• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.8 no.12
• /
• pp.256-263
• /
• 2008

Based on the analysis of criminal investigators' recognition of judicial autopsy, this study presented policy alternatives as follows. First, a procedure is needed that optometrists and investigators jointly make previous explanations to bereaved families the status of investigation and the results of examination to their satisfaction and collect their opinions, for the purpose of obtaining an agreement to autopsy from them. Second, the dignity of the dead should be kept. To this end, particular consideration should be given to women bodies. Also, we need to minimize the number of autopsy witnesses and obtain agreement from bereaved families when there is an on-the-spot study. Third, we need to establish a guideline that investigators could request a warrant later in certain cases of dead bodies. Also, if a bereaved family positively asks for autopsy, it should be allowed through tentatively named ‘Request for Autopsy.’ Finally, To make a careful decision on whether an autopsy should be made or not, we can form a joint investigation team of public prosecutors and criminal investigators; however, an autopsy should be done only if it is deemed inevitable, considering the bereaved family's opinion.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.107-152
• /
• 2020

During the main ruling in 2019, a number of rulings that were of interest or meaningful were handed down, such as just because the complication of medical practice has occurred, there is no presumption of negligence, a case involving a fall accident in which a lot of culpability has recently been made. the death of a well-known singer that caused a sensation, a case about damages caused by MERS in 2015, which is more meaningful in connection with damages caused by COVID-19, an infectious disease that has recently hit the world, including Korea. In preaching the principles of the law, just because there has been a complication caused by medical practice, there is no presumption of negligence, 'The scope of the complication without presumption of negligence' was determined differently by the court, the court was not able to specify the criteria. Specific circumstances were presented to limit the responsibility of the medical institution while acknowledging the malpractice of the medical institution in relation to the fall accident. In relation to the scope of damages, judgment was made on issues related to the calculation of lost profits of medical malpractice; criteria for determining celebrities' daily income, criteria for determining daily income in case of receiving survivor's pension due to medical accident, an incident in which the daily income is denied if the labor capacity is already lost at the time of a medical accident. But, it seems that judgments should be made based on clearer and more reasonable standards. Related to Medical Advertise, specific logic of judgment was presented as to whether it was interpreted as being in accordance with the specific prohibition listed in Article 27 paragraph 3 of the Medical Law, which is the criterion for violation of the Medical Law, or if it constitutes a significant harm to the order of the medical market. In response to the prohibition of operating the multiple medical institutions, the Constitutional Court decided that it was constitutional because it did not violate the regulations on excessive funding, and rationally limited the scope of the prohibited 'redundant operation'. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that even a medical institution established and operated in violation of the Medical Service Act did not make it impossible to receive all medical care benefits implemented by a medical institution under the National Health Insurance Act. Significant rulings were finalized that recognized the existence of specific protection obligations for the people of the country in the management of infectious diseases.