공직자 등에 대한 부정청탁 및 공직자 등의 금품 등의 수수를 금지하는 것을 주요한 내용으로 하고 있는 「부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘청탁금지법’이라 한다)이 시행된 지 벌써 3개월여가 지났다. 이 법은 금품 수수에 있어서 대가성 유무에 관계없이 형사처벌 또는 과태료 부과가 가능하다는 점과 사인에 해당하는 학교의 장과 교직원 및 학교법인의 임직원, 언론사의 대표자와 그 임직원 등을 그 대상으로 삼고 있다는 점에 특징이 있다.
형법은 공무원에 대한 뇌물죄와 사인의 배임수증재죄를 달리 취급하고 있다. 공무원이나 중재인의 경우에는 자신의 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 수수한 경우에 처벌하지만, 사인의 경우에는 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자가 그 임무에 관하여 부정한 청탁을 받고 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득한 경우에 처벌한다.
청탁금지법은 대가성이 없는 단순한 금품수수 행위를 처벌하는 규정을 두고 있다. 따라서 형법보다는 그 요건이 더 간결하게 되어 있다. 청탁금지법은 대가성 없는 단순 금품수수행위를 처벌대상으로 삼고 있는 점에서 과잉처벌의 문제가 제기될 수 있다. 또한 형벌에 있어서 단순히 금품을 수수한 것만으로 징역형을 부과하는 것은 부당하다. 형사처벌을 부과하는 기준을 금액에 둠으로써 태생적으로 금액에 따라서 형사처벌, 과태료 부과가 나누어지는 문제점을 안고 있다. 가중처벌되는 뇌물죄와는 달리 청탁금지법은 가중처벌 규정이 없기 때문에 수수액이 크면 클수록 과도한 중형화가 나타날 수 있다. 대가성 유무에 따라서 처벌의 수위가 과도한 차이가 있다면 그 적용에 있어서 역효과가 발생할 수 있다. 따라서 금품수수에 있어서도 금액에 따라 처벌의 차이를 두거나, 대가성 여부에 대한 법원의 기준완화가 요구된다.
“The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act” came into force from 27/09/2016. The Point of this act is prohibition of graft and improper solicitation for public officers and people working in the school and university, and press service. A bribe of public official and reciving of a person, who administering another's business differ in criminal law. A public official or an arbitrator who receives, demands or promises to accept a bribe in connection with his duties, shall be punished but a person who, administering another's business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person only in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty shall be punished. The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act contains a punishment of a person, who receive a bribe not in connection with his duty or work. In this side the requirements that are more concise than the Criminal Code. The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act can be a problem of excessive punishment raised in that the punishment of simple receiving not connect with his duty. Also, keep in mind that simply impose a prison sentence only in money or in modest punishment is unfair. By placing the amount of reference to impose criminal penalties, depending on the amount inherently suffers from the problems that divided the criminal prosecution, fines imposed. Unlike the punishment that bribery solicitation laws may appear excessive fluid medium can upset the greater because there is no punishment provisions. If there is an excessive difference between the water level in the penalty according to the proceeds of presence can cause adverse effects in its application. So leave the differences in penalties depending on the amount even in bribery, the court is required mitigation criteria for the proceeds of or not.
“The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act” came into force from 27/09/2016. The Point of this act is prohibition of graft and improper solicitation for public officers and people working in the school and university, and press service. A bribe of public official and reciving of a person, who administering another's business differ in criminal law. A public official or an arbitrator who receives, demands or promises to accept a bribe in connection with his duties, shall be punished but a person who, administering another's business, receives property or obtains pecuniary advantage from a third person only in response to an illegal solicitation concerning his duty shall be punished. The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act contains a punishment of a person, who receive a bribe not in connection with his duty or work. In this side the requirements that are more concise than the Criminal Code. The Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act can be a problem of excessive punishment raised in that the punishment of simple receiving not connect with his duty. Also, keep in mind that simply impose a prison sentence only in money or in modest punishment is unfair. By placing the amount of reference to impose criminal penalties, depending on the amount inherently suffers from the problems that divided the criminal prosecution, fines imposed. Unlike the punishment that bribery solicitation laws may appear excessive fluid medium can upset the greater because there is no punishment provisions. If there is an excessive difference between the water level in the penalty according to the proceeds of presence can cause adverse effects in its application. So leave the differences in penalties depending on the amount even in bribery, the court is required mitigation criteria for the proceeds of or not.
