RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
          펼치기
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
          펼치기
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        공익신고제도의 법적 과제와 전망

        이호용 ( Ho Yong Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.2

        A Whistleblowing is one of the most effective ways to prevent or eradicate corruption. Provide insider information can play a decisive role for the detection and identification of incidents of corruption is not easy to disclose the structure of corruption within the organization externally, nor hardly noticeable. By activating a Whistleblowing, closed corruption within the organization structure can be converted into an open structure and, in this sense, the Whistleblowing is effective alternative to control corruption within the organization being evaluated. A Whistleblowing is to realize the individual conscience to reject the blind obedience of the organization in modern industrial society that is highly organized and specialized. By external notification the illegal activities of the organization from the perspective of outsiders can not know the internal, A Whistleblowing prevents corruption and improves the organization`s transparency and accountability. In the individual level, it is the expression of fundamental rights, such as in the freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the right to know. Eventually to pursue the realization of public interest to protect the interests of the community members can contribute to the realization of social justice. And this can make the public reported the activation of reform by securing consensus-based national of the United New. Whistleblowing was enacted for the first time in “The anti-corruption law” of 2001 in Korea. In that law there are various kinds of Whistleblowing procedure and system as following ; dispose of a disadvantage to the complainant complainant`s identity security, personal protection, protection collaborators, arbitrary reduction of punishment, reward and compensation, prohibition of the internal regulations relating to the protection of whistleblower. And the current legal framework of protection for the public interest reporter has been maintained without major changes. Acts relating Whistleblowing in Korea, “The Act on the Anti-Corruption and Installation and Operation of Civil Rights Commission” and “The Protection of Whistleblower Act. The former is mainly in order to prevent corruption in the public sector including whistleblowing. The latter was established in March 2011, defined as the act of infringement of the public interest, such as to violate people`s health and safety, the environment, and the interests of consumers and fair competition, it is the main discipline to govern the conduct of whitleblowing on these acts. The significance of the Protection of Whistleblower Act is the most significant expansion of the private sector to have the target range of blowing. In this study, to verify the legitimacy of the legal and ethical of Whislteblowing, and then I would like to present status and challenges of whistleblowing such as the procedures and systems of whistleblowing, and the protection of the whistleblower in recent laws, and improve the ways.

