유치원 교사의 심폐소생술 실시 의향에 영향을 주는 요인

정형근,엄태환,Jung, Hyung-Keon,Uhm, Tai-Hwan 한국응급구조학회 2015 한국응급구조학회지 Vol.19 No.2

Purpose: To determine factors of kindergarten teachers' willingness to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to suggest education methods toward CPR. Methods: We interviewed 92 kindergarten teachers trained to administer CPR. Among them, 74 answered the questions regarding CPR experience, barriers, and willingness. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of willingness factors to cognition, performance, and attitude toward CPR. Results: Of the participants, 73 (98.7%) were female, 32 (43.0%) were in their twenties (mean age: 33.9 years), 31 (41.9%) graduated college, 47 (63.5%) had < 10 years of tenure, and 65 (87.8%) and 62 (83.8%) indicated willingness to perform CPR to family members and kindergarteners, respectively. Barrier factors included fear of performing CPR incorrectly (46.8%) and injuring the victim (25.6%). Willingness factors included understanding brain death (37.7%) and performing CPR correctly (26.1%). Willingness predictors included attitude toward family members (OR: 4.54, 95% CI: 1.19 -17.39, p = .027) and kindergarteners (OR: 3.07, 95% CI: 1.15-8.22, p = .025), and cognition to kindergarteners (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.13-0.99, p = .050). Conclusion: The kindergarten teachers were more willing to perform CPR to family members and kindergarteners than to others in an attitude-dependent manner.

청탁금지법상 ‘부정청탁의 금지’에 관한 고찰

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 한양법학회 2017 漢陽法學 Vol.28 No.3

The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act was established in order to step up toward an advanced nation by preventing corruptions committed by public officials and relevant persons. This Act is primarily focused on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitations and the Prohibition of Acceptance of Financial or other Advantages. The improper solicitation is requesting the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes and there are 14 categories defined by this Act. Exerting official authority by a public official or relevant person beyond the limits of his or her position and authority granted by Acts and subordinate statutes, or doing any act for which a public official or relevant person lacks legitimate authority regarding the duties that may be subject-matter of the improper solicitation prescribed by Subparagraphs 1 through 14. No one shall solicit any public official or relevant person performing his or her duties, directly or through a third party, to do any of the following improper acts. Exerting influence so that authorization, permission, license, patent, approval, inspection, examination, test, certification, verification or any other duties, which are handled upon receiving an application from a duty-related party as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes (including ordinances and rules; hereinafter the same shall apply), are managed in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (1), this Act shall not apply to any of the following cases: Publicly soliciting a public official or relevant person to take a certain action. If a public official or relevant person receives an improper solicitation, he or she shall notify the person who made the improper solicitation that the solicitation is improper and clearly express an intention to refuse the solicitation. If a public official or relevant person receives the same improper solicitation again even though he or she took the measure as prescribed in Paragraph (1), he or she shall report such fact to the head of the relevant agency in writing (including electronic documents; hereinafter the same shall apply. A head of the relevant agency in receipt of a report under Paragraph (2) shall promptly verify whether the subject-matter of the report constitutes an improper solicitation by examining the background, purport, details and evidence of the report.

