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 공직자가 음식물ㆍ경조사비ㆍ선물 등의 금품을 받을 수 있는 한계

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

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.

법조 유사직역의 소송대리권 주장에 대한 비판적 검토

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 경희법학연구소 2019 경희법학 Vol.54 No.1

해방 이후 전문자격사제도를 도입하면서 동일한 직무를 여러 자격사가 수행할 수 있도록 다양한 종류의 자격사를 창설하였다. 국민은 업무의 성격에 따라 필요한 자격사를 선택하 여 조력을 받을 수 있는 편의를 누릴 수 있다. 자격사들은 업무의 중복으로 직역다툼이 발생할 여지가 크고, 새로운 직역개척의 일환으로 소송대리권을 인정해 줄 것을 기대한다. 변리사는 기존에 가진 소송대리권의 권한을 특허침해소송까지 확대할 것을 주장한다. 세무사는 조세소송대리인 지위를, 법무사는 소액사건에 대한 소송대리권을, 공인노무사는 노동사건에 대한 소송대리권 허용을 주장하고 있다. 변리사를 제외한 세무사, 공인회계사, 관세사, 공인노무사 등의 업무범위는 행정심판 단계 까지로 한정되어 있다. 행정심판에서 세무사 등의 자격사가 대리인이 되어도 행정심판위원 회에서 주도적으로 심리·재결을 하기에 당사자에게 불이익이 없다. 그러나 민사소송은 당사 자주의를 기초로 하기에 법률전문직인 변호사의 소송대리 원칙을 채택하고 있다. 그런데 변리사법 제8조는 법조 유사직역 중 유일하게 소송대리권 자격을 부여하고 있다. 세무사 등 과 달리 오로지 변리사에게만 소송대리를 허용할 만한 합리적인 이유가 존재하지 않는다. 그런 점에서 변리사법 제8조는 변리사에게만 특혜를 베푸는 시혜적 법률조항으로 세무사 등의 평등권을 침해하는 위헌조항이라고 할 수 있다. 그리고 형사절차에서 피의자나 피고인이 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 헌법상 기본권으로 보장 받는 것과 같이 민사·행정소송 등에서는 국민의 재판청구권의 행사를 위하여 변호사의 조력을 받을 권리가 있다. 이 점에서 변호사가 아닌 변리사로 하여금 특허심결취소소송의 소송대리인 지위를 허용한 것은 국민의 변호사의 조력을 받을 권리를 침해할 것이라고 할 수 있다. 이런 이유로 변리사법 제8조의 소송대리권 조항에 대해서는 헌법소원을 청구하여 위헌 여부를 판단 받을 필요가 있다. 변리사·세무사 등에 대한 소송대리권 허용은 변호사 자격을 부여하는 것과 같다. 비록 한 정적인 범위에서의 소송대리권 자격을 부여하는 것이지만, 그 범위에서는 변호사와 동일한 권한을 갖게 된다. 소송대리능력은 없으면서 자격만 부여받은 결과 국민은 불완전한 조력으로 피해를 받을 수밖에 없다. 그렇게 되면 학력제한과 많은 시간과 비용이 드는 변호사시험을 거치지 않고, 변리사, 세무사, 공인회계사, 공인노무사 시험의 합격만으로 자신의 분야에 대한 변호사 직무를 수행하는 것이 훨씬 유리할 수 있다. 결론적으로 법조 유사직역에 대하여 소송대리의 자격을 부여하는 것은 변호사제도의 근간을 훼손하는 것에 해당된다. 소송대리를 허용하는 내용으로 입법발의된 내용대로 변리사법과 세무사법이 개정된다면, 국회의 입법재량의 범위를 일탈한 명백히 부당한 위헌법률에 해당된다. The Professional Legal System established since the Liberation, many different professionals were permitted to perform same job. Based on that system, citizens were able to select a professional. However, there was a potential for conflicts among professionals due to overlapping duties. The increased number of successful applicants intensified the competition for survival. Legal Similarities demand the qualification for right of proxy. The Patent Attorney Act item 8 states that “A patent attorney may become a litigation representative in connection with matters pertaining to patents, utility models, designs or trademarks.” Patent attorneys request expansion of the existing range of the right of proxy to patent infringement litigation. Tax accountants wish to have the right of proxy for taxation, likewise judicial scriveners for small amount claims, public labor attorneys for labor cases. These people assert they can be a litigation representative because of their own specialty in their fields. But giving legal similarities a permission to be a litigation representative infringes the Attorney-at-Law Act. Revising the certified patent act and the certified tax accountant act in order to permit a patent attorney and a tax accountant to be a litigation representative is against the legislation discretion of the Congress. Besides the patent attorney, the service of a tax accountant and a public labor attorney is limited up to administrative appeals step. In case of an administrative appeals, as the Administrative Appeals Commissions plays the major role, there will not be any disadvantage to the interested party even though a tax accountant becomes the agent. But in the Civil Procedure, the interested party has to make own pleading. Therefore, the Civil Procedure Act states for the qualification to become litigation representative that “except for representatives entitled to conduct the judiciary acts pursuant to Acts, no person may become an attorney, other than attorneys-at-law.” To give a patent attorney and/or a tax accountant the qualification to become litigation representative is to give them the qualification to become an attorney-at-law. They can perform services just like an attorney-at-law for the civil procedure cases and administrative litigation case even with a limited range of the right of proxy. It is required to graduate from a professional law school in order to become an attorney-at-law. In addition, the applicant should pass the national bar examination. To become an attorney-at-law has to go through such an ordeal. And yet it is not fair to allow a patent attorney, a tax accountant, a public labor attorney, and a judicial scrivener to perform services as an attorney-at-law in their specialties simply by passing their own examinations. It is like asking for a preferential treatment. In order to obtain the qualification to become a litigation representative as a legal similarity, the national bar examination should be added to their own examinations. Only after that, they can be considered as a rightful litigation representative.