      • KCI등재

        기업 내부통제시스템의 내부고발자 제도에 관한 소고- 실효성 제고를 중심으로 -

        노미리 한국기업법학회 2025 기업법연구 Vol.39 No.1

        이 글에서는 기업 내부통제시스템의 내부고발자 제도의 실효성 제고와 관련하여 내부고발자에 대한 기업의 보상금 지급 필요성과 공익신고자보호법의 절차 개선을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 공익신고자보호법은 민간부문에서 발생하는 공익침해행위를 외부기관에 신고하는 경우 이를 통일적으로 규율하는 일반법의 형태를 취하고 있다. 그러므로, 기업 내부 임직원이 기업의 위법행위가 국민의 건강과 안전, 환경, 소비자의 이익, 공정한 경쟁 및 이에 준하는 공공의 이익을 침해하는 행위라면 공익신고자보호법의 신고대상이 된다. 동시에 이는 기업 내부통제시스템 상 내부고발자 제도 등에 의해서 내부 보고대상에 해당하기도 한다. 그런데 기업의 내부고발자 제도는 내부고발자에 대한 보상금 지급에 관한 내용은 규정하고 있지 않다. 기업의 부정 또는 위법행위가 기업의 내부고발 대상이자 공익신고자보호법에 의한 공익신고 또는 다른 법률에서 규정하고 있는 신고대상인 경우 기업 내부 임직원은 보상금을 많이 지급하는 외부기관에 먼저 신고하는 방안을 선택할 수 있다. 그러나, 1차적으로 외부기관에 신고하는 행위는 기업에 내부통제시스템을 구축한 취지에 부합하지 않는다. 기업 내부통제시스템이 제 기능을 다 하기 위해서는 기업 내부고발자 제도에 소액이더라도 보상금을 지급하는 규정을 마련할 필요가 있다. 또한, 1차로 기업 내부고발을 할 것인지 여부를 고발자의 선택에 맡길 것이 아니라, 미국 증권거래위원회 규칙, 일본 공익통보자보호법처럼 기업 내부 임직원이 기업의 부정 또는 위법행위 등을 인지하였을 때 기업 내부조직에 먼저 알린 다음 고발된 내용에 대한 조사 절차가 개시되지 않는 경우 외부에 신고하도록 공익신고자보호법의 절차를 개선할 필요가 있다. 만일 모든 임직원에게 이를 적용하는 것이 어렵다면 적어도 컴플라이언스 업무를 담당하는 임직원은 1차로 내부고발 하도록 할 필요가 있다. 비록 공익신고자보호법 제14조 제4항에 공익신고자의 공익신고 내용에 직무상 비밀이 포함된 경우에도 업무상 비밀준수의무 위반이 아니라고 규정하고 있으나, 기업 임직원에게 1차적인 기업 내부고발 의무를 지우는 것이 업무상 비밀준수의무와의 관계에서도 바람직하다. This article focuses on the need for companies to pay rewards and improve the procedures of the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act in relation to improving the effectiveness of the whistleblower program of a company’s internal control system. The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act is a general law that uniformly regulates the reporting of public interest violations in the private sector to external organizations. Therefore, if an internal employee of a company reports that a company’s misconduct infringes on the health and safety of the public, the environment, consumer interests, fair competition, or other public interests, it is subject to the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act. At the same time, it may be subject to internal reporting under the whistleblower program in the company’s internal control system. However, the whistleblower program does not stipulate the payment of compensation to whistleblowers. If a company’s fraud or misconduct is the subject of an internal report, a public interest report under the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act, or a report under other laws, employees may choose to report it to an external organization that pays a high reward. However, making a report to an external organization first defeats the purpose of establishing an internal control system. In order for the corporate internal control system to function properly, it is necessary to establish a rule that the corporate whistleblower program pays rewards, even if they are small. In addition, rather than leaving it up to the whistleblower to decide whether to file a corporate whistleblower report in the first place, it is necessary to improve the process of the Whistleblower Protection Act to require that, like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules [17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(b)(4)(v)] and Japan’s Public Interest Informant Protection Act, when an employee becomes aware of corporate fraud or misconduct, he or she first informs the internal organization of the company and then reports to the outside world if the investigation process is not initiated. If this is not possible for all employees, then at the very least, employees who are responsible for compliance should be the first to blow the whistle. Although Article 14(4) of the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act stipulates that it is not a violation of the duty of confidentiality even if the contents of the public interest report include professional secrets, it is desirable from the perspective of the duty of confidentiality to place the primary duty of corporate whistleblowing on corporate employees.

      • KCI등재

        공정거래법상 신고포상금 제도에 대한 시론적 연구: 부당한 공동행위를 중심으로

        이문성 한국비교정부학회 2022 한국비교정부학보 Vol.26 No.4

        (Purpose) The reward system for informant under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (i.e., Korean Competition Law) is a program that provides monetary compensation to those who report violations of the MRFTA to the Korean Fair Trade Commission (i.e., KFTC). It seems that academic research from legal perspective has not been conducted actively on the system. The purpose of this study is to develop an introductory discussion on the system from legal perspective, and to encourage the interdisciplinary research on that. (Design/methodology/approach) There are not many cases of introducing the reporting reward program overseas. Therefore, in this paper, most of discussion on the system was conducted based on the domestic law and regulations. Also, there are many other systems in which the reporting reward system is related. Therefore, in this paper, a comparative methodology was mainly used for analysis the relationship between the target system and other systems. (Findings) The relationship between the target system and the leniency program under the MRFTA was discussed. It was analyzed what cases the enterpriser's leniency after the informant's reporting act is allowed. As a result, it was concluded that there are few cases where the benefits of the two systems are applied in the same case. And the relationship between the target system and the compensation system under the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act was discussed. The criteria for calculating rewards under the acts were compared in detail. Through this analysis, it was discussed in which cases the compensation under the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act could be paid in addition to the reporting reward under the MRFTA. (Research implications or Originality) It was emphasized that this system should be implemented in consideration of the General Act on Public Administration and the practical issues of administrative litigation. Also, it was emphasized that additional empirical research is required on how to redesign the relationship between the target system and the whistleblower system in the future. Lastly, the study suggested some legislative measures for improving the budget provision for the system.

