• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.235-259
• /
• 2000

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.11 no.2 s.23
• /
• pp.41-49
• /
• 2005

In general, the criminal responsibility of seaman should always be directly assumed by the seamen, according to the principle of self-incrimination. Therefore, the only possible countermeasures for the criminal responsibility of seamen may be to reduce the responsibility by using criminal procedures (ex. the warrant substance examination system, the review system of legality for confinement as much as possible. Another possibility is to reduce the penalty through the revision of the law. In detail, concerning the problem of fine, the maximum fine for oil spill accidents by criminal negligence is KRW 30,000,000 under the current Ocean Pollution Prevention Act, and when an oil spill occurs, the maximum fine tends to be levied regardless of the amount of the spilled oil; thus, it is judged that grading the fine according to the amount of spilled oil may be worth considering. Regarding P & I's payment of fine, contrary to general belief, it is only possible to make up the loss when P & I takes up the legal responsibility or acknowledges its payment. In order to solve the problem, it is possible to consider the option of introducing new collective insurance program or mutual aid system. Also, as seamen are not specialists in legal issues, the ship owners' association or the marine afficers' association need to develop some program through which they can receive systematic assistance from legal specialists including lawyers when they encounter any legal problems (ex. free legal aid programs for farmers and fishermen). Finally, it may be possible to establish enact new laws or revise the existing Act on Special cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to insert a new section on marine accidents.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2004

Wenn man das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt in Bezug auf ein Niveau eines Risiko der objektiv vorhandenen tatbestandlichen Erfolgsm${\"{o}}$glichkeit und auf die n${\"{o}}$tige Sorgfaltspflicht, die die T${\"{a}}$ter nimmt, um das solches Risiko abzuhalten, berucksichtigt, ergibt sich der spezielle Fall selten bei der Person, mit dem hoch-gefahrlichen Berufszweig besch${\"{a}}$ftigt ist, auf den die bestehende Allgemeine-Theorie ${\"{u}}$ber das gafahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar ist. Bez${\"{u}}$glich des Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ergibt sich oftmals ein bestmmter Fall, die die KontroIIe des Risiko gesch${\"{a}}$ftlich uber sein eigenes pers${\"{o}}$nliches Ermessen geht, und er nimmt die Pflicht, die notwendige milit${\"{a}}$rische Zielsetzung zuerst vor allem zu ber${\"{u}}$cksichtigen, wenn auch technisch, klimatisch und umstandehalber ein normales Niveau von Risiko ${\"{u}}$bersteigt wird und zugleich ein bedenkliches hoches Risiko mit sich gebracht wird. Aus diesem Anla${\beta}$ kann man folgem, da${\beta}$ der Pilot des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ein besonderer Fall ist, auf den die Kriterien in Bezug auf das Gebiet der Regel ${\"{u}}$ber das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar sind. Und weil die Vermehrung der Gefahr des Flugzeug sofort an die Vermehrung der Gefahr seines eigenen Leben angeschlossen wird und daher es eine M${\"{o}}$glichkeit gibt, da${\beta}$ der Pilot dem Resultat eines Gefahr zum ersten Opfer f${\"{a}}$llt, ist die Regelung in der Punkt der Generalpr${\"{a}}$vention gegen das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt sinnlos. Und auch muB die militarpolitische Punkt, die Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug gem${\"{a}}$${\beta}$ dem notwendigen Ausma${\beta}$ auszubilden und das Ausma${\beta}$ zu behalten, aktuell berucksichtigt werden.