변호사시험법상 응시기간 및 응시횟수의 제한에 관한 연구

정형근(Jung, Hyung-Keun) 경희대학교 경희법학연구소 2019 경희법학 Vol.54 No.2

변호사시험법은 법학전문대학원을 졸업하여 석사학위를 취득하였거나 취득할 예정인 자는 5년 이내에만 변호사시험에 응시할 수 있도록 한다. 졸업 후 5년이 지나면 단 한 번도 시험에 응시하지 않았더라도 응시자격이 박탈된다. 변호사 자격을 취득하여 그 직업에 종사할 수 있는 기회를 졸업 후 5년 이내에만 허용하고 있다. 어려운 법학전문대학원 입학을 거쳐 3년간의 교육과정을 수료하는 동안 들인 많은 학비와 시간을 고려할 때, 변호사 직업을 선택할 시기를 지나치게 제한하고 있다. 변호사는 규범적으로 상인에 해당되지 않지만, 개업 후에는 사업자등록을 하고 스스로 벌어서 살아가는 직업으로 정년도 없다. 이런 점에서 졸업 후 5년 이내에만 변호사의 직업을 선택할 기회를 부여하는 것은 직업의 자유를 침해하여 위헌이라 할 수 있다. 변호사의 자격취득 시기를 그렇게 엄격하게 제한해야 할 공익 적인 이유도 존재하지 않는다. 장기간 수험생이 발생하는 것을 방지하기 위한 목적이라도 하지만, 실제로 졸업자가 과거 사법시험 때처럼 장기간 시험공부만 한다는 현상은 발생하고 있다고 할 수 없다. 또한 응시기간을 졸업 후 5년 이내로만 제한하는 것은 변호사 자격 취득에 마치 연령제한을 한 것과 같다. 졸업당시의 나이에서 5년 이내에만 변호사가 될 수있도록 하고 있다는 점에서 그렇다. 그리고 변호사법과 변호사시험법에는 변호사 결격사유와 응시 결격사유를 규정하고 있다. 결격기간이 지난 자는 변호사시험에 응시할 수 있어야 하고, 변호사가 될 수 있어야 한다. 국가공무원법도 결격사유기간이 지나면 공무원이 될 수있도록 한다. 그런데 결격사유기간과 응시기간의 제한기간이 겹쳐 5년이 지났다는 이유로 응시할 수 없도록 하는 것은 결격사유자의 직업의 자유를 침해한 것이라 할 수 있다. 또한 의사나 치과의사 등도 엄격한 학력제한을 받는데, 이들에게는 응시기간이나 응시횟수의 제약도 없다. 경력법관 시험도 마찬가지다. 그럼에도 유일하게 변호사시험 응시자에게만 이런 제한을 하는 것은 합리적인 이유 없는 차별이라고 할 것이라서 변호사시험 응시자의 평등 권을 침해한 것이라고 할 수 있다.그리고 변호사시법은 응시횟수를 5회로 제한하고 있다. 사법시험에서는 4회 응시 후 4년간 응시제한을 하였지만, 위헌문제가 있다고 하여 폐지하였다. 변호사시험에서 응시횟수를 제한하는 것은 변호사시험의 합격률을 80% 상당으로 예상하였기 때문이다. 이런 합격률이 라면 사실상 응시횟수의 제한은 큰 의미가 없게 된다. 그러나 현재 변호사시험은 처음 예상 했던 것과 다른 제도로 운용되고 있다. 무엇보다 응시횟수의 제한은 자기의 장래를 계획하여 행동할 수 있는 자기운명 결정권을 침해하고 있다는 점에서 문제된다. 응시기회를 제한 하는 제도의 취지는 살리지 못하면서 규제만 남아 있기에 신속하게 제도를 개선해야 한다. 변호사시험의 응시기간의 유일한 예외사유는 병역의무 이행기간이다. 병역의무는 남성에 게만 부과되기에 여성에게는 임신, 출산사유도 예외사유로 해야 한다는 주장이 있고, 실제로 국회에서는 이를 위한 입법논의가 이뤄지고 있다. 뿐만 아니라 과거 사법시험에서 인정 되었던 천재 지변과 같은 블가항력이나 불의의 사고나 질병 등도 예외사유를 인정해야 할필요가 크다. 이런 다양한 예외사유를 전부 입법화하는 것은 쉽지 않다. 따라서 변호사시험은 응시자가 언제부터 시험에 응시할 것인지를 결정할 수 있는 응시시기 선택권이 주어져야 하고, 몇 회를 응시할 것인지도 자신의 장래를 걸고 스스로의 결정할수 있도록 해야 한다. 그 점에서 이런 취지에 반하는 응시기회제한 조항인 변호사시험법 제 7조는 폐지함이 바람직하다. 설령 이를 존속시키더라도 응시기간 5년 이내 부분이라도 신속하게 삭제해야 한다. 그리고 응시기회를 박탈당한 자에게는 법학전문대학원의 연구생으로 1년간 교육을 받도록 한 후 다시 응시기회를 부여하는 교육적인 배려도 필요하다. 미래를 향하여 달려가는 청년이 몇 번의 실패를 했다는 이유로 교육효과가 소멸된 자로 낙인찍어 배척할 것이 아니라, 더욱 격려해 주고 기회를 주고 기다려 주는 것이 각인의 능력을 최고도로 발휘하게 하는 헌법정신에 부합되는 것이다. The purpose of Bar Examination is to test professional ethics and legal knowledge required as a legal professional in order to practice law. A person who intends to apply for the Examination shall have earned a jurist Master s degree from a professional law school under Article 18 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools. However, a person may apply for the Bar Examination prior to conferment of a jurist Master s degree from a professional law school, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The educational ideology of professional law schools is to train legal professionals who have sound professional ethics based on rich education, a deep understanding of people and society, and morals valuing freedom, equality and justice, and who have knowledge and abilities that will allow professional and efficient resolution of diverse legal disputes in order to provide quality legal service responding to the people s diverse expectations and requests.). The National Bar Examination (hereinafter referred to as Examination ) shall be administered in close connection with the curricula of professional law schools (hereinafter referred to as “professional law schools”) under the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools. Present National Bar Examination limits the period and number of applications for those who graduated from professional law schools. A person may apply for the Exam (excluding the Legal Ethics Examination under Article 8 (1)) five times only during the five years from the last day of the month in which the person earns a jurist Master s degree from a professional law school under Article 18 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools: Provided, That a person who applies pursuant to Article 5 (2) as he/she is expected to earn a jurist Master s degree may apply up to five times within five years from the date of the Examination held before he/she earns such degree.). First of all, professional law school graduates are allowed to apply for the Bar Examination within 5 years since graduation. The applicant shall pass the Bar Examination within 5 years in order to be a legal professional. After 5 years, even the right to apply is deprived. This violates the freedom of occupation for professional law school graduates. It should be up to the applicants wether they apply 5 times or 6 times. They shall have the right to make decision for their lives. Where a person has completed mandatory military service under the Military Service Act or the Military Personnel Management Act, after the person earns a jurist Master s degree from a professional law school under Article 18 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools, the period of military service shall not be included in the period of application for the Exam under subparagraph (1). The period of military service is not included in this 5 year period of application. In this case, pregnancy, childbirth, unexpected accidents, or disease shall be included as exceptional case.

