ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

The Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order was enacted in 2007 to regulate imposition and collection of fines for negligence scattered across individual laws. However, this law is a reference to Act on Violation of Order (OwiG) of Germany and has a structure centered on criminal procedures. In addition, the trial of fines for negligence is operated as a non-litigation case procedure. The fine system, which is an administrative punishment for violations of order, is gradually developing as a means of monetary sanctions for violations of administrative law and regulations. This fine system has long been treated as an administrative punishment among the means of securing the effectiveness of administration sanctions in administrative law. The number of regulations imposing fines for negligence in individual laws is increasing, and the amount of fines for negligence is also gradually increasing. In addition, even after the enactment of The Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, a number of problems have been exposed in the procedures for imposing and collecting fines for negligence. It is time for a paradigm shift in the fine system. Individual laws usually stipulate object and subject of imposition of fines for negligence, and the specific procedures for imposition, collection, trial and execution are in accordance with the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order. As a way to amend the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, it is necessary to improve the procedure for imposing fines for negligence. First, in order to effectively guarantee the investigation right of the administrative agency, regulations should be prepared to request cooperation or support from the police, such as on-site investigations or identification etc. In addition, in relation to the imposition of fines for negligence, the right to read documents of the parties must be guaranteed. Second, the administrative agency’s review authority should be guaranteed in the process of raising an objection to the imposition of a fine for negligence. Now, when the administrative agency notifies the court after the parties have raised an objection, the system proceeds to a trial on a fine for negligence. This should be improved, and the administrative agency should be able to decide to cancel the imposition of a fine for negligence in response to objections. Third, it should be possible to file an administrative adjudication or administrative litigation as a means of appeal against the decision of a fine for negligence. Lastly, there is a need to shift the enforcement of the fine for negligence to the administrative agency and to dualize the procedure for collecting fines for negligence. In other words, if the subject of the imposition of a fine for negligence is a state institution, it should be collected according to the example of compulsory national tax collection, and if a local government is the subject of imposition, it should be collected in accordance with the Act on Collection of Local Administrative Sanctions and Charges, etc. In addition, the publication of lists should be introduced for practical sanctions against habitual delinquents. Since a lot of previous studies on the improvement of the fine system have been accumulated, we expect the revision of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order and practical reform through detailed theoretical review and verification.

키워드