• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2010

Various opinions are expressed about the Internet Regulation. Some people argue that it is impossible to control because of the technical characteristics of Internet, while other people argue that it is easy to control. Recently in Korea, a move to reinforce the Internet Regulation through the extension of cyber real-name system is emerging, whereas the concern for its excessive infringement of the Freedom of Expression is increasing. This paper was intended to draw a reasonable direction for Internet Regulation in our society. And accordingly this paper tried to suggest a desirable direction of Internet Control in the future and to draw a criterion for domestic court judgement by analyzing cases of cyber defamation so far. The result of this study proposed that the Freedom for Expression be widely secured in the case of cyber defamation of criticism and political comments upon public officials and that the legitimacy and effectiveness of Internet Regulation be ensured. This result of study is expected to help establish the direction and principle of Internet Regulation in the future around Korea Communications Commission and Korea Communications Standards Commission.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.7 no.5
• /
• pp.157-167
• /
• 2017

This study aims to establish measures to prevent emotional abuse by analyzing court precedents related to emotional abuse at daycare centers of Korea. For this, ten precedents of first trial and four precedents of appellate trial related to emotional abuse were analyzed in depth. In the results of study, there were diverse types of emotional abuse at daycare centers such as assaulting(hitting head, face, and buttocks with hands and feet), throwing things, neglecting, forcefully feeding food, stopping mouth with handkerchief and wet tissue, skipping meals, and showing scary images. And the main issues of precedents included the matter of justifiable act as circumstances precluding wrongfulness, and the matter of applying the joint penal provision. Based on such results, the measures to prevent emotional abuse at daycare centers were suggested.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.26
• /
• pp.59-87
• /
• 2011

Security Business Act of Korea is leaning toward the aspect of regulation, while it provides few provisions about vesting the authority, which causes problems such as legal loopholes to be raised in regard to the rules about authorizing the private security personnel to perform security affairs properly and defining the limit of power. So, it should be done to interpret the law in order to draw the legal basis of empowering as well as to set limits of the authority of security main agent, and Article 7, Section 1, of Security Business Act is the very provision that involves the legal basis. In the scope of 'Management Power', the statutory authority in the first clause of Article 7 of Security Business Act, the security personnel can use force for self-defense, defense of others and property, and prevention of crimes. In addition, the powers of interrogation, access control, and eviction notice are involved in its scope. The private security personnel as the occupation assistant can take precautions and if the infringement on the benefit and protection of the law is imminent or done, he or she can use force within the limits of the passive resistance and the means of defiance on the basis of 'Management Power'. The private security personnel, however, can exercise the force only if the necessary conditions of legal defense, emergency evacuation, and legitimate act of criminal law are fulfilled.