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.
이용수
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In general, the term "public official crime" can be defined as a crime committed by a public official. But it is attributable to cause a dislocation of anti-corruption policy making, because this concept is too abstract and too inclusive. Thus it is necessary to reify a concept of public official crime for efficiency improvement of control over it. In other words, it is necessary to define "public official crime" as "a crime committed by a public official in connection with his duties"Furthermore, because public official crime is a typical example of white-collar crime, anti-corruption policies mainly with prevention are unsuitable for controling over public official crime. Therefore the direction of existing policies needs to be diversified, for example, from an administrative regulation biased by the prevention of crime to a more powerful control and punishment by criminal law.
Of course, there's another view against these policies strengthening criminal punishment. But the increase in public official crime shows that the existing policies to control public official crime have obvious limits.
Therefore, to reduce public official crime rate even now, we should keep preclusive policies by administrative regulation, but, at the same time, we need to strengthen up punishment by criminal law than we do. However the way for reinforcement of punishment should be done by interpreting correctly and applying criminal law rigorously without exception, not simply by making a statutory penalty high.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (29)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0