변호사의 자격등록과 등록거부 제도에 관한 고찰 - 서울고등법원 2016. 10. 29. 선고 2016나2013008 판결 -

鄭亨根 ( Jung Hyung Keun ) 법조협회 2018 최신판례분석 Vol.67 No.6

Any attorney-at-law who intends to establish a legal practice shall register his/her name with the Korean Bar Association. The Attorney-at-law Act requires the registration of qualification and report of practices at the same time. As a result, an attorney-at-law who has practiced law as an attorney-at-law without registering himself with the Korean Bar Association shall be punished by Criminal Act. But an attorney-at-law shall not be allowed to practice law only after the registration of qualification without the report of practices. Even if an attorney-at-law filed an application for registration, the registration can be denied with certain reasons. The Korean Bar Association may deny his/her registration going through resolution by the Registration Review Committee if the applicant falls into the denial of registration category. The plaintiff raised an objection to the Minister of Justice after his registration was denied by the Korean Bar Association. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed his formal objection. Any person whose registration is denied may raise an objection, clarifying the reason why the denial of registration is unjust, to the Minister of Justice within three months from the date on which a notice referred. So the plaintiff denied his guilt based on the Administrative Appeals Act and Administrative Litigation Act, yet his request of the Lawsuit for Confirmation of a member of the local bar association through a civil suit was denied. A person's registration can be denied when he/she deemed clearly inappropriate to conduct the duties of an attorney-at-law due to the fact that he/she has been subject to criminal prosecution (excluding cases of being prosecuted for a negligent crime) or disciplinary action (excluding removal, dismissal, or discharge from office) due to unlawful conduct while working as a public official or has retired from office related to an unlawful conduct. In the case of the plaintiff, his registration was denied because of the fact that he has been subject to criminal prosecution due to his unlawful conduct while working as a public official. Since then, the updated Attorney-at-Law Act includes a new provision stating In such cases, when the registration is denied on the ground that the person falls under subparagraph 4, the Korean Bar Association shall determine a registration prohibition period of at least one year and up to two years after going through resolution by the Registration Review Committee pursuant to Article 9. The adjudication concluded that the plaintiff is inappropriate to conduct the duties of an attorney-at-law due to the fact that he has been subject to criminal prosecution while working as a public official. The decision made by adjudication seems to be fair considering the reason for denial of registration based on the Attorney-at-Law Act.

변호사 징계제도에 관한 비판적 고찰

정형근 ( Hyung Keun Jung ) 한국법정책학회 2010 법과 정책연구 Vol.10 No.3

Attorneys are the main agents of the fundamental rights who plead for the suspects or defendant against government authorities such as the public prosecutors and the police. Attorney disciplinary is an institutional strategy to foresee the spirit that was provided by the act that established the attorney system. The disciplinary is an institutional strategy to defense social blames against attorneys, to protect innocent and faithful attorneys, to maintain the occupation as an attorney for a long period. Although, the minority attorneys did actions that could be throw themselves to the disciplinary, the strict disciplinary systems are requested due to honor and confidence of judicial order collapse. When the attorneys are in the charges on the proceedings, they have aspects to make critical arguments against the government authorities inevitably and in the tension with the government powers. In this reason, the authorities are able to restrict or obstruct attorneys` performing duties. According to the history of the attorney system, it tells us that the government authorities are tend to monopolize the attorneys` supervising duties and the disciplinary. The types of the disciplinary actions are ① Permanent disbarment, ② Disbarment, ③ Suspension from practicing for not longer than three years, ④ Fine for negligence not exceeding 30 million won, ⑤ Censure (Article 90, Attorney-at-law Act). The reasons for the disciplinary action are ① the actions that is applicable to permanent disbarment, ② the other reasons that is applicable to the rest of the disciplinary types. When any attorneys falls under disciplinary action, the President of the KBA(Korean Bar Association)shall request the Attorney Disciplinary Committee to commence a disciplinary action. The disciplinary action can be commenced by application by chief public prosecutor of a district public prosecutors` office, the president of local bar association and the commissioner of LEPPC.

