미국 수정헌법 제7조의 배심재판권과 SEC의 민사제재금 부과 권한- SEC v. Jarkesy 판결과 비교법적 시사점 -

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the SEC cannot impose civil monetary penalties through an in-house proceeding that finalizes in a Commission’s final order based on an ALJ’s initial decision in the SEC v. Jarkesy case. Because civil monetary penalties are legal remedies rooted in suits at common law, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in Article Ⅲ courts. The Court also limited the public-rights exception to historically limited domains, concluding that the SEC’s right to impose civil penalties does not fall within that exception. The decision suggests constitutional limits on the administrative state by prioritizing separation of powers values and individual rights over administrative efficiency. The SEC v. Jarkesy case emphasized the necessity of imposing administrative sanctions through constitutionally compliant procedures. Given the differing legal systems - the U.S. system based on the right to a jury trial and Korea’s system based on the right to judicial trial by judge - it is appropriate in Korea for administrative agencies, recognized for their democratic legitimacy and expertise, to impose administrative fines directly. The 2023 amendment to the Capital Markets Act introduced administrative fines for unfair securities trading; however, because of the imposition of the administrative fines, referring to the results of the prosecution’s investigation and disposition, the SFC has not imposed any administrative fines as of August 2025. It is appropriate to allow the SFC to impose administrative fines independently. As a prerequisite for concluding the case through administrative sanctions by the SFC, advanced discovery - access to key evidence lists and exculpatory materials before SFC deliberation - and enhanced judicial review, including de novo review in significant cases, are required.