청탁금지법상 공직자가 음식물ㆍ경조사비ㆍ선물 등의 금품을 받을 수 있는 한계

정형근(Jung Hyung Keun) 경희법학연구소 2018 경희법학 Vol.53 No.2

'스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

Although the Improper Solicitation and Graft Acts prohibits a public official or relevant person from accepting financial or other advantages, there is an exceptional rule for allowing it. The prohibition of financial or other advantage describes that a public official or relevant person shall not accept, request, or promise tro receive, any financial or other advantage in excess of one million won at a time from the same person, regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties. Accepting financial or other advantage which is not related with his or her duties shall be punished, which sets against the Criminal Act by which a public official will be punished for accepting bribe in connection with his or her duties. When a public official accepts financial or other advantages in connection with his or her duties, it should be examined whether such an act was given in exchange of any favors. In addition, a public official or relevant person shall not accept financial or other advantages in value of less than 100 million won in connection with his or her duties regardless of whether such offer if given in exchange of any favors. The violation of this rule shall be subject to a fine for negligence. In case it is in connection with his or her duties and in exchange of any favors as well, it violates both Criminal Act’s Acceptance of Bribe and The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. However, in such a case, it is debatable which law is supposed to be applied. It is probable that the investigating authorities would consider it as accepting bribe, while the public institution would rather impose a fine for negligence. It is necessary to observe how this rule is going to be practiced. Although the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act prohibits the acceptance of financial or other advantages, there are exceptions when it is allowed to accept financial or other advantages. Among such exceptions, it is allowed to accept food and drink, congratulatory or condolence money, gifts, or other items that are offered to facilitate performance of duties or for social relationships, rituals, or assistance to festivities and funerals, the vale of which is within the limit provided by Presidential Decree. Of course, the amount is set by the enforcement ordinance of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. According to the updated the enforcement ordinance of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, it is allowed to offer up to 50,000 won for congratulatory or condolence money while the value of artifical