• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2019.05a
• /
• pp.135-136
• /
• 2019

수사기관이 운영하는 포토라인이 피의자 망신주기용이며 헌법상 무죄추정의 원칙에 반하므로 없애야 한다는 주장과 국민의 알 권리를 위해 포토라인은 반드시 필요하다는 주장이 대립하고 있다. 포토라인의 문제를 헌법상 무죄추정의 원리와 알권리를 중심으로 합리적 해결방안을 모색해보고자 한다.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.7
• /
• pp.156-168
• /
• 2012

As the increase of violent crimes such as robbery, murder, and rape has become a social problem, the government is considering institutionalizing the identification of criminals to prevent crime and to guarantee people's right to know. Such an atmosphere led to the approval of the revision of 'Special Law On the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes' in the National Assembly in April 2010. The revision allows the revelation of the profiles of crime suspects including the pictures of their faces at the investigation stage. However, whether the revision had been effective in preventing crime has not been demonstrated empirically. Moreover, identity revelation is a grave intrusion into privacy and an abuse of human rights such as personal rights and the right to a fair trial, since personal information of criminal suspects would be released to the media prior to the court's final judgements. Also it violates the principle of presumption of innocence, the principles of due process, the principle of double jeopardy, the principle of prohibition against excessive, the principles of clarity, and the principle of liability.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.583-590
• /
• 2016

There are so many study on Heumheum Sinseo as a lawbook. But the study on Heumheum Sinseo as investigation and forensic manual is uncommon. So this study was performed to find the value of Heumheum Sinseo as investigation and forensic manual. In Heumheum Sinseo, we could find the basic ideology of a sense of justice on humanitarianism and rationalism, and democratic thoughts on criminal law such as the presumption of innocence, speedy investigation clause and Limiting the admissibility of the confession. And so many scientific method on crime investigation are described in Heumheum Sinseo. We expect that this study serve as moment for us to be able to find it have 'practical' value to us.

• 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'.