본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

독점규제법상 형사제재 조항과 전속고발제 존폐 문제에 대한 고찰

The Need to Reform Criminal Sanctions and its Related Issues in Korean Competition Law

주진열
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2018.11|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제38권 |pp. 310-341|DOI 10.35770/jkcl.2018.38..310

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

비범죄화형벌전속고발카르텔cartel행정제재decriminalizationleniencyKorean competition law리니언시주제어독점규제법administrative sanctions criminal sanctions

초록

Compared to other countries’ competition laws, Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRA”) has a very unique characteristic: the same conduct may results in not only administrative sanctions but also criminal sanctions; and only Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) has the exclusive power to refer anticompetitive behaviors for criminal prosecution. As a result, Public Prosecutors has no independent power to investigate and accuse of anticompetitive conducts. For this reason, some politicians have argued: FTC’s exclusive power must be repealed because it seriously undermines criminal enforcement of MRA. However, it should be noted that a breach of MRA can be properly dealt with administrative and civil sanctions. Moreover, except hardcore cartels case, substantive clauses of MRA are too vague to impose criminal sanctions. This article addressed some complex problems regrading decriminalization of MRA; and some issues of criminal leniency when Public Prosecutors has independent power to investigate and accuse of hardcore cartels.

Abstract

Compared to other countries’ competition laws, Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRA”) has a very unique characteristic: the same conduct may results in not only administrative sanctions but also criminal sanctions; and only Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) has the exclusive power to refer anticompetitive behaviors for criminal prosecution. As a result, Public Prosecutors has no independent power to investigate and accuse of anticompetitive conducts. For this reason, some politicians have argued: FTC’s exclusive power must be repealed because it seriously undermines criminal enforcement of MRA. However, it should be noted that a breach of MRA can be properly dealt with administrative and civil sanctions. Moreover, except hardcore cartels case, substantive clauses of MRA are too vague to impose criminal sanctions. This article addressed some complex problems regrading decriminalization of MRA; and some issues of criminal leniency when Public Prosecutors has independent power to investigate and accuse of hardcore cartels.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. 강명수, "공정거래위원회의 전속고발권", 형사법의 신동향, (41), pp.223~256 (2013), 대검찰청[DOI]
  2. 공정거래위원회, "독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 전부개정 법률안", ~ (2018)
  3. "공정거래법, 38년 만에 전면 개편" (2018), 공정거래위원회[URL]
  4. 김두진, "공정거래법 집행의 이원화를 통한 효율성 강화 방안", 법조, 57(11), pp.122~153 (2008), 법조협회[DOI]
  5. 김윤정, "공정거래법상 전속고발제도에 대한 비판적 검토와 개선방안", 경제법연구, 12(1), pp.301~332 (2013), 한국경제법학회[DOI]
  6. 박광민, "공정거래법상 전속고발권의 존폐론 검토", 비교형사법연구, 15(2), pp.483~506 (2013), 한국비교형사법학회[DOI]
  7. 박찬걸, "공정거래법상 전속고발과 관련된 법리의 검토", 서울법학, 20(1), pp.371~410 (2012), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소[DOI]
  8. 박영동, "전속고발제도에 대한 소고 -공정거래위원회가 고발하지 않은 자에 대한 기소 문제를 중심으로-", 경쟁법연구, 21, pp.163~184 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
  9. 선종수, "공정거래위원회의 전속고발권과 검사의 공소제기", 형사법의 신동향, (36), pp.222~247 (2012), 대검찰청[DOI]
  10. 손수진, "공정거래법상 전속고발제도에 관한 연구", 법과정책연구, 11(1), pp.115~132 (2011), 한국법정책학회[DOI]
  11. 이건묵, "불공정행위의 현황과 대책-전속고발권을 중심으로", 형사정책, 22(2), pp.9~46 (2010), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
  12. 이상현, "공정거래법상 전속고발권에 대한 ‘고소불가분 원칙’의 적용가능성", 법조, 59(11), pp.223~265 (2010), 법조협회[DOI]
  13. 이석환, "공정거래법상의 전속고발제도와 고발요청권 관련 쟁점", 법조, 63(7), pp.47~96 (2014), 법조협회[DOI]
  14. 이성대, "공정거래법 위반행위에 대한 이원적 집행방안의 연구", 법학연구, 24(4), pp.228~248 (2016), 법학연구소
  15. 정완, "공정거래위원회의 전속고발제도에 관한 고찰", 외법논집, (30), pp.289~314 (2008), 법학연구소[DOI]
  16. 조성국, "공정거래법상 전속고발제도에 관한 연구 - 법집행 적정성의 관점에서 -", 경쟁법연구, 35, pp.278~301 (2017), 한국경쟁법학회
  17. 주진열, "카르텔 억지 및 피해자의 효과적 구제를 위한 독점규제법의 사적 집행 방안", 행정법연구, (34), pp.371~395 (2012), 행정법이론실무학회
  18. 최정학, "공정거래위원회의 전속고발권 존폐론의 검토", 형사법연구, 23(3), pp.311~336 (2011), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
  19. 金井貴嗣, "独占禁止法" (2006), 弘文堂
  20. 谷原修身, "独占禁止法要論" (2009), 中央経済社
  21. 獨占禁止法硏究會, "不公正な取引方法に関する基本{的な考え方(1)", 公正取引, (382) (1982)
  22. American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, "Criminal Antitrust Litigation Handbook", ~ (2006)
  23. Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, "ACCC immunity and cooperation policy for cartel conduct", ~ (2014)
  24. Beaton-Wells, Caron, "The Politics of Cartel Criminalisation: A Pessimistic View from Australia", European Competition Law Review (E.C.L.R), 29(3) (2008)
  25. Beaton-Wells, Caron, "Justifying Criminal Sanctions for Cartel Conduct: A Hard Case", Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 1(1), pp.198~ (2013)
  26. Beaton-Wells, Caron, "Australian Cartel Regulation" (2011), Cambridge University Press
  27. Bogart, John H., "Concurrent Antitrust Criminal and Civil Proceedings: Identifying Problems and Planning for Success" (2013), First Chair Press
  28. Crane, Daniel A., "Antitrust" (2014), Wolters Kluwer
  29. Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth Glenn, "Criminal Penalties Under the Sherman Act : A Study of Law and Economics", Research in Law and Economics, 16 (1994)
  30. Fisse, Brent, "The Australian Cartel Criminalisation Proposals: An Overview and Critique", Competition Law Review, 4(1), pp.51~ (2007)
  31. "Immunity and Leniency Programs under the Competition Act"[URL]
  32. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Principles of Antitrust" (2017), West Academic Publishing
  33. Hofstadter, Richard, "The Political Economy of the Sherman Act: The First One Hundred Years" (1991), Oxford University Press
  34. "Deterring Cartels: Is criminalisation the solution? Lessons from the UK"[URL]
  35. Kobayashi, Bruce H., "Antitrust, Agency and Amnesty: An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws Against Corporations", George Washington Law Review, 69(5-6) (2001)
  36. Lande, Robert H., "Benefits from Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases", University of San Francisco Law Review, 42, pp.879~ (2008)
  37. Lande Robert H., "Comparative Deterrence from Private Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws", Brigham Young University Law Review (2011)
  38. Stephan, Andreas, "Criminalising Cartels: Critical Studies of An International Regulatory Movement" (2011), Hart Oxford
  39. United States Department of Justice, "Frequently Asked Question about the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters", ~ (2017)
  40. Wagner-von Papp, "Individual Sanctions for Competition Law Infringements: Pros, Cons and Challenges", Concurrences Review, (78515), pp.14~44 (2016)
  41. Whelan, Peter, "A Principled Argument for Personal Criminal Sanctions as Punishment Under EC Cartel Law", Competition Law Review, 4(1), pp.7~ (2007)
  42. Wils, Wouter P. J., "Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?", World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 28(2) (2005)

