KJC Korea
Journal Central

Disruptive technological change has made human society leap over the era of agricultural and industrial economy and ushered in the era of digital economy. The development of digital economy has become a key force in the implementation of China's major national strategy, which is of great significance to the implementation of supply-side reform and innovation-driven development strategy. European and American countries are committed to improving the strategic policies and supporting legal systems for the development of digital economy. China should learn from the successful experience of Europe and the United States, speed up the construction of a modern economic system, enhance its core competitiveness, establish a legal protection system for the development of the digital economy, and create China's first-mover advantage in the digital economy. This research systematically sorts out the development status and trend of China's digital economy, points out the legal dilemma of the development of China's digital economy from the perspective of the actual analysis and the ought to be analyzed, and makes a detailed analysis of the European Union and the United States key laws, regulations and policy planning for the development of digital economy. Finally, this research puts forward the basic conception of legal guarantee for the development of China's digital economy from three aspects of concept, principle and system.

In recent years, the development of artificial intelligence technology is in full swing, entering the golden period of explosive growth, and the era of weak artificial intelligence has come. We are on the eve of a new round of scientific and technological revolution. The progress of science and technology will always be accompanied by risks, and the uncertainty of the development of artificial intelligence will also bring new challenges. The new features of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning, man-machine cooperation, self-control, etc., as well as the fusion innovation and fusion development with other technologies, make it different from the traditional intelligent tools. Crimes involving artificial intelligence may aggravate the breadth and depth of the harmfulness of traditional crimes, and even lead to new subjects and behavior patterns beyond the traditional criminal regulations, leading to new crimes The emergence of crime forms will have a great impact on the traditional social ethics and the existing legal system. Criminal law should be based on the development status and future trend of artificial intelligence, and adopt a correct and rational attitude to deal with the criminal risks contained in it. Within the scope of the existing criminal imputation theory, this paper clarifies the challenges faced by the current criminal law in regulating crimes involving artificial intelligence, and focuses on the type governance of criminal risks under the influence of artificial intelligence technology. And how to deal with the criminal law risks and challenges brought by the artificial intelligence era reasonably and effectively in the future is analyzed. That is to clarify the principles of criminal legislation, improve the relevant provisions and judicial interpretation, and on the basis of adhering to the overall legal bottom line of the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime and the inherent spiritual quality of modesty, we should work together with other department laws to make full use of the important role of China's criminal law as “protection law” and “backing law” in the whole legal system, In order to solve the new legal problems brought by artificial intelligence technology.

Despite the recent Brexit mode, one of the attractiveness of the UK financial market is that London's status as an international financial center and the presence of the various and abundant pool of international investors might make enable relatively successful IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). In addition, due to the fact that underwriters' fees in the UK are lower than those in the US, the UK financial market is one of the best alternatives to the US market when Korean companies consider IPOs abroad, This article briefly introduces the legal issues that should be considered when venture capital backed Korean companies consider the UK securities market as target markets for IPOs and choose it as an exit route. First of all, by looking at the status of the UK IPO market and major exit methods, this article finds out the position of the UK IPO markets and its implications. Even if IPOs are not a major exit method in the UK, however, for Korean companies invested by Korean venture capitals, the UK market can still be considered one of the major IPO markets abroad. This is because if the main target markets of the applicant's products or services is in the UK or Europe, or main investors are located in the UK or Europe, the prospective Korean companies would be able to raise fund not only at the time of listing, but also at the time the companies grow and need continuous fund if the companies are listed on the UK markets. Further, It can be also advantageous for the companies’ promotion in the EU or UK. If Korean companies want to directly list their shares on the Premium Main market of the London Stock Exchange (LSE), it will require significant regulatory costs compared with other markets of the LSE. Therefore, it would be a reasonable option for Korean companies firstly to access the Standard Main market. Even in this case, however, there is an obstacle to prove that the reason why the Korean company’s shares are not listed in the home country i.e., Republic of Korea. Last but not least, the AIM as an IPO market suitable for small and medium-sized growth companies, could be actively considered. However, in the case of the AIM, the issue that the AIM does not allow the listing in the form of depositary receipts should be taken in to account.

The spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to cause tremendous pain all over the world. In addition, the effects of COVID-19 are not only directly threatening the health of the people around the world, but also affecting the economies of each country. On the other hand, the effects of COVID-19 have led to the discontinuation of production of goods and the paralysis of the transportation system, leading to the inability of contracting parties in international transaction relations to fulfil their contracts. In this connection, if the parties are unable to perform the contract due to unforeseen circumstances in the previous international transaction relationship, Laws such as Force Majeur, Frustration, and Hardship by Change of Condition have solved these problems. When it comes to the specific application of the above laws, First of all, United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods (Article 79) can be understood through the exemption. Accordingly, the failure of the contract may result from an obstacle beyond his control and the circumstances in which the failure of the contract should be impossible to foresee at the time of conclusion of the contract may result in the failure of the contract. In addition, Principles on International Commercial Contracts of International Institute for the Unification of Private Law do not function as binding legislation as CISG, but PICC is currently a non-compliance factor in international contracts. This paper considered whether a party that has contractual obligations in international transactions could make a claim of immunity due to force majeure on the grounds of the coronavirus (COVID-19). In this regard, an important clue to what COVID-19 means as a force majeure reason was recently published on July 15, 2020: “Note of the UNIDROIT Secretariation the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the COVID-19 Health Crisis” Therefore, based on the above notes, the applicability of Force Majeure under COVID-19 in international transaction relations was reviewed.

‘Pseudonymous data’ refers to the fake information in which the personal data cannot be revealed without additional information to retrieve the original data, which beforehand could be reached by using his name, social identification number or etc. The Revised Personal Information Protection Act allows that pseudonymous data from each personal information could be combined for statistical data, scientific research, and public record. However, when it happened, there occurs another problem of “re-identification”, through which the relevant individual information could be exposed: If the pseudonym data is allowed to be linked with the other data, thus being “easily combined”, the original data could be open to be retrieved through combining it with another data. This paper analyzes the measures to prevent this re-identification problem through comparing the GDPR(General Data Protection Regulation) of Europe and the CCPA(California Consumer Privacy Act) of the United States. In the revised Personal Information Protection Act, provisions were made regarding “an agency for processing pseudonymous data”, which are mentioned in the GDPR and the CCPA. Following these provisions, the Personal Information Protection Committee made guidelines for processing pseudonymous data on September 2020. We can appraise this installation highly since any other country has not tried it. However, this measure may have an aftereffect – by transferring all authorities to combine pseudonymous data to a special agency- to lower the incentive for private companies to use data. This paper examines the way the GDPR and the CCPA – both of them have no such special agency- prevents re-identification problem, thus giving another thought on our current actions of the Revised Personal Information Protection Act.

The application of AI in medical field, brings both hope and panic to people. On one hand, it offers more precise diagnosis, more personalized treatment and less unnecessary diagnosis, treatment and health care. On the other hand, it also brings legal challenges to ascertain responsibility to medical misdiagnosis and medical accidents. Different ways to deal with the problems may lead to different effects because solutions are likely to accelerate or hinder the introduction of new technologies. At present, since an applicable quality standard evaluation system for medical AI has not established, it is unable to effectively verify and evaluate medical AI according to the data and algorithm, and the legal framework for the protection and utilization of medical data has not been improved, as a result of which, China is unable to issue relevant laws and regulations to effectively supervise medical AI. China should put forward relevant laws and regulations as soon as possible, establish proper technical standards and legal liability system so as to balance the interests and responsibilities of patients, medical personnel, medical institutions, medical AI designers and producers. Based on the comprehensive measure on the risks and benefits of medical AI, the negligence liability of all parties should be determined combined with relationship among all parties. This paper intends to analyze the situation, problems and challenges of the relevant legal system of AI medical in China by analyzing literature, interviews and statistics.