공정거래법상의 전속고발제도와 고발요청권 관련 쟁점
A study on an issue concerned with the prior accusationsystem and the right to request foraccusation in the Fair Trade Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
19
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
1981년 공정거래위원회의 전속고발제도 도입 이후 고발권의 소극적 행사로 인하여 존폐논란이 지속되어 왔고 검찰에서는 이에 대한 대응으로 공정거래법 위반사건에 대하여 관련 형사범죄로 혹은 고발불가분의 원칙을 적용하여 기소하는 등의 노력을 해왔다. 1996년에는 헌법재판소의 결정 취지에 따라 공정거래법에 전속고발권의 내재적 한계를 내용으로 하는 규정과 검찰총장의 고발요청권을 신설하는 규정이 추가되었고, 그 뒤에도 전속고발권 행사의 적정성에 관한 논란이 계속되다 2013년 다시 공정거래법을 개정하면서 감사원장 등 3개 기관에 고발요청권을 새로 부여하고, 고발요청권자의 고발요청에 대하여 공정거래위원장이 고발의무를 부담하게 함으로써 전속고발제도가 사실상 폐지에 이르게 되었다. 위 개정 시 공정거래위원회가 자진신고자 등에 대한 형사고발을 면제할 수 있는 규정도 추가되어 그 범위의 해석에 관하여 이론의 소지가 생겼으나, 전속고발제도는 헌법상 피해자의 평등권 등을 침해하지 않는 범위 내에서 운영되어야한다는 내재적 한계가 자진신고자 고발여부에 관하여 적용되야 할 것이고, 위 내재적 한계를 근거로 한 검찰총장의 고발요청에도 공정거래위원장이 응해야 할 것으로 해석된다. 아울러, 개정된 공정거래법의 적정한 집행과 국민의 권익보호를 위해서는 검찰 및 공정거래위원회간 고발기준 정립 등의 상호협력이 더욱 필요해 졌고, 행위자 개인에 대한 처벌문제에 대한 방향 정립도 새롭게 이루어져야 할 것이며, 검찰은 전담부서 신설과 전문성 확보가 시급하게 되었다고 할 것이다.
Abstract
Since the adoption of the prior accusation system by the Fair Trade Committee in 1981, the controversy over its abolition triggered by the defensive execution of the exclusive complaint right has been around for many years. In response, in violation cases of the Fair Trade Act, the Prosecution has made efforts to prosecute parties concerned for breaching criminal law or by applying the principle of indivisibility of the accusation and complaint. In 1996, according to the Constitutional Court's ruling, the regulation that there is an internal limit to the exclusive complaint right and that the Public Prosecutor General has the right to request for accusation were added to the Fair Trade Act. Since then, the debate over the adequacy of the execution of the exclusive complaint right has continued, and in 2013 when the Fair Trade Act was revised once again, the prior accusation system actually ended up being repealed by granting the right to request for accusation to the three agencies including the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection and imposing the obligation to accuse at the request for accusation by the holder of the right to the request for accusation on the Chairman of the Fair Trade Committee. When the new regulation that the Fair Trade Committee can exempt leniency applicants from accusation was added in the 2013 revised Fair Trade Act, there was a possibility that its coverage could be interpreted variously by different persons. Nevertheless, I insist that the internal limit (that is to say, the prior accusation system should be enforced to the extent to which the victims' rights stated in the Constitution like the right of equality are not infringed) should be applied in this case, and that the Chairman of the Fair Trade Committee should meet the request for accusation grounded on the internal limit. At the same time, the need for cooperation between the Prosecution and the Fair Trade Committee is required more than ever to enforce the revised Fair Trade Act appropriately and safeguard the rights of the people. Furthermore, the direction in which personal agents themselves are punished should be discussed from now on, and it is urgent for the prosecution to open a new division devoted to it and ensure its expertise.
참고문헌 (26)
- 강우예, "국제조약의 국내이행 형사특별법" (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
- 강우예, "대량살상무기 확산방지를 위한 유엔의 금융제재" (2013), 한국법제연구원
- 법무부, "범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률해설", ~ (2002)
- 이무선, "범죄수익 몰수에 대한 형사법적 검토", 경희법학, 49(1), pp.233~264 (2014), 법학연구소
- 이재상, "형법상 약물범죄의 불법수익몰수규정과 돈세탁행위의 처벌규정의 법적 문제점", 인권과 정의, (269) (1999)
- Blumenson, Eric, "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda", U. Chi. L. Rev, 65, pp.35~ (1998)
- Brabec, Greg, "The Fight for Transparency: International Pressure to Make Swiss Banking Procedures Less Restrictive", Temp. Int'l &Comp. L.J, 21, pp.231~ (2007)
- Carisch, Enrico, "Global Threats and the Role of United Nations Sanctions", ~ (2011)
- Cassella, Stefan D, "Forfeiture of Terrorist Assets Under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001", Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus, 34, pp.7~ (2002)
- Chi, Karis Ann-Yu, "Comment, Follow the Money: Getting to the Root of the Problem with Civil Asset Forfeiture in California", Calif. L. Rev, 90, pp.1635~ (2002)
- Cohen, David A, "Exactly How Much Process Is Due? The Federal Courts Grapple With the Shifting Burden of Proof in Civil In Rem Forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)", KY. L.J, 86, pp.711~ (1997)
- Gonzalez, Henry B, "New and Continuing Challenges in the Fight against Money Laundering", Fordham Int'l L.J, 20, pp.1543~ (1997)
- Jeffries, Jr, "Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law", Yale L.J, 88, pp.1325~ (1979)
- Kittrie, Orde F, "New Sanctions for a New Century: Treasury's Innovative Use of Financial Sanctions", U. Pa. J. Int'l L, 30, pp.789~793 (2009)
- Levi, Michael, "Money Laundering", Crime & Just, 34, pp.289~ (2006)
- Lopez, George A, "The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s", ~ (2000)
- Najera, Carolyn Michelle, "Combating Offshore Tax Evasion: Why the United States Should Be Able to Prevent American Tax Evaders from Using Swiss Bank Accounts to Hide Their Assets", Sw. J. Int'l L, 17, pp.205~ (2011)
- Naylor, R.T, "Satanic Purses: Money, Myth, and Misinformation in the War on Terror", ~ (2008)
- Passas, Nikos, "Terrorism Financing and State Responses: A Comparative Perspective" (2007)
- Pimentel, David, "Forfeitures Revisited: Bringing Principle in Federal Court", Nev. L.J, 13, pp.1~22 (2012)
- Reuter. Peter, "Chasing Dirty Money" (2004)
- U.S. Dep't of State, "United States-Mexico Security Partnership: Progress and Impact", ~ (2010)
- United Nations, "The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances", ~
- United Nations, "United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto", ~
- Report, Combating Proliferation Financing: A Status Report on Policy Development and Consultation, "FATF", ~ (2010)
- FATF, "Guidance Paper, The Implementation of Financial Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions to Couter the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction", ~ (2007)