      • KCI등재후보

        이른바 일본판 플리바게닝 「(日本版) (Plea Bargaining)」인 일본 형사소송법상의 합의제도(合意制度)가 적용된 사례

        박종순 ( Park Jong Soon ) 서울지방변호사회 2023 변호사 Vol.55 No.0

        This journal introduces 3 cases in which settlement system under Japanese Criminal Procedure Code, also known as Japanese version of plea bargaining, is applied. Settlement system is applied to particular financial economic crimes and crimes involving narcotics and guns. Such system works where prosecutor and attorney for suspect or defendant agree that suspect or defendant would testify on a criminal case of others or cooperate by producing evidence. In return, prosecutor decided to pursue indictment on either reduced charge, demand for less sentence or drop all charges. In Japan, settlement system is introduced in the criminal procedure code on May 24, 2016, and it has been enacted since June 1, 2018. 4 years have passed since its enactment, yet settlement system was only applied to 3 cases until now. It is meaningful to review 3 cases in which Japanese settlement system was applied. Because in 2011 and 2016, Korea also reviewed introduction of “Exemption of Penalty and indictment for whistleblower” and “immunity for criminal charges for whistleblowers.” Moreover, I believe this journal will be helpful when Korea will once again move to introduce similar system in the future. This journal first examines plea bargaining as the Japanese Settlement System was introduced in reference to the U.S. plea-bargaining system. Although this journal introduces the cases of Japan, this journal also looks into current progress in Korea with respect to this system. In other words, this journal reviews the past arguments for and against introduction of a type of plea-bargaining system called, “Reduction of Criminal Sentencing and Exemption of Indictment for Whistleblowers,” in Korea. Then, the journal reviews the Japanese Settlement System and further examines the following 3 cases, Company M’s foreign government official bribery case, N Company’s misrepresentation on securities report, and apparel company’s embezzlement case, in which the settlement system was applied to. Then, whether application to above cases were in line with intent of the settlement system is reviewed. Prior to drawing conclusion, personal thoughts are expressed based on the results of review on above 3 cases where settlement system was applied. Personally, I believe it would be difficult to discover practical truth if settlement system was not applied considering revealed criminal method in the 3 cases. As such, settlement system is advantageous in investigating financial crimes particularly for corporate crimes. Although it was not presented in above 3 cases, it appears settlement system will contribute, on some level, to investigate typical antisocial organized crimes like crimes involving organized violence or narcotics. It is difficult to anticipate how settlement system in Japan will be utilized in the future. However, if Japanese citizens get to understand intent and purpose of settlement system, and prosecutor properly uses this in line with settlement system’s intent, the settlement system will become established as Japanese criminal justice system in a near future.

