“5th Anti- Corruption Compliance Asia Pacific Summit 2017”

국외공무 출장결과 보고서

2017. 12.

Ⅰ. 출장 개요

□ 출장 개요	1

□ 출장 수행 일정	1

Ⅱ. 회의 개요

□ 회의 개요	2

□ 발표 내용	3

□ 주요 회의 내용	5

Ⅲ. 성과와 시사점

□ 성과	7

□ 시사점	8

【참고자료】

별첨1. 부정청탁금지법 주제 발표자료	9

별첨2. 패널토론 발표자료	36

목   차

Ⅰ		출장개요

□ 출장 개요

○ 출장목적 : 제5회 반부패 준법 아태지역 회담 참석

○ 출장국 및 기간(2박3일) : 홍콩, ’17. 12. 6.(수)~8(금)

○ 출장자 : 보호보상과 안문주 서기관, 청탁금지해석과 이범석 사무관

○ 주요 활동

- 부정청탁금지법 주요 내용과 사례, 법 시행 1년 이후의 변화 등에 대한 설명 및 질의 응답

- 아시아-태평양지역의 반부패 집행환경과 조사 최근 동향과 관련 패널토론 참여

※ 한국의 부패신고, 공익신고, 부정청탁금지법 등 반부패제도에 대해 소개

□ 출장수행 일정

일자	출발지	출장국	업무수행내용	비 고
12.6(화)	인천	홍콩	출 국	12:35 인천 출발 14:50 홍콩 도착
12.7(수)		홍콩	･발표(이범석 사무관) - 부정청탁금지법 주요내용, 사례 및 법 시행 후 변화 등에 대한 설명 및 질의응답 ･패널토론(안문주 서기관) - 아태지역 반부패 집행환경 등 패널토론 참여 ･기타 주제발표 경청	전체일정(09:00∼17:30)
12.8(금)	홍콩	인천	귀 국	13:10 홍콩 출발 18:05 인천 도착

Ⅱ		회의개요

□ 회의개요

○ 회의명 : 제5회 반부패 준법 아태지역 회담

(5th Anti- Corruption Compliance Asia Pacific Summit 2017)

※ 회의성격

아시아-태평양 지역의 최대 반부패 및 준법관련 컨퍼런스

매년 개최되는 연례 회의로 한국에서는 국민권익위원회에서 매년 발표자로 참가

아시아-태평양 지역의 반부패 기관, 민간기관들의 다양한 사례와 실천적인 내용 발표

○ 회의 기간 : ’17. 12. 7.(목)

○ 회의 장소 : 홍콩, CORDIS Hotel

○ 회의 주관 : 제5차 반부패 준법 아태지역 회담 조직위원회

※ (주관) 중국계 민간컨설팅 회사인 Duxes Business Consulting Inc

○ 회의 후원 : 국제 준법 감시인 연합(International Compliance Association),

인터-퍼시픽 변호사 협회(Interpacific Bar Association)

○ 참석자 : 미국 법무부(U.S. Department of Justice), 호주 연방 경찰청(Fraud & Anti-Corruption Center, Australian Federal Police), 한국 국민권익위원회, 말레이시아 부패방지 위원회(Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission),  월드뱅크(INT, World Bank Group), 다국적기업 관계자 등 약 150여명

※ 아태지역 民·官·언론 등 참여

□ 발표 내용

○ (발표) 국민권익위원회 청탁금지해석과 이범석 사무관

< 주제 : 부정청탁금지법 : 주요내용 및 시행 후 성과와 변화 >

ㅇ 주요 내용

- 부정청탁금지법 추진 배경과 의의

- 부정청탁금지법 주요 내용 및 사례

- 부정청탁금지법 시행 1년 후의 성과와 변화

- 향후 개선방향

ㅇ 질의 응답

- (질의) 외국에서도 부정청탁금지법이 적용되는지?