flowers or flower bed up to 100,000 won. The value of give is limited to 50,000 won while the value of agricultural and marine products and the processed product of them is limited to 100,000 won. But requesting congratulatory or condolence money for a public official or relevent person’s assistance to festivities or funerals should be prohibited. Especially, when such request is in connection with a public official’s duties and it is in exchange of any favors. For example, a professor shall not request students to assist his or her festivities or funerals. It is also prohibited a professor from accepting birthday cake and a bouquet during school hours. In this case, because the professor is in the position to guide and evaluate students, it is considered being in connection with his or her duties and in exchange of any favors. If the professor is a public school employee, such an act can be considered as acceptance of bribe. Likewise, if the professor is a private school employee, such an act shall be considered as violating Criminal Act’s Receiving or Giving Bribe bvy Breach of Trust. Of course it also violates the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. As a result, accepting financial or other advantages prohibited in the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act will lead to violating Criminal Act as well. 청탁금지법은 공직자등의 금품등의 수수를 금지하면서도 예외적으로 이를 허용하는 규정을 두고 있다. 금품등의 수수금지에 관한 내용을 보면, 공직자등의 직무 관련 여부에 관계없이 동일인으로부터 1회에 100만원을 초과하는 금품등을 받거나 요구 또는 약속할 수 없도록 한다. 직무 관련이 없는 상태에서 금품등을 받아도 처벌한다. 이 점이 직무와 관련하여 뇌물을 받으면 처벌하는 형법상 수뢰죄와 비교된다. 음식물이나 선물 그리고 경조사비라도 수수금지 금품등의 예외사유에 해당되지 않은 경우에는 이를 받거나 요구 또는 약속할 수 없다. 공직자가 직무와 관련하여 금품등을 받으면 당연히 대가성이 인정되는지도 검토해야 한다. 그리고 공직자등이 직무와 관련하여 대가성 여부를 불문하고 100만원 이하의 금품을 받을 수 없다. 이를 위반한 때는 과태료를 부과한다. 직무와 관련하여 대가성도 인정되는 경우도 있을 수 있는데, 이때는 형법상 수뢰죄와 청탁금지법 위반에 해당된다. 이 경우에 어느 법률을 적용해야 할 것인지가 문제된다. 수사기관에서는 뇌물죄로 의율 할 것으로 보이지만, 청탁금지법 위반으로 인정한 공공기관에서는 과태료를 부과하는 절차를 밟을 가능성이 있다. 이는 앞으로 실무의 추이를 지켜보아야 할 사항이다. 청탁금지법은 수수금지 금품등이라 할지라도 예외적으로 받을 수 있는 예외를 인정하고 있다. 그 중에서 “원활한 직무수행 또는 사교ㆍ의례 또는 부조의 목적으로 제공되는 음식물ㆍ경조사비ㆍ선물 등으로서 대통령령으로 정하는 가액 범위 안의 금품등”에 따라 음식물, 경조사비, 선물을 제공할 수 있다. 물론 그 가액에 대해서는 청탁금지법 시행령에서 정하고 있다. 2018. 1. 17. 개정된 청탁금지법 시행령에서는 경조사비에 대해서는 5만원으로 하면서도 조화, 화환은 10만원까지 가능하도록 했다. 그리고 선물에 대해서는 5만원으로 하되, 농수산물과 농수산가공품에 대해서는 10만원까지 허용하였다. 그렇지만 경조사를 당한 공직자등이 경조사비의 제공을 요구할 수 없다고 해야 한다. 그리고 공직자등과 수수금지 금품 제공자 사이에 직무관련성과 대가성이 있을 때는 허용될 수 없다. 예컨대 대학의 교원이 수업을 듣는 학생들에게 자신의 경조사에 참석하도록 강제하는 행위는 허용되지 않는다. 뿐만 아니라 생일을 맞은 교원이 수업 시간에 학생들이 제공한 케이크와 꽃다발을 받는 행위 역시 금지된다. 이 경우에 교원은 학생의 지도와 학점을 부여하는 지위에 있기 때문에 직무관련성과 대가성도 인정되기 때문이다. 만약 교원이 국립대학 교원으로 공무원이라면 뇌물죄에 해당될 수 있다. 그렇지 않고 사립대학 교원으로 부정한 청탁을 받고 금품을 받았다면 형법상 배임수재죄에 해당된다. 물론 청탁금지법도 위반한 것이 된다. 이처럼 청탁금지법의 수수금지 금품등을 받은 경우에는 형법 위반에도 해당되는 문제가 발생한다.

