공무원범죄몰수법의 운영현황과 개선방향

Restricting the proceeds of crime through a thorough process of redemption has become an effective method to prohibit public officials from committing crimes such as bribery. Likewise, there is an independent law on confiscation for public officials’ crime called 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」 established in 1995. Such law was legislated as a result of North Incheon’s Office corruption regarding taxes. During the period, according to the confiscation rule in the criminal law, the target for charge was only restricted to ‘object’, thus restricting the confiscation of profits earned from investment in real estate through cash obtained from bribery by public officials. The law was enacted into allowing assets or assets derived from public officials’ crime to be confiscated, and providing relaxation of burden of proof and procedure for the preservation. Later on, in order to collect former president Jeon’s default of paying under confiscation, 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」 went through amendment. The amendment included allowing the confiscation of assets earned through just knowing the crime, prosecutor’s authority to dispose, and extension of the duration of prescription to 10 years. Execution rate of general confiscation was very low, thus discussions to bring up the rate went on. New rules like above were provided in the 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」. As the actual statistics for execution under the 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」 cannot be checked, the effectiveness of the law cannot be confirmed. However, it is hypothesized that the effectiveness of 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」 hasn’t been up to expectation having seen the execution rate of collection not rising and discussion for improvement of confiscation being continued. At this moment, the way for improvement is ‘Securing effectiveness of execution’. Without the effectiveness, the existence of confiscation has no meaning. Although 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」 was legislated and amendments have been made for increasing its effectiveness, legislation of detention in labor house and confiscation can be seen positively to make it a proper solution. In addition, as many other special laws exist for confiscation overlapping with 「Act on special cases concerning confiscation of offenses of public officials」, organizing the laws can be another positive method. Lastly, other than effectiveness of law, there needs to be a strong will to execute by the executing institution.