일반경비지도사와 일본 경비원지도교육책임자 비교를 통한 정책적 시사점

Abstract

In Korea, security instructor system that entails instructing, supervising and training security officers was established in 1995 to pursue after the increase capability of the security officers in Korea. This system’s implementation started in 1996. Security Instructor needs to play the role of a leader and require set of capabilities required of a leader to ensure provision of appropriate security service. However, Security Instructor system is characterized by a number of shortcomings from various aspects, and the reality is that these problems are pointed out continually by the academic communities, industry and the field of the private security industry. Accordingly, this research drew implication from the fact that Japan’s Private Security industry and Japan’s 「Private Security Industry Act」 were used significantly during the process of starting and advancing the Private Security industry in Korea. Likewise, this research conducted a comparative study of the Regular Security Instructors in Korea and Security Instructor in Japan who are currently in charge of guiding, supervising and training security offices in Korea and Japan, respectively in order to compare the Japanese system with the Korean Security Instructor system as well as draw out policy level implications, undertones, and direction for advancement. In Korea, Regular Security Instructor is someone who guides, supervises and trains the security officers who are engaged in facility security guarding, escort security, protection of a person and special facility security guarding. Security Instructor in Japan is someone who drafts the plan for the guiding and training of the security officers and who guides and trains security officers based on the plan drafted. This research classified these two, and compared the regulations pertaining to their roles, work description, appointment and placement, and matters concerning acquisition of qualifications (acquisition method, reasons for ineligibility, granting of the qualifications, and cancellation of the qualifications), training and lecturing. Moreover, policy level implications were discussed. Going forth, regulation pertaining to the Security Instructor system has to be carried out to “strengthen” not to ‘alleviate.’ In the longer run, it is necessary to expand security exhibition, and link event with Security Instructor, advance the security related departments at the universities, and ensure cooperation and linked advancement of the Korea Security Association and Korea Security Instructor Association.