(답변) 부정청탁금지법의 적용대상인 공직자등에 해당되는 이상, 외국에서도 법의 적용대상임

- (질의) 민간부문에 대한 부정청탁 금지규정 신설, 이해충돌방지법 제정 등은 언제 시행될 것인지?

(답변) 입법적인 부분이기 때문에 사회적 논의와 합의 등을 거친 후에 가능할 것으로 보임

- (질의) 법인에 대한 양벌규정 면제가 가능한지?

(답변) 현행 부정청탁금지법은 소속 직원들의 위반행위를 방지하기 위하여 해당 업무에 관하여 상당한 주의와 감독을 하는 경우에는 면책될 수 있도록 규정. 종업원들에 대한 충분한 부정청탁금지법 교육 등도 하나의 예시가 될 수 있을 것임

※ [별첨 1] 부정청탁금지법 주제 발표자료 참조

○ (토론) Moderator: Vasu B. Muthyala

Panelists: Ng lee Meng, Moray Taylor Smith, Ricky Short, Vincentia Wong, 보호보상과 안문주 서기관

< 주제 : 아시아-태평양지역의 반부패 집행환경과 조사 최근 동향 >

ㅇ 주요 논의 내용

- 반부패사례 연구 및 정책 관리 최근 동향에 대해 토론

- 반부패사례 연구 및 정책 관리 최근 동향

※ 한국의 부패신고, 공익신고, 부정청탁금지법 등 반부패제도에 대해 소개

- (질의) 민간기업과 관련 ACRC가 추진하고 있는 정책은?

(답변) 민간기업에 신고가 접수되었을 때 민간기업이 신고사건을 처리하는 절차 및 신고자 보호에 대하여 교육을 강화하고 있음

- (질의) ACRC가 민간기업과 관련 최근에 조사 중인 사건에 대해 소개해주고, 신고자 보호를 위해 최근에 추진하고 있는 것은?

(답변) 조금 전 설명해 드린 사건 외에 조사 중인 사건에 대해서는 알려드리기 어렵고, 신고자 보호를 위해 필요적 책임감면제도 도입을 검토 중에 있음

※ [별첨 2] 패널토론 발표자료(한국의 반부패제도 소개자료) 참조

< 주제 발표 및 패널토론 사진 >

부정청탁금지법 주제 발표	패널 토론

□ 주요 회의 내용

○ (발표) 미국 법무부 (Jackie Lem, Trial Attorney, San Francisco Office U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division)

< 주제 : U.S. Antitrust Cartel Enforcement and Antitrust Compliance >

ㅇ 주요 내용

- 미국의 반독점법(The Sherman Act)은 경쟁자들간 거래제약 등에 대한 합의를 금지, 가격 조작(Price fixing), 시장분할(Market allocation) 등을 범죄로 기소

- 카르텔시 패널티 : 개인은 최대 10년의 징역 또는 100만 달러의 벌금, 법인은 최대 1억 달러의 벌금

- 반독점법에 대한 준수 프로그램이 없다면 다중적 제재와 높은 벌금, 부정적인 노출 등으로 해로운 결과를 초래하므로, 기업은 글로벌 준법 전략시 반독점에 대해서도 고려하여야 함

○ (발표) 호주 연방 경찰청 (Jennifer Evans, Fraud & Anti-Corruption Centre, Australian Federal Police)

< 주제 : 호주의 Fraud & Anti-Corruption Centre >

ㅇ 주요 내용

- 호주의 반부패 체계는 다층적이고 책임이 분산되어 있으며, 모든 공공기관은 부패에 대한 예방, 적발, 보고, 대응을 갖추어야 함

- FACC의 핵심목표는 법 집행 역량 강화, 조율된 대응방법 등의 제공 및 호주의 재정 보호 등임

- FACC는 개별 케이스별로 가장 효과적인 대응을 식별하고 중요 문제에 대해서는 대응방법의 우선순위를 조율하고 있음. 다만, 직접 조사하지는 않고 AFP 등 다른 기관들의 조사를 촉진한다고 함

