• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.93-107
• /
• 2012

Privacy-protective behavior can be classified into passive behavior and active behavior. Passive behavior includes refusal, misrepresentation, and removal, while word-of-mouth, complaint, and seeking for help belong to active behavior. Internet users in different countries may take different types of privacy-protective behavior because of cultural and social differences. This study analyzes the differences in Internet users' privacy-protective behavior between Korea and China. Korean Internet users take refusal, complaint, and seeking to protect their privacy information, while misrepresentation is not an option for Korean Internet users. Chinese Internet users take refusal, complaint, seeking, and misrepresentation to protect their privacy information. In Korea, passive behavior (refusal) is chosen more often than active behavior (complaint and seeking for help), while in China active behavior(complaint and seeking for help) is preferred to passive behavior (refusal and misrepresentation). The differences of privacy-protective behavior in the two countries may provide some implications for online companies, if they want to avoid the business risk due to privacy concerns and to take appropriate steps to deal with privacy-protective behavior by Internet users.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.173-194
• /
• 2021

This study aims to derive precaution points for issuing banks in refusing payment under L/C through literature review and examination of court cases and official opinions of ICC Banking Commission with regard to the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 that stipulates obligations of issuing banks in refusing payment. If the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. Therefore, it is crucial that issuing banks should be well informed of this article. When discrepant documents are presented, however, issuing banks seldom refuse payment because, in most cases, the applicants waive the discrepancies. For this reason, issuing banks have few chances to deal with payment refusal in practice and thus they occasionally end up failing to observe the provisions of the article. Such court cases include Kookmin Bank and Korean Exchange Bank (currently Hana Bank) that failed to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice losing the lawsuits. It should be noted that if issuing banks disregard the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 and thus fail to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice, they may face fatal situations in which they must make payment against discrepant documents.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.11 no.10
• /
• pp.115-127
• /
• 2011

As broadcasting contents are recognized as a key competition means, there are issues raised such as improvement of terrestrial retransmission system, introduction of PAR in broadcasting market and so forth. Especially, in pay broadcasting market, strategic partership between SP and PP leads to contents exclusivity for competitors, which causes to hinder normal competition and limit viewers' right of access. Consequently, not only is it claimed that essential facilities doctrine should be adopted in broadcasting market, but also clause of content equal access in IP TV law and adoption of prohibited acts regulation can be viewed in the same context. However, adoption of essential facilities doctrine in broadcasting market is likely to be counterproductive because of the differences of philosophies, economies and legal systems on which general facilities and contents are based. Therefore, it is time for a essential facilities concept, a fundamental concept of a refusal to dealing of essential facilities, and basic works to review specific cases and precedents implemented in competition laws market This study aims to review and propose beforehand if adoption of essential facilities doctrine is appropriate for broadcasting contents.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.479-490
• /
• 2021

Background: Conflict in the medical world in 2020 led to the rejection of the national examination for doctors. This study explained the process until the end of the national test refusal situation triggered in 2020 through the signaling game theory. The government has succeeded in requiring medical students to take the national exam. Methods: To explain the rejection of the national examination, we first compose and show an example of two small non-signaling games where medical students know which type the government is of, then combine them to play a signaling game. Results: The behavior of the government and medical students was examined through the signaling game model. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the government makes an ultimatum, whatever the type. And the medical students accept it. They judged that the government could not be expected to abolish the policy. If COVID-19 had not occurred, medical students would have been able to continue the confrontation. Conclusion: The government instilled in the other party the perception that the government would not bend its policies because it was the surly type and would not be afraid of a strong confrontation. Through the image created in this way, the government was forced to accept the ultimatum by medical students. Academically, this study is to deal with the policy-making process through the signaling game theory. In the area of health care policy, this study suggests that various situations such as the type of government or the spread of COVID-19 can become important in addition to the rationality of the policy itself.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.321-350
• /
• 2005

This study developed a relapse prevention program for substance abusing women and evaluated its effectiveness. The major contents of the program include to enhance cognitive and behavioral coping skills, to identify and expand supportive social networks, and to deal with women-related issues. The program was operated 3 times with 24 female clients in a probation office in Seoul from August 2003 to October 2004. The program changed the participants' attitudes toward substance use and improved their drug-refusal skills. This study mentions that the findings may be useful for practitioners as well as researchers because this study was first one that dealt with a women-only group in Korea. Finally, this study suggests that more studies be conducted in order to provide better understandings on substance abusing women and more effective interventions skills.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.309-341
• /
• 2009

According to a case of Supreme Court's Sentence No. 2009DA17417 (May 21, 2009), the Supreme Court judges that 'the right to life is the ultimate one of basic human rights stipulated in the Constitution, so it is required to very limitedly and conservatively determine whether to discontinue any medical practice on which patient's life depends directly.' In addition, the Supreme Court admits that 'only if a patient who comes to a fatal phase before death due to attack of any irreversible disease may execute his or her right of self-determination based on human respect and values and human right to pursue happiness, it is permissible to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for him or her, unless there is any special circumstance.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that 'if a patient who is attacked by any irreversible disease informs medical personnel of his or her intention to agree on the refusal or discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment in advance of his or her potential irreversible loss of consciousness, it is justifiable that he or she already executes the right of self-determination according to prior medical instructions, unless there is any special circumstance where it is reasonably concluded that his or her physician is changed after prior medical instructions for him or her.' The Supreme Court also finds that 'if a patient remains at irreversible loss of consciousness without any prior medical instruction, he or she cannot express his or her intentions at all, so it is rational and complying with social norms to admit possibility of estimating his or her own intentions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, provided that such a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment meets his or her interests in view of his or her usual sense of values or beliefs and it is reasonably concluded that he or she could likely choose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if he or she were given any chance to execute his or her right of self-determination.' This judgment is very significant in a sense that it suggests the reasonable orientation of solutions for issues posed concerning withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining medical efforts. The issues concerning removal of medical instruments for meaningless life-sustaining treatment and discontinuance of such treatment in regard to medical treatment for terminal cases don't seem to be so much big deal when a patient has clear consciousness enough to express his or her intentions, but it counts that there is any issue regarding a patient who comes to irreversible loss of consciousness and cannot express his or her intentions. Therefore, it is required to develop an institutional instrument that allows relevant authority to estimate the scope of physician's medical duties for terminal patients as well as a patient's intentions to withdraw any meaningless treatment during his or her terminal phase involving loss of consciousness. However, Korean judicial authority has yet to clarify detailed cases where it is permissible to discontinue any life-sustaining treatment for a patient in accordance with his or her right of self-determination. In this context, it is inevitable and challenging to make better legislation to improve relevant systems concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The State must assure the human basic rights for its citizens and needs to prepare a system to assure such basic rights through legislative efforts. In this sense, simply entrusting physician, patient or his or her family with any critical issue like the withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining treatment, even without any reasonable standard established for such entrustment, means the neglect of official duties by the State. Nevertheless, this issue is not a matter that can be resolved simply by legislative efforts. In order for our society to accept judicial system for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it is important to form a social consensus about this issue and also make proactive discussions on it from a variety of standpoints.