관련 논문AI추천

공정거래법상 전속고발제도에 관한 연구 - 법집행 적정성의 관점에서 -조성국한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2017 · 제35권 경쟁법상 부당한 공동행위의 형사처벌에 따르는 법리적 쟁점조혜신한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2019 · 제39권 카르텔 규제의 형사적 집행 효과에 관한 의문들: 공정거래법 전면개편안의 전속 고발권 폐지 관련 내용을 중심으로이상윤고려대학교 법학연구원 · 고려법학2019 · 제95호공정거래위원회의 전속고발권 존폐론의 검토최정학한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2011 · 제23권 제3호공정거래위원회의 전속고발제도에 관한 고찰정완법학연구소 · 외법논집2008 · 제30호공정거래법 소정 전속고발제의 해석학적쟁점 연구홍탁균한국사법학회 · 비교사법2018 · 제25권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

공정거래법상 대기업집단 규제 개편의 배경과 의미, 그리고 남겨진 과제신영수pp. 3-33빅데이터 산업의 개인정보침해 행위에 대한 경쟁법의 적용가능성오승한pp. 34-82AI 등을 활용한 사업자간 담합과 경쟁법의 대응최난설헌pp. 83-109경쟁과 경쟁의 실질적 제한의 의의한도율pp. 113-147EU 차원의 불공정거래행위 규제방안에 대한 연구박세환pp. 148-199
원문 보기