부패방지를 위한 행정법 제도의 쟁점

Corruption is a very persistent old phenomenon also in the Republic of Korea. Actually anti-corruption regulations and measures in Korea have been rapidly increased during several decades. In spite of such a high level of anti-corruption rules, the evaluation of corruption remain on lower level, for example Corruption Perceptions Index. It is anticipated that these situations could be overcome, as the ‘Improper Solicitation and Graft Act’(‘Kim Young Ran Act’) which prohibits public official from receiving an financial or other advantages and forbids improper solicitations is enacted in 2015. This study deals with several basic problems of corruptions and anti-corruption policies regarding definition, type, cause etc, and examines the recent trend reinforcing rigid criminal punishment, from a critical perspective. Corruption has been traditionally defined as “the abuse of public office for private gain”. While this narrow approach has the public official’s violation of normal duties centered(Public-Office-Centered Definition), other broader definitions may be more helpful in the context of corruptions of private area. In that case, Market-Centered Definition and Public-Centered-Definition will be considered as alternatives. Also will other significant terms like the secrecy as a element of corruption and legalized corruption. Although the corruptive behaviors and systems should be abolished by anti-corruption efforts, we should also find a smart way to make this goal realized according to types and causes of corruptions. The deregulation and the privatization that are regarded as a anti-corruption solution could be another motivation of an illicit act. In my view, the criminal penalty can not be the only way to respond to corruptions, even not sufficient. We should reply to the complexity of corruptions with the methodology of the Administrative Law. This work analyzes the current status of administrative institutions for anti-corruption with the heuristic definition of corruption as a legislative directive. These anti-corruption devices can be classified by two group. Legal institutions like audit system, prohibition of conflicting situations, evaluation of corruption effect, property registration for public officials, protection for whistle-blower etc. belong to the direct institution against corruption. These treatments are not enough to handle all aspect of concealed situations, and will make it even worse if they collide with other values and principles of public administration. For this reason, they must be complemented by indirect institutions including administrative procedure, management of state and municipal assets, judicial review for administrative adjudication, freedom of information etc. In order to combat corruption, ‘administrative law approach’ which consists of various programs can be more useful than ‘criminal law approach’ which bans corruptive behaviour by a punishment. Lastly, Publicness(Öffentlichkeit), namely transparency and public interest, is carefully considered as a key concept to make a anti-corruption program.