공무원 선거범죄 통제수단의 법적평가와 개선방안 연구 - 지방공무원 관계 법령에 대한 해석을 중심으로 -

Election crimes by the Public officials refer to any criminal violation of the Public Official Election Act committed by public officials in relation to their duties or using their position. These crimes have a great influence on the election results, and there is a great need for strict punishment. The state mainly provides deterrence measures for controlling these crimes through the Public Official Election Act. However, the effect of a law consists in its execution. Therefore, the effectiveness of the deterrence measures for controlling these crimes is dependent on the interpretation and enforcement practices of laws and regulations related to local public officials. Based on this interpretation, the following problems can be found when analyzing the effectiveness of the deterrence measures in terms of the certainty of punishment and the strictness of punishment. First of all, in terms of the certainty of punishment, whistle-blowing is key to the detection of crimes, but the whistle-blowing system through the internal audit organization is almost disabled. In terms of the strictness of punishment, sanctions such as the release from position, disciplinary action, and criminal punishment are prepared, but there is a possibility that the effect may be impaired due to problems in legal interpretation and enforcement. First, since the person having the authority to decide release from position is the appointing authority person, the disposition could be decided arbitrarily. Second, due to the lack of independence of the personnel committee having authority in resolution on discipline, the fairness of disciplinary action can not be expected also. Third, criminal punishment also does not have sufficient deterrent effect due to underestimation of sentencing and prolonged trials. Therefore, the following improvements are needed to enhance the effectiveness of the deterrence measures for election crimes. First, the security of the non-real name proxy reporting system for election crimes should be improved. Second, for the fairness of the position release, a system of suspension of job execution by courts in charge of election crime litigation should be introduced. Third, for the fairness of the disciplinary action, the disciplinary committee should be separated and its jurisdiction adjusted. Fourth, in order to improve the effectiveness of election crime litigation, separation of lawsuit against election and criminal trial is required.