Since the incident of Sewol, the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act was established in order to step up toward an advanced nation by preventing corruptions committed by public officials and relevant persons. This Act is primarily focused on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitations and the Prohibition of Acceptance of Financial or other
Advantages. The characteristic of this Act is that it applies not only public officials but also employees performing pubilic duties. Furthermore, the Act applies to private schools, educational corporations incorporated under the Private School Act, Media companies, and the representatives and employees of media companies. The addition of
employees performing public duties has been criticized as a violation of Constitution of The Republic of Korea. However, the Constitutional Court passed the law because the improper solicitations and the Acceptance of financial or other advantages have been so wide-spread among educational and media societies. Among the public officials and employees performing public duties, there are officials such as non-permanent executive directors. At present, the Act applies equally to both non-permanent officials and public officials. But it is suggested that for non-permanent officials the Act should be applied only to performing public duties.
The improper solicitation is requesting the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes and there are 14 categories defined by this Act. Any of the persons who requested improper solicitation shall be subject to a fine for negligence. No public official or relevant person who receives an improper solicitation shall perform his or her duties as
directed thereby. The prohibition of improper solicitation should not limit the communication opportunity of citizens and their form of request for adjudication. The improper solicitation is conducted by an individual for his or her own interest. In this case, such individual is not punished. But in the case of public officials or a third party, they are subject to a fine for negligence. It can be problematic to decide whether the improper solicitation is for oneself or for the third party. Although there is an exception for the improper solicitation, publicly soliciting a public official or
relevant person to take a certain action can be understood as an improper solicitation.
If a public official or relevant person receives an improper solicitation, he or she shall notify the person who made the improper solicitation that the solicitation is improper and clearly express an intention to refuse the solicitation. Also, if a public official or relevant person receives the same improper solicitation again even though he or she took the measure as prescribed in Paragraph (1), he or she shall report such fact to the head of the relevant agency in writing. A head of the relevant agency shall notify a competent court, which shall proceed to a trial on a fine for negligence
pursuant to the Non-contentious case procedure act, of the violation committed by a person suject to a fine for negligence imposed under Paragraphs (1) through (5).
Although fine for negligence is imposed principally by Administrative agency, in this Act the Court of Justice is responsible from the start.