Page 311 - Demo

%uccad%ud0c1%uae08%uc9c0%ubc95 %uc81c8%uc870 %uae08%ud488%ub4f1 %uc218%uc218 %uae08%uc9c0%uc5d0 %uad00%ud55c %ud310%ub840%ubd84%uc11d%uacfc %uc785%ubc95%uacfc%uc81c Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission 311On the other hand, in the case of the provision of promises of money and other goods, the value of the provision that is the basis for fines and other penalties is the individual amount or the total amount, but it is reasonable to view it as the total amount. However, as this may be disproportionate and discourage accountability, it is fundamentally necessary to review whether the current penalty floor should exist. The intent to benefit, which is already recognized in the criminal law of bribery, has the positive aspect of reasonably limiting the harshness of the Anti-Graft Act. However, unlike the criminal bribery offense, the Anti-Graft Act provides a wide range of reasons for exception in Article 8(3). A review of the reasons for exception under Article 8(3) should have been conducted first, and the relationship between the reasons for exception and the intent to benefit should have been clarified.%u2759 Key word Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, high-ranking public official, purpose of the exception, calculation of the value of the offer, intent to benefit.