규제자유특구와 ICT 규제샌드박스 특례 비교 연구

This study compared and analyzed the characteristics derived from the differences between the Ministry of SMEs and Startups' Regulatory-Free Special Zones and the Ministry of Science and ICT's ICT Convergence Regulatory Sandbox. This study examined the appropriateness and effectiveness of the regulatory sandbox special provisions, and in-depth examined policy implications for legislation that could enhance the effectiveness of the regulatory-free special zone system. The special provisions of the two sandboxes were categorized into advanced technologies and industrial sectors, including biohealthcare, mobility/transportation, energy/new materials, ICT convergence/robotics, and new technology services. This study examined the regulatory characteristics of each sector and explored countermeasures to regulatory issues across sectors based on a comparative analysis of key issues. A descriptive statistical analysis of the two regulatory sandbox special provisions revealed that the Ministry of Science and ICT's regulatory sandbox is project-based and focuses on the ICT sector, while the Regulatory-Free Special Zone is a special zone and applies across all industrial sectors. On the other hand, both regulatory sandboxes share a common characteristic: they extend beyond the laws of the respective ministries and broadly apply exceptions to laws and regulations of other ministries. A comparison of the characteristics of the two regulatory sandbox exceptions revealed no significant differences between the two ministries. However, the Ministry of Science and ICT tended to exhibit greater institutional flexibility, as its exception granting procedures differed from those of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups' Regulatory Free Zones, which are integrated with the special zone designation process. Regarding the form of legislation and the type of regulatory obstacles, despite being regulatory exceptions in the field of new technologies, prohibitions and restrictions were more prevalent than regulatory gaps, and many were legal prohibitions. This suggests that future legislative challenges for revitalizing new technologies and industries will hinge on how to coordinate the interests and differing positions of the legislative branch and ministries to achieve legislation. Furthermore, regulatory obstacles and legal forms vary depending on the ministry's jurisdiction, necessitating differentiated legislative strategies that consider the technology sector and type of regulatory obstacle.