외부세무조정제도와 법무법인에 대한 외부세무 조정반 지정거부처분의 검토

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.49 No.-

납세의무자가 기업장부에서 법인세나 소득세의 소득금액을 계산해 내는 것을 세무조정이라고 한다. 외부세무조정제도는 법인세와 소득세의 납부의무자가 소득신고를 할 때 세무전문가가 작성한 세무조정계산서의 제출로 강제하는 것을 말한다. 외부세무조정은 세무사·공인회계사·세무사등록을 한 변호사에게 허용된다. 외부세무조정을 할 수 있는 자격을 가진 자를 세무조정반이라고 하며, 세무조정반에 포함시키는 국세청장의 처분을 세무조정반 지정이라고 한다. 외부세무조정제도는 과세요건 법정주의 중 과세절차에 해당되는 것이므로 반드시 법률로 정해야 하는 사항이다. 신고납세제도에서 납세의무자 스스로 세금을 계산하여 납부하는 것이 타당하다. 그럼에도 대상판결이 나오기 전까지는 법인세법·소득세법의 시행령 및 시행규칙에서 ‘기업회계와 세무회계의 정확한 조정 또는 성실한 납세’라는 명목으로 외부세무조정제도를 강제하고 있었다. 대상판결은 외부세무조정제도가 법인세법과 소득세법에 근거하지 않고 그 시행령과 시행규칙에 기초하여 시행하는 것은 위임입법의 범위와 한계를 벗어난 것으로 무효라고 판시하였다. 대상판결 후 개정된 법인세법과 소득세법에서 이 제도의 근거를 신설하였다. 그렇지만 세무조정반 지정거부처분에 불복하여 승소판결을 받은 법무법인은 여전히 세무조정반에 포함시키지 않았다. 세무사와 공인회계사에 대하여는 세무법인과 회계법인에 대하여 세무조정반에 포함시키면서 법무법인은 제외한 것은 평등권을 침해한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 또한 세무조정대상법인과 그렇지 않은 사업체 간의 평등권의 침해 도 문제된다. 외부세무조정제도는 납세의무자에게 세무조정료를 부담하도록 하여 재산권과 계약의 자유를 제약할 수 있다. 그리고 외부세무조정제도로 인하여 자신의 과오가 없음에도 책임을 져야하는 점에서 자기책임의 원리에도 반하는 문제점이 있다. 따라서 외부세무조정제도는 현행처럼 강제할 것이 아니라 납세의무자의 선택에 맡기는 방향으로 개정함이 타당하다. Tax Adjustment means calculating the amount of earnings of corporate tax or income tax from a business accounts, and the result is called a statement of exterior adjustment. It is appropriate in the tax returns filing system that a liable taxpayer shall calculate taxable income and pay tax by self assessment. However, under the name of “accurate adjustment and conscientious tax payment of business accounts and tax accounts”, the exterior tax adjustment system has been forced in the corporate tax act, enforcement decree, and enforcement rules until the Supreme Court’s Judgement was made. The Exterior tax adjustment shall be prepared by tax accountants, certified public accountants, and lawyers. Those who are qualified to prepare tax settlement invoice through tax adjustment are called tax adjustment group. And the measure made by the head of National Tax Service, which allows one to join tax adjustment group is called an authorization of tax adjustment group. The Supreme Court’s Judgement nullified the exterior tax adjustment system because operating this system based on the enforcement ordinance and enforcement rules instead of the administrative tax Act and income tax Act is out of range and limit of delegated legislation. As a result, revised business tax Act and income tax Act included a clear statement regarding this system; advancing previously a rule in enforcement ordinance to a Decree. And yet, law-firms who won the lawsuit of the measure on the refusal of authorization of tax adjustment group still was unable to join tax adjustment group. Consequently, law firm lawyers are at a disadvantage by being unable to be join tax adjustment group. The exterior tax adjustment system can limit the property rights and freedom of contract by generating economic burden through paying the tax settlement fee. In addition, the system contains a flaw of violating self-responsibility principle in terms of taking responsibility for things that are not responsible. The infringement of equality rights can be problematic between firms who are able to establish tax adjustment group and those who are unable. Therefore, it would be reasonable to let the taxpayer choose an agent instead of forcing the exterior tax adjustment system now in use.

