알선대가 이익제공자의 처벌 필요성에 대한 연구

In a community, certain transactions are protected by law, while others are defined as crimes and punished accordingly. Every transaction requires at least two parties. When our law deems a transaction illegal and criminal, a necessary co-perpetrator relationship is established. In cases where one party is punished while the other is not, this is classified as a unilateral counterpart crime. There is debate over whether the general provisions on accomplices should be applied to non-punishable counterpart parties in the absence of the specific provisions. However, it is inappropriate to apply the general provisions on unilateral counterpart crime. The absence of such provisions reflects the legislative intent not to punish. Article 111(1) of the Attorney-At-Law regulates the receipt of benefits for brokering public duties and punishes only the broker. Given that both parties in such transactions contribute inseparably to the illegality, punishing only the intermediary without punishing the provider of the benefits is inequitable and inconsistent with the principle of fairness. This is deemed a legislative oversight rather than the true intent of the legislator. Furthermore, Article 111(1) of the Attorney-At-Law does not align with the legislative purpose and structure of the Act and overlaps with Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. Therefore, it is advisable to repeal Article 111, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and incorporate its provisions into the Criminal Code as part of a legal amendment.