다중사기범죄의 현상에 대한 비판적 고찰과 규범적 대안 : 「다중사기범죄 등 규제 기본법」의 법제화를 위한 시론

Today, in all areas of society, economics and finance dominate everyday life. Financial fraud crimes based on information asymmetry are prevalent due to the structural economic crisis and polarization. The Multifraud Crime which I have named is a normative concept that refers to today's fraud crime (phenomenon), which uses fraudulent information asymmetry to unleash the fraud and mischief. Multifraud crime is a crime that has many unspecified victims and is highly likely to be antisocial and accusatory in that this crime proceeds are concentrated on the minority on an astronomical scale. Individual laws such as the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission and Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss regulate a set of multifraud phenomena. However, not only are there limits on how to engage in various evolving and developing financial fraud activities, but the regulations are scattered in individual laws such as Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, Act on Door-To-Door Sales, etc, Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss, thus it has been pointed out that systematic and efficient enforcement is difficult. It is also true that the traditional fraud crimes, which have face-to-face deception and error, have limitations in preventing and enforcing today 's financial fraud, which causes a lot of damage to the unspecified majority.Therefore, in this article, I tried to propose the so-called bill for Framework Act in the Regulation of Multifraud Crime, etc by integrating the regulatory principle and the major regulatory issues involved in individual laws. Of course, the Act on Damage Prevention and Relief of Illegal Finance enactment has been proposed as an original draft, but more delicate legislation and criticism are needed to secure the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Act. Most of allt, the bill tried to make multifraud crimes a requirement through the words "multifraud crime, etc." as the main concept and scope to be directed. In order to make the bill effective, it should clarify the obligation and authority of the financial institutions and the government authorities, and propose punitive and joint penal provisions, including administrative penalty penalties and surcharges, as major issues in the legislation in order to guarantee the binding power of the law. In addition to the bill for Act on Damage Prevention and Relief of Illegal Finance, it will be necessary to minimize the damage caused by multifraud crimes and to provide prompt and appropriate relief to victims through continuous criticism and discussions on the bill for Framework Act in the Regulation of Multifraud Crime, etc which I proposed.