법조윤리협의회의 기능 및 권한에 관한 고찰

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 한국법학원 2020 저스티스 Vol.- No.178

법조윤리협의회가 2007년 설립되어 10여년이 지나는 현재 신설취지대로 법조비리의 척결로 법조윤리를 확립하고 건전한 법조풍토를 실효성 있게 조성하고자 관련 제도를 정비할 필요가 있다. 변호사법은 법조윤리협의회의 기능과 권한에 대한 일반규정을 둔 후 구체적인 권한을 두고 있다. 법조윤리협의회는 공직퇴임변호사와 특정변호사의 수임자료 및 처리결과 제출 제도와 관련하여 법령의 미비점을 개선하기 위한 정책적인 측면에서 입법론을 제시할 필요가 있다. 공직퇴임변호사는 공직에서 퇴직한 날부터 1년 동안 수임이 제한된다. 전관예우를 근절하기 위한 수임제한 취지를 관철하려면, 공직퇴임시로부터 적어도 3년 후로 연장할 필요가 있다. 현재는 퇴직공직자가 퇴직한 국가기관이 처리하는 사건만 수임제한을 받는데, 지방자치단체나 공공단체도 포함시켜야 할 것이다. 그리고 공직퇴임변호사의 수임자료와 처리결과를 제출해야 하는 기한은 “퇴직일부터 2년 동안”이다. 만약 공직퇴직변호사가 퇴직 직후에 변호사 개업을 하지 않으면 이 제도는 무의미하므로, 변호사 개업일부터 2년 동안 수임자료를 제출하는 것으로 변경해야 할 것이다. 또한 제출해야 할 수임자료 중에 수임액도 기재하고 수임약정서를 제출하도록 하는 것도 필요하다. 수임액은 사건의 중요도, 과다한 보수를 수령하여 품위훼손행위에 해당하는지, 사건브로커에게 소개비를 지급되었는지 등을 판단할 수 있는 중요한 판단자료가 된다. 공직퇴임변호사의 수임사건 중에 자문사건도 포함되는지 문제된다. 자문사건의 수임 자료 제출문제는 공직퇴임 변호사나 특정변호사가 인사청문회 또는 국정감사를 위하여 수임 자료를 제출할 때도 자문사건이 포함되는지 쟁론의 대상이 되고 있다. 변호사법 시행령에 명문의 규정을 두어 의문을 해소해야 한다. 공직에서 퇴임한 변호사가 법무법인등의 구성원 또는 기업에서 고문 변호사로 활동하기도 한다. 따라서 변호사가 법무법인등이나 기업체에서 고문변호사로 대가를 받는 경우에는 이를 규율할 규정을 두어야 한다. 고위공직자범죄수사처 설치 및 운영에 관한 법률 상 수사처에 근무하였던 사람은 퇴직 후 1년 동안 수사처의 사건은 수임할 수 없다. 따라서 수사처 출신 변호사의 수임자료와 처리결과를 제출하도록 하는 내용을 변호사법에 신설하여 규율할 필요가 있다. 특정변호사의 수임자료 등 제출 관련해서도 사건의 비중이나 소개료 지급 여부 등을 판단할 자료가 되는 수임액도 제출하도록 해야 한다. 특정변호사가 제출하는 수임자료에 의뢰인 등의 연락처를 명확하게 기재하지 않으면 법조윤리협의회가 위법행위나 범죄혐의 여부를 조사하는데 장애가 된다. 따라서 이를 확인할 수 있는 통신사실조회권한 등에 관한 법적 근거를 둘 필요가 있다. 그리고 의뢰인을 방문조사할 수 있도록 구금시설 등을 방문할 수 있는 권한을 부여함이 타당할 것이다. 그리고 법무법인등에 취업하는 퇴직공직자에 대한 실효적인 규율도 필요하다. 채용시에 신고의무를 부과하여 투명성을 제고하고, 활동내역의 제출기한을 일정기간 이내로 한정함이 타당할 것이다. The Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Ethics Council”) shall be established in order to establish legal ethics and build a healthy legal climate. The Ethics Council may, if deemed necessary for the performance of work, such as application for the commencement of disciplinary actions or request for investigations under paragraph (1) 3, require that any person, agency, organization, etc. concerned make a referral for fact-finding, submit data, or attend a meeting of the Ethics Council to make statements or explanations; if the person, agency, organization, etc. concerned refuses such request without due cause, the Ethics Council may direct its staff members to enter upon the relevant law firm, limited liability law firm, law firm partnership, law office, or joint venture law firm as defined in subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act for site investigation. In such cases, the person, agency, organization, etc. so requested shall comply with the request. An attorney-at-law retired from public office shall submit retainer agreement data regarding cases that he/she has accepted and reports on case results for two years from the date he/she retired from office, to the local bar association with which he/she is affiliated within each period prescribed by Presidential Decree. The provisions of paragraph (1) shall also apply where any attorney-at-law retired from public office is designated as an attorney-at-law in charge in a law firm, a limited liability law firm or a law firm partnership under Article 50, 58-16 or 58-30, or in a joint venture law firm pursuant to Article 35-20 of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act. Each local bar association shall submit data it receives under paragraph (1) to the Ethics Council. The chairperson of the Ethics Council may, when he or she finds that an attorney-at-law retired from public office is suspected of falling under the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 91 or committing any illegal act, file an application for the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against such attorney-at-law with the President of the Korean Bar Association or the chief prosecutor of a district prosecutors" office concerned, or request the investigation of such attorney-at-law. Each local bar association shall submit to the Ethics Council the names and case lists of the attorneys-at-law (including attorneys-at-law in charge belonging to law firms, limited liability law firms and law firm partnerships under Articles 50, 58-16 and 58-30 and attorneys-at-law in charge belonging to joint venture law firms under Article 35-20 of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act; hereinafter referred to as “relevant attorney-at-law”) who has accepted cases in excess of the number prescribed by Presidential Decree.