○ (발표) 말레이시아 부패방지위원회 (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission)

< 주제 : Gerah, Anti-corruption revolution movement>

ㅇ 주요 내용

- MACC Act는 부패하게(corruptly) 청탁하거나 금품등을 받는 것, 공직자등이 회사나 지위를 자신의 만족을 위해 사사로이 사용하는 것 등을 규제

- 예를 들면, 교통단속을 무마하려 금품을 건네거나, 급여를 받기 위해 회사의 과업을 마친 것처럼 허위보고하는 경우도 제재됨

- 관련된 형법(Penal Code)에서도 금품수수 규제하며 유죄일 경우 2년 내의 징역 또는 벌금 등 가능함. (Don’t receive, Please buy if you want to have one)

- 오직 부패에만 위협이 되며, 일반 국민들에게는 반부패 메시지를 전파하며 친근하게 만나는 활동도 수행하고 있음

○ (발표) 방글라데시 부패방지위원회 (Anti-Corruption Commission)

< 주제 : Gerah, Anti-corruption revolution movement>

ㅇ 주요 내용

- 이론적으로 볼 때, 부패는 주인-대리인 이론에 따라 검토해 볼 수 있음. 공공부문의 부패는 공직자가 시민보다는 스스로의 이익을 추구하면서 발생함. 따라서 해결을 위해서는 시민에 대한 책임성(accountability)을 유지하도록 해야함

- 시민이 직접 서비스공급자에게 목소리를 전달할 수 있도록 하는 것이 중요함(Public hearings). 시민으로부터 직접 목소리를 들음으로써 권리를 되찾아 주는 사례가 있음

○ (발표) 월드뱅크 (Integrity compliance, World Bank Group)

< 주제 : 월드뱅크의 부패방지 프레임워크 >

ㅇ 주요 내용

- 월드뱅크 그룹은 1944년 7월에 설립됨. 개발도상국들에게 낮은 이율의 대출과 신용 공급 등 기능을 하고 있음. 주요 미션은 개발도상국들의 빈곤감소와 번영을 위한 지속가능한 해법을 찾는 것임

- Integrity Vice Presidency(INT)는 2001년 설치된 독립적 부서이고 월드뱅크그룹 총재에게 곧바로 보고할 수 있음. 약 100명의 법률, 검찰, 위험관리, 재정, 국제관계 등 전문가들이 스탭으로 활동하고 있으며, 월드뱅크 그룹 스탭들과 연관된 부패등을 조사하고, 월드뱅크 그룹의 펀드 등을 보호

- 약 4000～5000 여개의 사례(communications)가 INT에 접수되고, 예비조사 및 조사를 거쳐 최종적으로 제재가 부과되고 있음

Ⅲ		성과와 시사점

□ 성과

○ 부정청탁금지법의 주요 내용 및 법 시행 후의 사회변화 등을 국제 사회에 소개함으로써, 한국의 정책에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓히고 국가 청렴 이미지 제고

○ 신고자 보호 정책 등에 대한 패널토론과 참가자와의 질의응답 등 소통을 통해 반부패 국제협력 기반 강화

□ 시사점

○ 다수 반부패 기관간 협력체계 구축 및 강화 필요성

⇒ 여러 기관간 다층적 체계를 갖춘 이상 여러 기관간 유기적 협력을 통해 부패에 대응하는 것이 바람직

※ 정부의 반부패 정책 협의회 등 활성화 필요

○ 민간과의 협력 네트워크 및 적절한 홍보와 소통 등이 중요

⇒ 말레이시아의 문제의식과 같이 부패에는 엄정하게 대처하되 일반 국민들에게는 반부패 메시지를 효과적으로 전파할 필요

※ 관행이라는 인식과 부패라는 인식 사이의 간극을 좁히고, 반부패 정책이 사회에 실제로 작동하고 있다는 확신을 심어줄 수 있도록 홍보 강화 및 중장기적 제도설계 필요

