• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.233-260
• /
• 2013

Despite various policies have been implemented to curb shadow education in Korea, it has continued to grow in recent two decades. This study investigates the expansion mechanism of shadow education focused on mobilization capabilities and market strategies of the suppliers. The success and failure of policy toward shadow education depends on how effectively it could block off the way by which the suppliers as the most important actors in politics of shadow education market mobilize consumers' anxieties. But shadow education policies have failed in two points. First, they have lacked honest intention to stop its proliferation. The Constitutional Court Decision Against Anti-Out-Of-School Classes Legislation of 2000 widened the windows of opportunity for the suppliers, and 5.31 educational reform of 1995 was neutral to their mobilization capabilities, though seemingly designed to control shadow education. This policy orientation, which reflected neoliberal Gesinnungsethik defective of Verantwortungsethik, stimulated shadow education to expand in that suppliers' mobilization capabilities were reinforced or remained intact. Second, shadow education suppliers have succeeded in mobilizing the desire and anxiety of potential consumers. To cope with government's policy including improving the qualities of public education, realignment of college entrance systems, and meeting the shadow education needs, they have developed various market strategies such as management of existing demands, creation of responsive demands, and squeezing out new demands. They have succeeded in nullifying policies by employing or mixing strategies with effect. Policy decisions in the future need to be made with reference to Verantwortungsethik, and be more cautious to socio-political contexts of Korea, to mobilization capabilities and market strategies of the suppliers in particular.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

Due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits, it is difficult for medical consumers, who are weak in getting information when it comes to health care problem, to secure all information inside the hospital. Even if you are confident about the hospital infection, it is true that people have difficult to obtain medical testimony by expert. It is seen as no easy task to testify to the malpractice of colleagues who work in the same field not only in our country but also abroad, when a doctor gives negative testimony to another doctor in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although few health care providers will be motivated to take medical care from the outset, testimony or statements from a medical practitioner can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit, as it is impossible for the patient to control or be aware of the whole process of medical conduct, especially in the event of a hospital infection and the victim. If the hospital can prove the causality of damages caused by negligence of the employees or supervision of the hospital itself in a medical suit caused by the infection, the level of protection of the victim could be raised further. We sought to find a solution to these problems by looking at the provisions of other laws related to hospital infection. In particular, as the comparative legal review regarding hospital infection, Germany's legislative precedent sets a medical contract as a typical civil law contract, so it is thought that looking at German civil law regulations also has implications for Korean law. We also tried to improve the French Special Act 'rights of patients' and we can look at the consequent changes in court cases. Finally, the content of the U.S. case's and the theory of 'the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur' in relation to it show that doctors and hospitals have been forced to shift the burden of proof through this theory. This paper tried to find out the implications of mitigating the burden of proof by reviewing various issues that might be related to medical litigation of hospital infection from a comparative point of view.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.177-204
• /
• 2015

The Korean Criminal Code ${\S}10$ (1) provides that "The act of a person who, because of mental disorder, is unable to make discriminations or to control one's will, shall not be punished". Therefore, it'll not be able to be given criminal punishment if a mentally defective person is determined to lack the criminal liability. The problem about judging the criminal liability for the mentally defective person exists in areas where the criminal law intersects with psychiatry. Although the supreme court ultimately judges whether the criminal liability by mental defectiveness exists or not, the judgment of mental defectiveness, which is biological element, needs psychiatric knowledge and it is no wonder to rely on this. In particular, a change is required in the procedure and contents of mental examination for a mentally defective person as implementation of the Civil Participation in Criminal Jury Trial. It is needed the improvement of procedure to submit more accurate mental examination and the result of it in order that jurors are able to understand the result of mental examination and make an decision. This is because jurors consisting of ordinary citizens take part in trial. For guaranteeing the precise result of mental examination in the criminal justice procedure, it is necessary to establish the pool of manpower consisting of psychiatrists or psychologists who have completed the specific educational programs about the criminal justice and legal psychiatry, and it is desired to carry out the psychiatric test with selecting appraisers who belong to a pool of manpower. Furthermore, it is required to draw up and submit the written appraisal of mental examination which is easy to be known because of considering the nonprofessional of jurors consisting of ordinary citizens in the Civil Participation in Criminal Jury Trial. In order to gain a fair verdict of the jury about whether mental defectiveness exists or not, it is recommended the prompt submission of the written appraisal of mental examination, the presentation of the written appraisal of mental examination summarizing the important contents, and making out the written appraisal of mental examination for jurors to understand it easily.