생태시 교육에 관한 몇 가지 단상 : 중학교 학생들의 반응을 중심으로

정형근(Jung Hyung-Geun) 문학과 환경학회 2009 문학과 환경 Vol.8 No.1

First, this thesis deals with response of Korean middle school student's for Ecopoetry. Also, this thesis studies a hard nut to crack and deliberate problem through analysis for Ecopoetry. I use Peirce's Pragmatic Semiotics for analyzing student's reponses. For Peirce, sign divided into index, icon, symbol as relation of sign and object the sign represents. Poems that show Nature as index-sign reveal the culture as opposed to Nature. In preceding studies, 'poems accusing of destructing Nature' relate to them. Poems that show Nature as iconsign regard Nature as Idea that human- should learn. In preceding studies, these relate to poems which find the principle of Nature. Poems that show Nature as symbol-sign imagine Utopia human and Nature coexist. In preceding studies, these relate to poems which expect Ecotopia. As a result, student's feel difficult because of unfamiliar word and absence of experience. Also they feel difficult in understanding metaphorical transference. Finally, they seem to understand Ecopoetry as instructive and must-be.

｢부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률｣에 관한 연구

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 경희법학연구소 2017 경희법학 Vol.52 No.1

'스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

청탁금지법은부정청탁의금지와함께금품등의수수금지를그내용으로한다. 공직자등은 수수금지금품등을받거나요구또는약속해서는아니된다. 이런규정은형법의뇌물죄의 구조와 유사하다. 청탁금지법은 공직자등이 받는 금품등의 가액을 기준으로 처벌을 달리하고 있다. 1회에 100만원을 초과하는 금품등을 받으면 직무 관련 여부를 묻지 않고 3년이하의징역또는3천만원이하의벌금에처한다. 현실적으로100만원의금품은그리큰금액은 아니지만 이를 수수한 때는 형사처벌은 물론 중한 징계처분을 받게 된다. 공직자등은 위 금품등을 수수하면 직무 관련 여부를 불문하고 처벌을 받는다. 형법에서는 공무원이뇌물을 받았어도 ‘직무에 관하여’ 요건에 해당되지 않으면 처벌되지 않는다. 앞으로는 공직자등이직무관련여부와상관없이기부 후원 증여등의그명목에관계없이금품등을 받거나요구또는약속해서는안된다. 공직자등이금품등을직접받는것은물론제3자에게제공하도록 하는 행위도 금지된다고 할 것이다. 공직자등은 직무와 관련하여 100만원 이하의 금품등을 받거나 요구 또는 약속해서는 아니된다. 이규정은공직자등의 직무와관련하여대가성 여부는불문한다. 직무와 관련되고대가성까지 있으면 형법의 뇌물죄에도 해당된다. 이 규정이 ‘대가성 여부는 불문’한다고 하여 청탁금지법의 해석을 어렵게 하였다는 지적도 있다. 따라서 청탁금지법은 공직자등이직무와 관련되고 대가성은 없는 상태에서 금품등을 받는 것을 예상하고 있다. 이때는 질서위반행위에 해당되기에 그 위반행위와 관련된 금품등 가액의 2배 이상 5배 이하에 상당하는 과태료를 부과한다. 그리고 공직자등에게금품등을제공하려는자는 공직자등의직무와관련하여배우자에게금품등을제공할수있다. 이때는공직자등은금품등을제공받은사실을알게되었을때신고하면 면책된다. 만약 신고를 하지 않으면 그 금품등에 대한 영득의사를 나타낸 것이라서해당 공직자등이 받은 것으로 보아 금품가액에 따라 형사처벌 또는 과태료를 부과한다. The improper Solicitation and Graft Act includes the Prohibition of Improper Solicitations and the Prohibition of Acceptance of Financial or other Advantages. Public official or relevant person shall not accept unacceptable financial or other advantage and shall not accept, request, or promise to receive as well. Regulating such limitation intends identical goal as the Criminal Act s Aceeptance of Bribe. The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act applies different amount of fine depending on the value of the financial or other advantages received by public official or relevant person. If the value of financial or other advantage exceeds one million won at a time, the recipient shall be punished regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 milion won. Public official or relevant person will be punished regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties based on this rule. However, in the Criminal Act, a public official will not be punished for accepting bribe as long as receiving, demanding or promising to accept a bribe is not in connection with his/her duties. From now on, public official or relevant person shall be prohibited to receive, demand or promise to accept a bribe regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties, and the motive for such offer, including contribution, sponsorship, donation, etc. Not only any direct acceptance of financial or other advantages by a public official or relevant person but also redirecting such act to a third party shall be prohibited. No public official or relevant person shall accept, request, or promise to receive, any financial or other advantage not exceeding the amount prescribed by Paragraph (1) in connection with his or her duties, regardless of whether such offer is given in exchange of any favors. This law applies, in connection with his or her duties, regardless of whether such offer is given in exchange of any favors. Criminal Act s Acceptance of Bribe shall be additionally applied if such an act was in connection with his or her duties and such offer was given in exchange of any favors. It has been pointed out that the statement of “regardless of whether such offer is given in exchange of any favors” of this law resulted in a difficult interpretation of The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. Therefore, the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act anticipates a public official or relevant person would receive financial or other advantages in connection with his or her duties, yet without an exchange of any favors. In this case, such an act corresponds to a violation of public order, such person shall be subject to a fine for negligence of two to five times the value of the financial or other advantage related to the violation.