⇒ 또한 다수의 다국적 기업 관계자들이 참석하는 등 반부패, 준법 등이 향후 기업 활동영역에서 중요해 질 것으로 예상됨

○ 한국의 청렴이미지 제고를 위한 국제사회와의 지속적 소통 필요

⇒ 반부패를 위한 우리정부의 노력과 활동을 국제사회에 지속적으로 알려 나감으로써 안정적 이미지 구축

※ 예를 들어, 부정청탁금지법 시행(2016.9) 이후의 성과, 일반국민의 부정청탁금지법 지지율, 학교현장 등의 변화 등을 국제사회와 공유

⇒ 나아가 국제사회의 반부패 동향을 확인하고, 관련된 문제의식과 유사사례 등을 활용

별첨 1		부정청탁금지법 주제 발표자료

Good morning. I’m 이범석, deputy director of the Anti-Solicitation Interpretation Division of the ACRC of Korea.

It’s my pleasure to have an opportunity to introduce the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>, one of the most successful anti-corruption policies of Korea.

I hope this conference can be a venue for active discussions on each country’s anti-corruption measures, including Korea’s <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>.

This is the order of my presentation.

In this presentation, I’m going to talk about the background and main contents of the law and its achievements and challenges for the one year since its establishment.

Now, I’m going to start with the background and significance of the law.

Despite various anti-corruption measures the Korean government has made in the past, corruption in the public sector has consistently occurred, causing public distrust towards government.

Moreover, there was a legislative loophole in controlling corruption.   Under the Criminal Act, public officials who received a huge amount of money or benefits were often not charged for bribery, because there was no evidence that the benefits were given in connection to their duties or in exchange for any favor.

In addition, Korea’s national integrity level in the global community was downgraded, compared to the nation’s economic standing and  competitiveness.

So, as a part of an effort to enhance national integrity to the level of OECD advanced economies, the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act> was implemented.

The law holds a great significance in that it has fundamentally changed public perception on the customary practice of asking a favor and giving entertainment in Korean society.

And It also offers public officials a reason for refusing improper requests for a special favor or entertainment.

Its main purpose is to prevent corruption, but the law also contains the effective and practical sanctions on violators. It enables public officials to carry out their duties in a fair and upright manner.

In short, the law is to change perception and behaviors on corruption, and ultimately build public trust in the government.

Now, let me move on to the main contents of the law.

The Act applies not only to the public officials, who are subject to the existing Anti-Corruption legislations, but also to the people employed in the education and media sector, areas of functioning for the public interest. This is because people in those areas should conduct their duties in an upright and impartial manner.

The Act applies to ‘persons performing public duties’ as well. They may include private persons who have authorities delegated or entrusted by a public institution, or those dispatched to public organizations to perform public duties.

Under the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>, anyone is banned from improperly soliciting public officials directly or through a third-party.

The major intention for this is to stop people using social positions or personal connections to influence public officials, preventing them from conducting their duties in a fair manner. What is unique about this law is that it prohibits asking an improper request itself even when no financial benefit is exchanged.

Duties subject to prohibited improper solicitation under the law are the areas requiring fairness and transparency, such as permit□licensing, administrative actions, personnel decisions, school admission and grades, investigation, and trials and so on.

However, in order not to discourage general public from claiming their legitimate right, the law provides for seven exceptions to prohibited improper requests, such as requesting certain actions in accordance with laws, making public requests, delivering a third party complaint by an elected public official for the public interest.

Under the current Criminal Act, public officials who received a huge amount of financial benefits were often not punished due to the lack of evidence that such benefits were given in relation to the public official’s duty or in exchange for any favor.

