인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
The current system to regulate unfair and improper solicitation based on family ties and regional or academic relationships. also it was hard to punish public officials who accepted bribes under the Criminal Act if such an offer was not proven to be given in exchange of any favors, leaving a blind spot in regulating corrupt practices.
The Anti-Corrupt & Civil Right Commission promoted the enactment of ‘The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act’in order to eradicate improper solicitatioon. As a result The Act was passed by National Assembly on March 3, 2015.
Accordong to the Act, public officials(including but not limited to journalist, teacher) will be punished if they receive money, gift or other items in excess of one million won at a time or three million won in a fiscal year from the same person. In this case, it does not matter whether the offer is related to their official duties, or whether the benefits are given for any favors. The Act also prohobits improper solicitations made directly or through a third party by stipulating 15 types of such acts that may hinder the fair performance of public officials’ duties. Furthermore, the Act impose reporting duty on public officials. When they violate their reporting duties, they shall be face punishment.
It is argued whether the above said provisions violate constitutional principles, i.e., doctrine of clearness, the guilt-by-association system(the involvement system), freedom of concsience, principle of proportionality. But they are constitutional. (ⅰ)‘Improper solicitation’is not unclear. The Criminal Act uses the conception of ‘improper solicitation’, and our Supreme Court ruled it is not unconstitutional, because any person can predict improper solicitation by supplementary interpretation of judge. (ⅱ) Journalist and teacher are required to be free from improper solicitation, so this regulation on them is necessary to the best of obeying principle of proportionality. (ⅲ) The arguing of guilt-by-association system violation is not proper. Because it does not burden unfavorable treatment on public officials on account of the only fact ‘spouse’. It is applied only when their spouses receive money in connection with their duties.
The Anti-Corrupt & Civil Right Commission promoted the enactment of ‘The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act’in order to eradicate improper solicitatioon. As a result The Act was passed by National Assembly on March 3, 2015.
Accordong to the Act, public officials(including but not limited to journalist, teacher) will be punished if they receive money, gift or other items in excess of one million won at a time or three million won in a fiscal year from the same person. In this case, it does not matter whether the offer is related to their official duties, or whether the benefits are given for any favors. The Act also prohobits improper solicitations made directly or through a third party by stipulating 15 types of such acts that may hinder the fair performance of public officials’ duties. Furthermore, the Act impose reporting duty on public officials. When they violate their reporting duties, they shall be face punishment.
It is argued whether the above said provisions violate constitutional principles, i.e., doctrine of clearness, the guilt-by-association system(the involvement system), freedom of concsience, principle of proportionality. But they are constitutional. (ⅰ)‘Improper solicitation’is not unclear. The Criminal Act uses the conception of ‘improper solicitation’, and our Supreme Court ruled it is not unconstitutional, because any person can predict improper solicitation by supplementary interpretation of judge. (ⅱ) Journalist and teacher are required to be free from improper solicitation, so this regulation on them is necessary to the best of obeying principle of proportionality. (ⅲ) The arguing of guilt-by-association system violation is not proper. Because it does not burden unfavorable treatment on public officials on account of the only fact ‘spouse’. It is applied only when their spouses receive money in connection with their duties.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-001848686
