• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.211-244
• /
• 2007

Article 17 and 18 of the Korean Constitution respectively prescribe the violation of individual's right to privacy and the secrecy of wire communication. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act which is conducted within the ambit of laws or pursuant to accepted business practices or which does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable. In 1999, the Constitutional Court held that media reports on public matters of public figures must be given strong constitutional protection, and treated differently from reports on private matters of private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. This study analyzes the issue of media liability for publication of illegally intercepted wire communication by a third person. Particularly, it reviews Seoul High Court's ruling on 'X-file scandal' which disclosed intercepted wire communications between notable public figures regarding a slush fund for a presidential candidate. In the light of this analysis, the study concludes that the media reporting of the intercepted communication does not violate social norms of Article 20, and therefore it is entitled to a constitutional privilege.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.23-52
• /
• 2022

In this study, focused group interviews with 24 incumbent judges were conducted on how they conceptualize public opinion and what attitude they take toward it in relation to judicial trials. The contents of the interviews were analyzed through grounded theory and topic modeling (STM). According to the grounded theory results, judges distinguished concepts such as social rules, socially accepted ideas, legal emotion, and public mood from public opinion, and subdivided public opinion into temporary and emotional reactions to specific legal cases and consistent attitudes toward law and policies. In addition, it was found that judges' attitudes toward public opinion and social norms differed depending on the type of cases or legal issues. Topic modeling results significantly corresponded to the grounded theory results. In this model, the effects of the types of cases dedicated to participants on topical prevalence were statistically significant.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2022

South Korean law strictly prohibits engagement in medical activities by non-medical practitioners. In the country, tattooing is classified as a medical practice, and non-medical practitioners who engage in it are penalized because they are unauthorized to carry out this procedure. In reality, however, people rarely seek tattooing services from medical personnel. Arguing that their freedom of job selection is violated, non-medical personnel who make a living as tattoo artists reject the characterization of the procedure as a form of medical treatment and demand the decriminalization of tattooing by non-medical practitioners. Nevertheless, tattooing can cause health- and hygiene-related dangers when it is not performed by medical professionals because it involves penetration into the skin using needles. Hence, stringent management is necessary for infection prevention. The gap between reality and the law gives rise to the need for proactive thinking about the institutionalization of tattoo practice by non-medical personnel. Policymakers should reflect on the fact that only minimal tattooing services are currently performed by medical staff while also accounting for health and safety. On this basis, this study examined tattoo-related legislation in South Korea to determine whether the procedure corresponds to medical practice and identify ways to solve problems that occur from the perspective of health care. As a response that promotes safety and reflects reality, this research proposed a three-phase approach.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

Supreme Court 2018Da228486, on July 29, 2021, ruled Article 750 of the Civil Act as the basis for liability for damages due to the violation of the supervisory duty of the responsible mental patient. This judgment recognizes that the legal guardian is liable for tort due to neglect of the responsibility of supervision under Article 750 of the Civil Act because the duty of protection bears the duty of supervision over the mental patient under the law. However, unlike the case of Article 755 Paragraph 1, which explicitly requires a legal obligation to supervise, Article 750 only stipulates general tort liability. Thus, to admit tort liability under Article 750, it is not necessary that the basis of the supervisory duty by the law. In this case, the supervisory duty may also be acknowledged according to customary law or sound reasoning. The duty of supervision of a legal guardian is not a general duty to prevent all consequences of the behavior of a mental patient but a duty within a reasonably limited scope. Therefore, the responsibility of the burden of care should be acknowledged only when the objective circumstances in which it is appropriate to hold the legal guardian for the acts of the mental patient are admitted. Under the Act on the improvement of mental health and the support for welfare services for mental patients, a legal guardian cannot even be granted the supervisory duty to prevent the mental patient from harming others.