To close this legislative loophole, the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act> prohibits a public official from receiving money or valuables exceeding 1 million won(or about 1 thousand dollars, 100만원) at one time, even if they are unrelated to his or her duties. If the offer was related to his or her public duties, the public officials, who receive less than about 1 thousand dollars(100만원), will become the subject to punishment, regardless of whether there is a favor in return.

In order not to impede normal social lives excessively, the law allows for monetary valuables provided by a public organization to its employees, meals not exceeding 30 dollars(3만원), gifts not exceeding  50 dollars(5만원), provided for social relations or ritual, or monetary benefits allowed under other laws.

Violators of the Act will face administrative fines or criminal punishment. Public officials who carried out their duties as solicited will face criminal punishment.

Moreover, if public officials received more than 1 thousand dollars(100만원) at one time from the same person, both the public officer and the provider will be subject to criminal punishment.

Even though a public official received less than 1 thousand dollars(100만원), if the offer was related to his or her public duties, the public official and the provider will be subject to the administrative fines as well.

.

Under the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>, public officials are prohibited from receiving excessive honoraria for the lectures requested by other companies or interest groups. The main intention for this is to prevent the misuse of the outside lectures to become means of conveying a bribe in an indirect way.

In the public sector, ceilings for the amount of honoraria are set based on public official’s grade, and different ceilings are applied to the private sector to guarantee autonomy.

Now let’s move on to the example cases that might help you better understand how the Act can be actually applied.

The first case concerns money or goods provided to private persons.

In this slide, a retired public official and an employee of a private company received gifts of money or goods. Both are private persons, not public officials, and private persons are not subject to the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>. Money and goods exchanged between private persons or offered by a public official to a private person is not prohibited under the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>.

Next is an example of an improper solicitation for employment. A central government public official contacted an executive of an affiliated public organization, saying “My son has applied for an employment test. Make sure that he can get employed by any means.” The executive then ordered his subordinate, the director in charge of human resource affairs, to hire the son of the public official.

Intervening in or affecting personnel management affairs in violation of a relevant laws is prohibited. In the example case, the public official and the executive of the affiliated organization are “public officials who made improper solicitation for a third party” and are, therefore, subject to an administrative fine of up to 30 thousand dollars. However, as the director of HR division clearly stated an objection to the hiring, the director is not subject to punishment.

What would happen if an employee solicited or gave money or goods to public officials in relation with business of his or her employer?

According to the joint penal provision of the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>, both the employee and employer are liable for punishment.

In one particular case, the CEO of a performance production company provided a meal worth 50 dollars per public official in charge of the performance. The court imposed an administrative fine of 200 dollars on the CEO and, in adherence to the joint penal provision, also imposed a fine of 200 dollars on the performance production company.

However, If the organization paid due attention to and supervised its employees to prevent such violation, the employer will not be punished.

September 26, 2017 marked one year anniversary of the enactment of the law. Now from this slide, I am going to talk about changes the one-year old anti-corruption law has brought to Korean society.

The Act has fundamentally changed public perceptions on integrity.

According to a survey, 80 percent of the general public and public officials now consider the practice of asking a favor and giving entertainment long been taken for granted as improper practices.

This shows that Korean people do not tolerate any irregularities and corruption issues by no means, suggesting heightened ethical sensitivity throughout the whole society.

Such changes in perception have lead to actual decrease in corruptions. A majority of public officials say that after the law was enacted, they have received less improper requests, entertainment and gifts than before.

It is especially encouraging that a large number of the violations of the Act are self-reported.   This suggests a strong will to comply with the law in the public sector, which will no doubt serve to secure public trust.

The anti-graft Act had positive effect on business environment as well.

Since the enactment of the law, major 500 companies in Korea have spent less money on entertainment. A business perception survey on the law showed that a large number of businesses feel that their business environment has been enhanced thanks to the law.

According to a study, if a company spends entertainment expenses in investment or research and development, not only the company’s competitiveness but also the entire nation’s economy will be enhanced.