복합 이벤트 스트림 처리를 이용한 ECA 규칙 기반 예외 처리 도구

정형근(Hyungkun Jung),조은선(Eun-Sun Cho) 대한전자공학회 2017 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.2017 No.6

As the data in the ubiquitous environment grows, methods for processing data in real time are emerging. This paper proposes an exception handling tool that uses complex event stream processing for ECA rule-based computing in ubiquitous environment. This tool is expected to reduce the overhead of handling a large number of events in an event-driven computing environment.

청탁금지법상 공직자등의 직무와 관련한 금품등의 수수 금지

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.57 No.-

청탁금지법은 공직자등의 직무 관련 여부 및 수수된 금품등의 가액을 기준으로 제재를 달리하고 있다. 공직자등이 1회에 100만원을 초과하는 금품등을 받으면 직무 관련 여부를 묻지 않고 3년 이하의 징역으로 처벌한다. 100만원을 소액으로 쪼개어 제공하는 것을 방지하고자 매 회계연도에 300만원을 초과하는 금품 수수도 동일하게 처벌한다. 이는 공무원이 금품을 받았음에도 직무관련성 또는 대가성이 존재하지 않는다는 이유로 뇌물죄로 처벌할 수 없었던 그간의 법의 흠결을 보완한 측면이 강하다. 청탁금지법의 또 다른 특징은 공직자등이 직무와 관련하여 대가성 여부를 불문하고 100만원 이하의 금품을 수수하면 과태료를 부과한다는 점이다. 이때 공직자등에게 직무관련성만 있으면 되고, 대가성까지는 요구하지 않는다. 그렇기에 형법상 뇌물죄가 성립하지 않는다. 만약 직무와 관련되고 대가성까지 있으면 뇌물죄에도 해당된다. 따라서 ‘대가성 여부는 불문’한다는 문구는 직무관련성은 있지만, 대가성은 없다는 것을 전제하는 것이다. 그렇지만 대가성까지 인정되어도 청탁금지법을 적용해야 한다는 것인가 하는 논란을 야기할 수 있다는 점에서 이 문구는 삭제하는 것이 옳을 것으로 보인다. 청탁금지법은 뇌물의 가액을 묻지 않는 형법상 뇌물죄와 달리 금품등의 요구, 약속행위에 그치는 것이 아니라 그 속에 포함된 금품가액을 파악하여 형사처벌을 하거나 과태료 부과대상인지를 확정해야 하는 문제가 있다. 향후 실무경향을 지켜보아야 할 것이지만, 금품의 요구 또는 약속행위에 대해서는 그 금품가액을 특정하기가 어려워 사실상 규율하기 어려울 것으로 보인다. 그리고 공직자등의 직무와 관련한 금품 수수 금지 원칙은 청탁금지법만의 고유한 영역이 아니고 형법과 질서위반행위규제법과의 관계도 고려하여 해석 · 적용해 가야 한다. The case started when the accuser delivered a box of rice cake which is worth 45,000 won to a police officer who is in charge of the affair. Because it is considered that the accuser offered financial or other advantage not exceeding one million won to the police officer in connection with his duty, the accuser was charged a negligence fine of 90,000 won corresponding to the double amount of the financial or other advantage offered. The improper Solicitation and Graft Act includes the Prohibition of Improper Solicitations and the Prohibition of Acceptance of Financial or other Advantages. Public official or relevant person shall not accept unacceptable financial or other advantage and shall not accept, request, or promise to receive as well. In addition, no one shall offer, promise to offer, or express any intention to offer, any unacceptable financial or other advantage to any public official or relevant person, or to his or her spouse. The Order adjudicated the accuser to be guilty of violating this rule by offering financial or other advantage to the police officer. The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act applies different amount of fine depending on the value of the financial or other advantages received by public official or relevant person. If the value of financial or other advantage exceeds one million won at a time, the recipient shall be punished regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won. The same punishment shall be applied when the financial or other advantage exceeds three million won in a fiscal year. In order to prevent the acceptance of financial or