earticle

영어

After the ruling of the Korean Constitutional Court on the unconstitutionality of a concurrent clause in a illegal medical practice punishment act on the November of 2007, the Korean Department of Justice began to revise all relevant concurrent clauses including the counterpart clause of the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(hereinafter "MRFTA"). The Korean National Assembly passed the bill on the revision of the concurrent clause on March 25, in 2009 after the completion of reviewing procedure on it. The amended version of the clause included a requirement of culpability of a corporate accused to be guilty in the violation of MRFTA to avoid unconstitutionality. But it needs to be revised more to be perfect. First of all, MRFTA adopts an administrative fine(Surcharge) as one of important measures of enforcements since its initial enactment on December of 1980. An administrative fine shall be slapped by the Korean Fair Trade Commission under the review of courts, whereas a criminal fine shall be levied by the Prosecutors in filing a complaint by the Korean Fair Trade Commission. From the viewpoint of the prohibition of excessive sanctions over the magnitude of adverse effects, the additional imposition of criminal fines can be estimated to remain within the permissible range. However, from another viewpoint such as the optimal system of the law enforcement, the criminal fine on the corporate accused should be abolished because it is not as effective as expected originally. The administrative fine was initially originated from Japanese antitrust law. Antitrust violators in Japan didn't disgorge their illegal revenues after they were sanctioned under the Japanese antitrust. They were rarely convicted. The amount of fine was so small that no one was deterred even if they were convicted. Therefore, Japanese authorities introduced an administrative fine imposed by Japanese FTC under the its antitrust law to deprive monetary incentives for violators. Corporate antitrust violators in Korea are considered to be deterred not because they are threatened by criminal fines but because they know the possibility to be condemned with an administrative fine. Of course, individuals who are responsible for the violations need to be exposed to criminal punishment including incarceration. Except for a criminal punishment on individuals, a criminal punishment on the corporation with fines like monetary sanctions are blamed because it is redundant and ineffective. So, the concurrent clause in MRFTA should be abolished.

한국어

헌법재판소에 의한 2007년도 보건범죄단속에 관한 특별조치법 제6조 소정의 양벌규정에 대한 위헌결정으로 촉발된 개정전 공정거래법 제70조 양벌규정의 정비는 2009.3.25.자 동 조항의 개정으로 인하여 일단락은 되었다. 그러나, 이 양벌규정은 본질적으로 여러 가지 문제점을 안고 있는 데 이런 부분에 관한 추가적인 손질이 필요하다. 먼저 문언적으로도 공정거래법의 금지 근거규정 과 형벌규정을 종합하여 살펴보면 그 수범자는 법인인데도 다시 양벌규정을 두어 법인을 처벌한 다고 규정하는 것은 체계상으로 문제가 있다. 물론 다른 유사 양벌규정에서도 그와 같은 체제를 채택하고, 대법원 또한 이에 대한 구제판결을 한 사례도 발견되나, 그렇다고 규정체계의 넌센스가 치유되는 것은 아니다. 다음으로 대한민국의 경우 강한 행정적 집행의 전통 때문에 과징금이 라는 금전적 행정제재수단이 완비되어 있고 또 효율적으로 작동하고 있다. 그런데도 중복되는 법인에 대한 벌금규정을 존치시키는 것은 과잉처벌문제는 차치하고도 적정한 법집행 체계라고 할 수는 없다. 그 동안 집행사례에 나타난 바와 같이 벌금형은 그 금액이 매우 적어 억지적 효력 도 없고, 기능적으로도 과징금과 중복되어 있다. 차제에 양벌규정을 폐지함으로써 법인에 대한 처벌은 과징금으로 대표되는 행정적 집행으로 통일하는 것이 바람직하다.