부정청탁금지법의 문제점과 개선방안

The anti-solicitation act effectuated from September, 28 last year is thought to be being implemented strictly according to the purpose of legislation now. But social atmosphere shows to be silently depressed about the utility due to the economic contraction and recession etc. Especially academia looks unfortunate about the conflict of interest code of public official deleted in the lawmaking process of the same law and looks like keeping pro and con distinctly about its application scope. This author, seeking the problems of the anti-solicitation act, suggests the improvements adequate to the purpose in the law of legislation as follows. First, considered the legislation purpose of the same law, it is reasonable to legislate by newly adding the conflict of interest rule of public official and the like as the second of the twelfth in the same law. Second, to prevent the interpretational difficulty in the applicable process of the same law, it is necessary to legislate in terms of defining the conception of improper solicitation distinctly by newly establishing the second of the first in the same law. Third, as socially accepted rules, the exceptions stipulated in the item 7, para. 2 of the art. 5 in the same law and allowed improper solicitation, is the final judgemental standard, they are thought to proper to be substituted the contents related to the law system. Fourth, it is thought to be rational to apply to expand the scope of relative of public official etc. regulated in the eighth of the same law as objects of regulation to spouse, blood relatives within second cousin, relatives by marriage within cousin. In furtherance of this idea, it is thought to be proper to delete the rules of duty relations in the second of the eighth of the anti-solicitation act and valid to apply to expand applicable object of public officials etc. to the quasi-public private sector of financial workers, medial workers, and the like. Fifth, the reward maximum price of the outside lecture etc. in the twenty fifth of the enforcement ordinance related to the same law is necessary to be adjusted in a lump, and in this purpose the price limit of the expense of the food and drink, gift, and congratulations and condolences etc. given for the purpose of social intercourse, rite, and the like in the seventeenth of the enforcement ordinance of the same law is thought to be valid to charge in a lump and in kind within the range that doesn't exceed the optimum level as the standard charging a fine. Sixth, charging a fine according to the same law is rational for the prosecutor to charge through the district police station, and in the case of raising of an objection about the disposition of the imposition of fine for negligence by the prosecutor, the competent court notified by the prosecutor is thought to be resonable to proceed the trial of the fine. In addition, in the case of the dual liability of art. 24, the item 3, para. 1 of art. 22 and the item 3 of para. 5 of art. 23 in the same law, the providers of money and valuables are considered not to have a special reason to be excepted even in the case of public official. Accordingly, seen in this position, the anti-solicitation act should only make the arrangement of the law system adequate to the purpose of legislation as a matter of urgency and its effectiveness will be maximized as a powerful anti-corruption act.