• 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'.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.20 no.4 s.64
• /
• pp.77-90
• /
• 2006

This is for Criminal Law problem that can be happened during the rescue working of 119 rescue member. There are mainly 3sections can be Criminal Law Problem. At first, denying a rescue request. Second, thing that do not transfer patient or people need someone's help by their refusal. Third, emergency medical management. It can be criminal act if somebody do the 3sections thing under Law about emergency medical treatment. It also can be homicide under Criminal Law or accidental homicide, a charge of injuring a person if people need rescue die or become worse through the work. Rescuers are responsible for a criminal case by their carelessness and fault. A plan has to remain to protect them when they do violence to the life and health of a people inevitably. This paper examines the plan can protect them through the analysis and application of related Law about rescuer's work which can be Criminal Law Problem, presents rational establish plan of Rescuer Protect Law to make them their job well as a rescuer.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.721-729
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this article is to examine maritime accident and corporate criminal liability in comparison with cases and laws in UK and US. In Anglo-American law, a corporation can be convicted of and sentenced for a criminal offence. However, some theoretical difficulties lie in fixing a corporation with the appropriate mens rea. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 in England is to solve those difficulties and punish a corporation like a natural person. Comparing to Anglo-American law, a corporation is difficult to be punished in Korean law because it is a well recognized theory that only natural person is capable of committing a crime. However, safety in society and workplace is earning great concern in Korea, and emphasis is put on responsibilities of corporations. This article discusses the need for legislation on corporate manslaughter act in Korea with regard to the sinking of the MV Sewol.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.

• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.141-150
• /
• 2021

Although management decisions centered on the board of directors and directors must be made in order to effectively promote ESG management, the company's management is not obligated to make decisions considering ESG factors. A Korean corporation(company) is an established organization for commercial or other profit, and the purpose of treating a legal organization as a corporation is to easily handle the legal relationship of a group (corporate's property) and individual property of a group member, but legal person such as rights to "harm public rights" or "defend fraud". Criminal liability for illegal acts of a corporation, but the liability of a corporation (natural person) for illegal acts of a corporation is recognized within a limited range, but the criminal liability of a corporation (natural person) is limited. As the social responsibility of a corporation is great, limiting the responsibility of a corporation-related person (natural person) to civil responsibility will halve its effectiveness if considering the impact on the corporation's national economy. Objective requirements such as the completeness of control, hybridization of property, infringement of creditors' rights, and small-capitalization, and the subjective intention of abusing the company system to avoid legal application to controlling shareholders should be denied. Despite the increasing influence on corporate society, such as large-scale projects and astronomical business profits, corporate officials (natural persons) are forced to be held liable for negligence and intentional liability within a limited range. In such cases, it is necessary to introduce criminal responsibility separately from civil responsibility to legal persons (natural persons) in consideration of the maturity of capitalism in Korean society and the economic status of the world. In Korea, the requirements for recognition of corporate denial are strict, but the United States says that it is sufficient to have control or fraud. Therefore, it is not about civil responsibility, but about criminal responsibility of a legal person (natural person), so if fraud is recognized, it can strengthen the corporate social responsibility.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.41-72
• /
• 2018

In the division of labor (or teamwork) in medicine, the responsibility of medical and nursing staff should be separated or distributed to justify negligent criminal offenses. The present work refers to the standards by which the due diligence and responsibility of the individual persons are to be determined and delimited. In this context, it has been proven that objective theory as a measure of due diligence is appropriate. From a moral point of view, when assessing due diligence, it makes sense to impose greater individual or higher performance demands on the perpetrator, but law and order require that due diligence should result from socially relevant human behavior. To give objective measure of negligence and to provide the highest level of personal responsibility, so that man can not be burdened too much responsibility and it is accordingly with an equality theorem. Afterwards some points are presented, which should be considered in a concrete fact in the determination of the medical negligence. Medical action has specific characteristics such as professionalism, discretionary and exclusive, unbalance of information. These characteristics distinguish medical actions from general negligence. The general level of knowledge, the urgency, working condition and working environment of the medical facility, duration of the professional practice, assessment of the medical activity are crucial in this context. As a standard of delineation of due diligence, I have used the permitted risk and the principle of trust. In the horizontal division of labor, the principle of trust applies. The principle of trust applies in principle in cases of division of labor interaction, when doctors in the same hospital exercise their own specific occupational field or everyone works in another hospital. However, this is not true for every case. In the vertical division of labor, the principle of trust does not apply and the senior physician can not trust the assistant doctors. In this case, the principle of trust is converted into a duty of supervision for assistant doctors by the senior physician. This supervision requirement could be used as a random check.