other advantage more effectively, it is necessary to reduce the upper limit of acceptable amount in a fiscal year. Public official or relevant person will be punished regardless of the relationship between such offer and his or her duties based on this rule. This characterizes the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act and that is why this law was established. In the Criminal Act, a public official will not be punished for accepting bribe as long as receiving, demanding or promising to accept a bribe is not in connection with his/her duties. Public official or relevant person shall not accept, request, or promise to receive any financial or other advantage not exceeding one million won in connection with his/her duties. This law applies, in connection with his or her duties, regardless of whether such offer is given in exchange of any favors. Criminal Act"s Acceptance of Bribe shall be additionally applied if such an act was in connection with his or her duties and such offer was given in exchange of any favors as well. Therefore, it would be proper to delete the phrase "regardless of whether such offer is given in exchange of any favors" in order to make the interpretation of the law easier.

변호사의 비밀유지의무

정형근 ( Jung Hyung-keun ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2011 외법논집 Vol.35 No.4

Attorney-at-law Act of Korea provides that no attorney-at-law or former Attorney-at-law shall disclose any confidential matter that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties. Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where such disclosure of confidential matter is especially prescribed otherwise by Acts(Article 26). And, The Bill of Morality for Attorney of Korea provides that Lawyers can disclose information revealed in confidence by clients if it is necessary to defend themselves against accusations of malpractice and public interest(The Rule 23). Lawyers’ duty of maintain confidentiality is one of the most important, obligations to their clients that lawyers undertake. They must not disclose such information to anyone else, use it to the clients’ detriment, or take advantage of that information in any way. I will try to make sense of the duty of confidentiality and its limits. There are two main sources that place obligations of confidentiality on lawyers: the law of evidence(Criminal Procedure Act) and the professional rules(The Bill of Morality for Attorney). Under evidentiary rules, lawyers are entitled and required to keep confidential all communications between clients and themselves that pertain to the giving of legal advice and assistance. This is a privilege to the client, and it applies regardless of whether litigation is involved or is imminent. The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the attorney-client privilege of evidence law. The professional duty protects nearly all information related to the representation, whatever its source; the privilege extends only to information transmitted directly between client and lawyer. While the duty is fundamental, it is not absolute. There are limits to the scope of the duty.