변호사법상 법무법인등에 취업한 퇴직공직자에 관한 고찰

정형근(Jung Hyung-Keun) 경희법학연구소 2020 경희법학 Vol.55 No.2

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 shall perform the work in each of the following subparagraphs: 1. Consulting about statutes and regulations, the legal system and policies for the establishment of legal ethics; 2. Analysis of the state of legal ethics and measures against violations of legal ethics; 3. Applications for the commencement of disciplinary action against those who violate statutes and regulations pertaining to legal ethics or request for investigations of such persons; 4. Other work, such as consulting about matters necessary to establish legal ethics. When a person liable for registration of property referred to in Article 3 of the Public Service Ethics Act, or a retired public official, as non-attorney-at-law, who has served in a position of a specific grade prescribed by Presidential Decree or higher one (referred to as “retired public official” in this Article) is employed by a law firm, limited liability law firm or law firm partnership; or joint venture law firm as defined in subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Foreign Legal Consultant Act (hereafter referred to as “law firm, etc.” in this Article), such law firm, etc. shall submit a list of names of retired public officials whom it employs, to the local bar association having jurisdiction over its principal office without delay, and prepare and submit a statement of business of retired public officials of the preceding year in which the details of business activities, etc. are included, to the local bar association having jurisdiction over its principal office by the last day of January of each year. Employment referred to ‘retired public officials entire activities to receive wages, salaries and others in any name, such as money and articles or economic benefits in return for the provision of labor or service. Every local bar association shall submit data it receives pursuant to paragraph (1), to the Ethics Council. The chairperson of the Ethics Council may, when he or she finds as a result of examining data submitted pursuant to paragraph (4) that the relevant persons are suspected of having grounds for disciplinary action or committing any illegal act, file an application for the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against such persons with the President of the Korean Bar Association or request the investigation of such persons to the chief prosecutor of a district prosecutors office. Statements of duties referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the details of business activities of retired public officials, such as cases and affairs in which they are involved and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree. The following shall be entered into a name list submitted pursuant to Article 89-6 (1) of the Act: 1. Name of a retired public official; 2. Resident registration number of a retired public official; 3. Name of the institution for which a retired public official worked and his/her Grade at the time of retirement; 4. Date of employment when a retired public official worked at a law firm, etc.; 5. An attorney-at-law who is responsible for submission of the name list.

대학 글쓰기의 현황과 제도 학교 글쓰기 교육의 몇 가지 문제점과 개선 방안

정형근 ( Hyung Geun Jung ) 시학과 언어학회 2009 시학과 언어학 Vol.16 No.-

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.

집중효가 발생하는 건축신고에 관한 법률적 검토

정형근 ( Jung Hyung-keun ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2010 외법논집 Vol.34 No.1

According to construction law, construction of a building that requires construction report may be done as long as report is filed with administrative office and does not require acceptance of the administrative office. And here, this one single report of construction, once it is filed, produces an effect of passing numerous administrative treatments just like construction approval and such effect is called concentrated effect. However, exemption of a series of approval requirement screening for one single report of construction may be deemed an interpretation that offers excessive advantage to construction right holder. There is no stipulation whether the concentrated effect by construction report take place the moment the construction report arrives at or is accepted by the administrative office. In case of construction report that produces concentrated effect, the administrative office in charge may well regard the construction report accepted only after permission or approval is determined through practical screening for the intended permission or approval. Hence, in case of construction report that requires concentrated effect, the construction report shall be regarded as required of acceptance by administrative office. Therefore, any construction report that requires acceptance by administrative office shall be a case liable to appellant lawsuit. Nevertheless, not all the reports that produce concentrated effect may be regarded as cases that require acceptance by administrative office, but each report shall be determined in consideration of the legal nature.