      • KCI등재후보

        기업 내부통보자 보호제도의 도입필요성 검토 : 일본의 공익통보자보호법을 중심으로

        곽관훈 가천대학교 법학연구소 2011 가천법학 Vol.4 No.1

        내부통제시스템은 개별 기업이 자신에게 적합한 규제체계를 마련하여 업무처리 과정에서 법률위반행위를 예방하는 것으로서 기업의 자발적 준수를 유인할 수 있는 규제체제이며, 아울러 개별기업에 적합한 규제가 가능하다는 점에서도 중요한 의미를 가지고 있다. 내부통제시스템이 제대로 작동한다면 기업 내부에서 법률에 저촉될 가능성이 있는 행위는 물론, 개인이나 조직적 부정행위를 적절하게 제어할 수 있을 것이다. 가장 효율적인 방법은 구성원들 간에 문제발생 가능성 및 발생된 문제에 대해 자발적으로 커뮤니케이션할 수 있는 체계를 마련하는 것이라고 생각된다. 오늘날 기업운영은 매우 복잡화하고 전문화함에 따라 외부에서 기업내부의 상황을 정확히 이해하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다. 실제로 대규모 기업비리의 발견은 외부자가 발견한 경우는 거의 없으며 기업내부에서 기업의 부정행위를 외부에 알리는 내부고발자(whistleblower)에 의해 외부에 알려진 경우가 대부분이다. 이에 따라 내부고발자를 보호하기 위한 필요성이 제기되고 있으며, 이는 기업의 내부통제시스템이 효율적으로 기능하는데 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 일본의 경우 오래 전부터 내부통제시스템의 구축에 주목하여 왔다. 그 결과 2006년 신회사법에서는 모든 주식회사의 이사에 대해 내부통제시스템 구축을 의무화하였다. 컴플라이언스 시스템을 효과적으로 운영하기 위해서는 물론 리스크 관리나 효율적 직무집행체제의 구축 등을 위해서는 기업내부의 원활한 커뮤니케이션이 담보되어야 하며, 이를 위해서는 문제되는 행위를 지적하거나 알리는 행위로 인해 불이익을 받는 경우가 없어야 한다. 이러한 차원에서 일본 회사법상의 내부통제시스템과 공익통보자보호법상 내부통보제도는 밀접한 연관성을 가지고 있으며, 상호 보완적인 제도라고 할 수 있다. Administrative authorities have prepared variety administrative regulations for achievement the goal of acts and overcoming problems of an enterprise's unlawful act. However It is ineffective to deterrence role to an enterprise's unlawful act, because corporation have been observed the regulations on it's own intiative. Internal control system lead that corporation observe law on it's own hook. In other words, internal control system is the paradiam shift of regulations on corporations.Internal control system is broadly defined as a process, effected by an entity's board of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: (1) Effectiveness and efficiency of operations. (2) Reliability of financial reporting. (3)Compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal control can help an entity achieve its performance and profitability targets, and prevent loss of resources.It is necessary to protect the whistleblower who voluntarily provide the Corporation and the third party whit original information about a violation of the national laws that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered judicial or administrative action, or related action in order to activate the internal control system. In this article, with these issues in mind, I would like to explore necessity of protecting the whistleblower. And then, I would try to examine the relationship between the whistleblower protecting program and the internal control system.

      • Whistleblowing and Whistleblower’s Protection in Korea and Its Prospects

        최이진 이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원 2016 Ewha Law Review Vol.6 No.-

        내부고발제도와 내부고발자에 대한 보호는 기업의 운용에 있어 경영투명성을 제고하고 해당 기업에 대한 일반인의 신뢰를 확보할 수 있는 제도이다. 미국의 경우 엔론(Enron), 리먼브라더스(Lehman Brothers) 등의 사태를 겪으며 기업의 구성원이 유발한 법 위반 행위가 불러일으키는 경제적 위기에 대한 경각심이 커졌고, 이에 따라 도드-프랭크법(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)에서 내부고발제도와 그 고발자를 보호하는 조항을 개설하여 상세한 보호를 도모하는 추세이다. 이에 비해 한국은 아직 내부고발제도가 제대로 정착하지 못하고 있고 고발자에 대한 신변보호가 부족한 상황이다. 본고에서는 내부고발제도가 활발하게 활용되고 있지 않다는 점을 지적하며, 그 이유로 기업의 수직적 조직문화, 물질주의문화, 내부고발제도에 대한 대법원의 소극적 태도 등을 검토하고, 내부고발제도가 국내에 성공적으로 정착할 수 있는 방안을 정부정책적 접근법과 기업측면 접근법으로 나누어 논하고자 한다. Whistleblowing system and whistleblower’s protections are valuable means for promoting transparent company management and credibility. However, as much as whistleblowing system serves as an incentive for companies to abide by laws and regulations, it is also very common for whistleblowers to be named as ‘traitors’ of the company. Korea has established acts and regulations that cover methods for protecting whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011 is one example. However, regardless of the legislation, the concept of ‘protecting’ an individual who, as a consequence, has put the company through much ordeal is still new and thus not fully accepted in Korean business culture. Hierarchical corporate culture, and family ownership management are two main internal reasons, whereas outer influences include the Supreme Court’s reluctance. There could be a two-way solution to promote: a legislative solution combined with a corporate culture reform. A complete set of law is of no use when companies’ levels of compliance are low. Thus, building corporate culture with viable measures in which employees can report any wrongdoings freely should be encouraged as well. Implementing detailed protection provisions, courts making decisions that are in favor of the whistleblowers are important. However, the first step should be taken by the corporates themselves by setting a long-term plans of revamping their rigid hierarchical company structures to build workplaces where whistleblowing protection can be implemented.