Thanks to the law, every corner of the society is now experiencing positive changes. Among them, changes in the education sector are especially prominent.

After the law was enacted, teachers do not receive money gift or other favors at all, so parents are able to engage in their children’s school activities without wrestling with the issue of whether to give a gift to teachers.

At a time when it has been one year since its enactment, the Act is now getting support from about 90% of Korean people.

I think such a strong support is possible because of the law’s anti-corruption effect that people have experienced as well as the strong aspiration for a fair and transparent nation.

In fact, a majority of ordinary citizens and public officials think that the Act is effective in removing irregularities and corruption deeply rooted in Korea.

In order to ensure that the law could successfully take its root in our society, however, there is still room for improvement in laws and regulations.

Recently, there were social issues where public officials made improper solicitations to companies in recruitment. However, improper solicitations by public officials to the private sector is not covered by the Act. So in order to address corruptions in the private sector, the ACRC will add to the Act a new provision of banning improper solicitations by public officials to companies.

The ACRC will also enact a law on the prevention of conflict of interest, under which situation public officials may not perform their duties fairly because their public duty and private interest are involved.

And last but not least, the Commission will legislate a law to prevent the loss of government budget by recovering illegitimate benefits from false or over-claims of public subsidies and imposing charges five times of the received amount. With the three legislation, the ACRC will take one step closer to realizing a transparent Korea.

I have introduced you on major contents and achievements of the <Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>.

I hope that Korea’s anti-corruption efforts including this new anti-corruption Act can become a help to anti-corrutpion efforts pursed by other nations.

Thank you for the attention.

별첨 2		패널토론 발표자료

Good afternoon. My name is Moonjoo An. I work for the Protection and Reward Division of the Anti-Corruption civil Rights Commision. This afternoon, I would like to talk about "Korea's Whistleblower Systems".

In the past, When most of koreans had problems, they tried to resolve the issues through nepotism.

Given the circumstances, Korean governments have exerted various efforts to cope with corruption problems. A series of legislations by Korean governments have provided institutional foundation to prevent corruption.

Act on Anti-Corruption, covering public sector, was implemented in 2002.

Code of Conduct for Public Officials was implemented in 2006.

Act on Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, covering privite sector, was implemented in 2011.

Improper Solicitation and Graft Act was implemented in 2016.

After implementaion of these Acts and Code, previous corrupt practices aren't tolerated any longer.

Recently, result of various public surveys show improvement of Integrity. But side effect also occurred. Improper Solicitation and Graft Act regulating the price of gift which public officials can receive, that law have led to a reduction in some articles' consumption. For example, Korean beef, Ginseng.

We are deeply thinking about changing the article about gift's price at that law.

Of course, the gift only with no strings attached, from someone without duty relations can be received.

And for a long time, we are trying to add the article about evasion of conflict of interest for public officials at that law.

Anyway, until now, numerous corrupt practices were reported to ACRC. For example, bidrigging in auction by construction companies, rebate by pharmaceutical firms, defect concealment by auto makers, document forgery by military goods suppliers, lavish entertainment receiving by public officials, etc.

These days a lot of public institution's recuiting corruption are reported to ACRC.

Let me explain reward and protection for whistleblowers.

When a corruption whistlebrowing case results in the recovery of revenue for public organizations, a reward of up to about 3 million US dallars is provided.

Whistleblower's identity shall not be disclosed or indicated without whistleblower's consent.

Whistleblowers aren't subject to any disadvantage, retalitation or discrimination. We provide protective measures to those who are potentially under theat as a result to their whistleblowing.

We provide medical treatment without charge to whistleblowers who suffer psychological discomfort and stress.

If a report on corruption reveals the whistleblower's own crime or illegal activities, punishment for the crime may be mitigated.

Korea's whistleblower systems described above are vital to creating a more transparent korean society.