with the Improvement of Compulsory Arbitration System on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in Korea. If a labor dispute occcur, the settlement of labor dispute must be reached for the parties' own accord. The autonomy of the parties concerned is the fundamental principle in the settlement of labor dispute. If the Rights Which are guaranteed by art. 33 Constitutional Law belong to civil liberties, we should consider Trade Union Act as the restriction of basic rights. Arbitration is a procedure which permits the most positive intervention by the arbitrator. It is carried out by an arbitration committe which is composed of three arbitrators appointed by the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission. Compulsory arbitration system of the labor for parties should be improved. In case of necessary public enterprises, more strict requirements on assembly for labor disputes should be prepared and the government should support institutions to prevent labor-management disputes by educating experts on labor-management relations and improving the quality of arbitration.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.359-395
• /
• 2012

In a broad term, health and medical data means all patient information that has been generated or circulated in government health and medical policies, such as medical research and public health, and all sorts of health and medical fields as well as patients' personal data, referred as medical data (filled out as medical record forms) by medical institutions. The kinds of health and medical data in medical records are prescribed by Articles on required medical data and the terms of recordkeeping in the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act. As EMR, OCS, LIS, telemedicine and u-health emerges, sharing and protecting digital health and medical data is at issue in these days. At medical institutions, health and medical data, such as medical records, is classified as "sensitive information" and thus is protected strictly. However, due to the circulative property of information, health and medical data can be public as well as being private. The legal grounds of health and medical data as such are based on the right to informational self-determination, which is one of the fundamental rights derived from the Constitution. In there, patients' rights to refuse the collection of information, to control recordkeeping (to demand access, correction or deletion) and to control using and sharing of information are rooted. In any processing of health and medical data, such as generating, recording, storing, using or disposing, privacy can be violated in many ways, including the leakage, forgery, falsification or abuse of information. That is why laws, such as the Medical Service Act and the Personal Data Protection Law, and the Guideline for Protection of Personal Data at Medical Institutions (by the Ministry of Health and Welfare) provide for technical, physical, administrative and legal safeguards on those who handle personal data (health and medical information-processing personnel and medical institutions). The Personal Data Protection Law provides for the collection, use and sharing of personal data, and the regulation thereon, the disposal of information, the means of receiving consent, and the regulation of processing of personal data. On the contrary, health and medical data can be inspected or delivered of the copies, based on the principle of restriction on fundamental rights prescribed by the Constitution. For instance, Article 21(Access to Record) of the Medical Service Act, and the Personal Data Protection Law prescribe self-disclosure, the release of information by family members or by laws, the exchange of medical data due to patient transfer, the secondary use of medical data, such as medical research, and the release of information and the release of information required by the Personal Data Protection Law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.295-326
• /
• 2015

Under the revision of medical law on February 1, 2012, health care providers are banned from opening 2 or more medical institutions and being involved in managing the institutions. However, purpose of the legislation of the revised law is unclear and even confirmation of such purpose of the legislation based on the calculation of multiple legislative backgrounds cannot be appropriate means of achieving such purposes. This article confirms and reviews the development of revision of medical law and history of the principle of 'one person-one medical institution', and legislative purpose of the revised medical law as well as examines unconstitutionality of such revision based on limited fundamental rights by the revision, principle of clarity, and principle of the prohibition of excessive restriction.

• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2012

Constitutional issue of economic order has fiercely been disputed around the world and through the ages. In Korea, there also has been endless argument on to what extent the government should intervene in the economy through regulation. Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea has its basis on the principle of free market economy, exceptionally allowing the government to intervene and coordinate in certain situations. The Constitution empowers the government with the authority of regulation and coordination to execute the Constitutional value of guaranteeing and securing fundamental human rights. Therefore, the government, as a fair and just mediator, should perform its mission to democratize the economy as well as secure market freedom and creative initiative.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.159-164
• /
• 2022

The study developed a radiation dose measurement program in the radiology laboratory to measure how much exposure the students are exposed to during the radiology class, to request for the improvement and the revision of the current Nuclear Safety Act. The experimental program is shown in the following figure, and experiments were conducted to determine the degree of radiation exposure in the control room with a lead gown at a distance of 1 m, 2 m, and 1 m, and in a control room with a radiographic lead glass wall. The duration of the experiment was 3 months from April to June, when radiation imaging practice classes were conducted, and 128 hours of imaging practice per month were conducted. In order to find out the dose of radiation dose during radiology imaging practice class, the experiment was carried out from April to June for 3 months, and according to the program, the results of exposure dose were 0.34 mSv at 1 m distance, 0.01 mSv at shielding of lead gown at 1 m distance, 0.16 mSv at 2 m distance, and 0.01 mSv at control room with radiation lead glass wall. The exposure dose from the test results was much below the annual general public limit dose of 1 mSv. The restriction on the operation of the radiation equipment in the practice of the students is a regulation that infringes the right of students to learn, and amendments or exemptions of Nuclear Safety Act should be enacted to ensure that it does not violate the fundamental right to learn for students in radiology.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.56
• /
• pp.117-131
• /
• 2011

This study critically reviews the justifications for the restriction of cable local channel's news commentary function in terms of the fundamental principle of journalism. By doing so, it tries to find some problems and ways to solve them. Broadcasting Law and Korea Communications Commission's Rule inhibiting the news commentary of cable local channel on specific issues conflict with the basis of journalism which is particularly represented in Broadcasting Law. The law and rule tend to solidify public opinion for vested rights of local worthies. In addition, they are likely to degenerate cable local channel to the tools for promoting local government. Therefore, this article proposes the revision of the law and rule towards permitting the news commentary of cable local channel. At the same time, it suggests a new broadcasting policy for inducing cable local channel to increase manpower resources and production investment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.