      • KCI등재

        내부공익제보자 보호제도의 현황과 문제점

        박경철 ( Gyung Chul Park ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.3

        In Korea, a few laws in private sector protect the whistleblower, moreover, the whistleblower protection system is too coarse. And the whistleblower protection system in public sector was adopted in the Anti-Corruption Law passed in July of 2001, and present is adopted in the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission Law(ACCRCL) passed in February of 2008. I think ACCRCL has several problems. At First, Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission(ACCRC) can not be granted the necessary independence and speciality to carry out its functions to prevent and fight corruption effectively and free from any undue influence in ACCRCL. Secondly, ACCRCL do not provide the enough protection for the whistleblower. The sphere of public interest protected by ACCRCL is very narrow and the restricted public authorities can receive disclosures from whistleblower. Therefore internal disclosures can not be protected. ACCRC can not investigate the received corrupt act of the public servants or public institutions, but only can ascertain from the whistleblower. ACCRCL prescribes, to protect the whistleblower, the guarantee of legal status qua, the confidentiality of personal identity of whistleblower, the exemption of liability, the presumption of unfavorable measures to the whistleblower, the financial compensation and award for the whistleblower, etc.. But the sanction against the offences of the guarantee of legal status qua and the confidentiality of personal identity of whistleblower is not satisfactory to prevent these offences. Many country adopted the whistleblower protection system to accomplish and improve the transparancy, the accountablity, and the integrity of not only public, but also private. In Korea framework law which can provide enough protection for the whistleblower in public sector and private sector should be enacted and the independent and specialized authority for anti-corruption in public sector should be established.

      • KCI등재

        기업 규제 관점에서 본 내부고발자(Whistleblower) 보호의 필요성 및 방안

        곽관훈(Kwan-Hoon Kwak) 한국기업법학회 2014 企業法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

        내부고발이 자유롭게 보장되는 경우 기업운영의 투명성을 기할 수 있으며, 더 나아가 기업범죄를 사전에 예방할 수 있다는 장점도 있다. 내부고발이 활성화된다는 것은 기업의 법률위반행위가 언제든지 외부로 알려질 수 있다는 것을 의미하며, 이는 기업으로 하여금 법률위반행위를 막기 위해 스스로 노력할 수 있는 인센티브를 부여하기 때문이다. 기업 스스로 법규를 준수하려는 의지가 없는 한 아무리 강력한 규제도 큰 의미를 갖기 어렵다는 점을 고려할 때 내부고발제도는 기업의 자발적 준수를 이끌어낼 수 있는 새로운 규제패러다임이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 현실적으로 기업의 내부고발은 배신행위이며 기업에게 불이익이 된다는 인식이 강하다. 또한 회사차원에서 징계는 물론 민, 형사상 책임을 묻는 경우가 많다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 많은 국가들은 내부고발자를 보호하기 위한 법제도를 마련하고 있으며, 우리나라의 경우도 2011년부터 공익신고자보호법을 제정하여 공익침해행위에 대한 내부고발자 보호제도를 갖추고 있다. 그러나 기업에 있어 중요한 것은 내부고발자의 인권보호 뿐만 아니라, 내부고발자가 보호됨에 따라 내부고발이 활성화되고, 이를 통해 기업의 내부통제시스템이 효율적으로 기능할 수 있도록 하는 것이다. 일본의 ‘공익통보자보호법’이 내부고발제도와 내부통제시스템의 연계성을 고려하고 있다는 점은 우리에게 많은 시사점을 주고 있다. 향후 우리나라의 ‘공익신고자 보호법’도 먼저 기업내부에 통보하여 해결할 수 있는 내부통보시스템을 도입하고, 내부통제시스템에 해당하는 상법상 준법지원제도와 연계하여 실효성을 확보하는 방안을 검토해야 한다. Whistleblower, who discloses information about wrongdoing within an organization by one person to another party, has been played an important role for protection of public interests in public and private sector. We had been enacted ‘The Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC)’. This law aims at protecting public whistelblower, providing proper mechanism for guaranteeing the people"s basic human rights, and eventually contributing establishment of stability, transparency, and fairness of society. And then We have been enacted ‘Act on Protection of public interest Reporters’ which is for protecting whistle-blowers who whistleblowing breaching act of public interest occurring in private sectors. The purpose of this act is to contribute to the stabilization of the livelihood of citizens and the establishment of transparent and clean social climate by protecting and supporting those who have reported any conduct that is detrimental to public interest. The term of public interest reporter means a person who makes a public interest report which means to make a report of, make representations of, provide information about, make a complaint or bring a charge of the fact that any conduct detrimental to public interest to persons. It is necessary to protect the whistleblower who voluntarily provide the Corporation and the third party whit original information about a violation of the national laws that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered judicial or administrative action, or related action in order to activate the internal control system. In Japan, It is enacted Whistleblower Protection Act in 2004. The term “Whistleblowing” shall mean whistleblowing made by a worker. In the case a Reportable Fact is considered to have occurred, occur or be about to occur: First Whistleblowing to the said the Business Operator, etc. And this Act is linked to the internal control system. The whistleblower Protection Act in Japan is giving us a lot of suggestions.

      • KCI등재

        공익신고자 보호제도 개선방안 연구

        이영우,장수연 한국컴퓨터정보학회 2020 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지 Vol.25 No.11

        우리나라는 2011년 3월에 「공익신고자 보호법」을 제정하여 민간부문에서 발생하는 공익침해행위로부터 공익신고자를 보호하고 있다. 대부분의 공익침해행위는 조직 내부에서 은밀하게 이루어지고 있어 조직 내부의 문제점을 잘 알고 있는 조직 구성원들의 신고로 인하여 외부에 알려지게 된다. 그러나 공익신고자는 신고로 인하여 불이익을 받게 되므로 신고를 주저하게 된다. 또한실질적인 보호조치가 미흡하여 신고자를 효과적으로 보호하기 위한 비밀보장, 신변보호, 책임감면, 불이익조치 금지 등 제도적 장치를 강화하는 방안이 필요하다. 따라서 공익신고자 보호의 취지에 맞게 공익신고자에 대한 실질적인 보호조치가 필요하며 그에 상응하는 보상체계를 확대하는방안도 필요할 것이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 현행 우리나라 공익신고자 보호제도에 대한 주요 내용을 검토하고, 공익신고자의 보호 등을 위한 합리적인 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다. Korea enacted the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act in March 2011 to protect whistleblowers from acts of infringement of public interest in the private sector. Most acts of infringement of the public interest are carried out secretly within the organization, which is known to the outside world by reports from members of the organization who are well aware of the problems within the organization. However, whistleblowers are at a disadvantage due to reporting and are reluctant to report. In addition, measures are needed to strengthen institutional mechanisms such as confidentiality, protection of personal information, responsibility, and prohibition of disadvantageous measures to effectively protect reporters due to lack of practical protective measures. Therefore, practical protection measures for whistleblowers are needed in line with the purpose of protecting whistleblowers, and measures to expand the corresponding compensation system will also be needed. Therefore, in this study, we would like to review the main contents of the current system for protecting whistleblowers in Korea and suggest reasonable improvement measures for protecting whistleblowers.

      • KCI등재

        부패신고자 보호·보상제도 운영 현황 평가

        반호준(Van HoJoon),이선중(Lee SunJoong),이정주(Lee Chungjoo) 한국부패학회 2014 한국부패학회보 Vol.19 No.2

        The goal of this study is to evaluate the status of protection and rewards system of whistleblower. To do so, we establish three evaluation criterion. The criterion are the degree of vitalization of reporting corruption, integrity of organization and building the autonomous system of reporting corruption. The result of this study shows that the figure of protection and rewards system of whistleblower increases but the performance of protection and rewards system is low. 본 연구는 부패신고자 보호 보상제도 운영현황을 평가하고 그 효과성을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 부패신고자 보호 보상제도에 대한 평가기준으로 부패신고 활성화, 조직건전성 제고, 조직의 자율적 시스템 구축의 세 가지 항목을 설정하고 부패신고자 보호•보상제도를 평가하였다. 보호 보상제도 운영 현황 평가 결과 하드웨어적인 규정 등의 제정 등은 증가한 것으로 나타났으나 각 급 기관의 부패신고자 보호•보상제도 운영실적은 미비한 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과를 토대로 본 연구는 부패신고자 보 호 보상제도 활성화와 관련된 정책대안을 제시하였다.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