Chap 1. Introduction
This study is aimed at searching for the role and challenge of the criminal law and policy, regarding the possibility to bridge the gap with the current risk prevention in the frame of the principle of the benefit and protection of law that has remained in the modern criminal law system. Under this purpose, the argument is basically focused on the function and role of the Korean criminal law related to risk and risk source. Based on this argument, the study examines the features of the risk control measures found in the examples of the new crime trend in risk society, and suggests challenges in criminal law and policy.
To this end, the study summarizes and analyzes existing references about the role of criminal law in risk society and countermeasures. To be specific, the study argues in a few categories: First, is Korean society a risk society?
Second, is it necessary to change the functions of criminal law in Korean risk society? Third, does each law as a measure to deal with new risk sources coincide with the principle of law-governed state? (This issue is argued by reviewing risk control measures in the current laws related to environment, food, and nuclear energy.) Finally, the study suggests challenges and direction of criminal law and policy in risk society.

Chap 2. Discussion on Risks of Korean Society and Risk Society
Risks of Korean society differ from those in risk society described by Ulrich Beck. First, the risks of risk society suggested by Beck were inevitable results from co-occurrence of industrialization and the advancement of science and technology while those in Korean society were derived from the loopholes in the modernization strategy of the growth-centered development model and can be improved to some degree. Second, the risks of Korean society are intertwined with those in industrial or transitional society such as faulty construction, car accident, and industrial accident and those in traditional society such as adult disease, school violence, sexual violence, and inadequate retirement plan, as well as mass risks of post-industrial society such as large-scale environmental pollution. Given this fact, the diversity of risks of Korean society does not simply indicate the increase in risks of quality and quantity since traditional, modern, and post-modern features are mixed in the risks of Korean society. Due to the mix of various types of risks, the range or methodology in the discussion on the role of criminal law in risk society is expected to be different. In Korea, the discussion on risk society includes even sexual criminal law in addition to the basic target fields of risk criminal laws such as those related to environment, drug, terrorism, economy, nuclear energy, and biotechnology. This shows that the discussion on risk criminal law in Korea is not limited to new mass risks of risk society, but has been expanded to include the range of traditional crimes such as sexual violence, robbery, and murder. Although the discussion on risks and risk society reflects social, political, and cultural aspects, there needs to be further research to see whether the expanding ranges of target fields of risk criminal law and the understanding of concept of risk society can be accepted as the distinct characteristics of this specific situation.

Chap 3. Risk Criminal Law and Principle of Law-governed State
In the course of discussion on the amendment of criminal law, it has not been easy to find specific discussion on risk criminal law that covers changes of the times, duty and function of criminal law, and determination of specific elements of the offence. Therefore, it seems not easy to establish the specific theoretical frame of risk criminal law except suggesting the direction in a broad concept. The following shows what the discussion on risk society revealed in a series of recent cases means in criminal law.
The first issue to be considered is the role of law in risk society and particularly the direction of criminal law. An active discussion about this issue has been in progress in the academic world, and the view that finds symbolization and functionalization of criminal law inevitable to some extent is predominant. The grounds for such a view are that a risk source in risk society does not only pose a threat but also spreads to a bigger hazard, adding more gravity at both levels of quality and quantity. Therefore, modern criminal law has been made through rational will to defend against the abuse of despotic power in the name of the government’s protection. However, risk society demands more intervention of the government again due to a growing need for security from civil society as people has lost trust both in others and themselves. Some that adhere to the classic view towards criminal law of law-governed state have blind and passive perspectives about the duty under criminal law regarding various problems of modern society while others that pursue risk criminal law are likely to belittle freedom and protection of human rights that are the results of traditional fight for liberalism. To resolve such a dilemma, diverse methodologies have been suggested.
Criminal law in risk society cannot simply become risk criminal law that goes beyond the limit of criminal law in traditional law-governed state.
However, it should not dismiss effective measures when it is necessary to take action against newly emerging risk sources in risk society. In other words, criminal law is not the only suitable method for preventing new risks, and risk management should not also rely only on criminal law. The interpretation and application of criminal law should be carried out within the limit of lawgoverned state. The spirit of law-governed state should not be damaged or violated in the name of security and prevention of new risks in the emergence of risk society. It is not right to regard the principle of traditional law-governed state inefficient in dealing with new types of crime related to future security in risk society. It seems that those who think of the role and function of criminal law as the best method in risk society are not many yet.
Since it is considered that the attempt to switch from the traditional frame of criminal law of law-governed state to the frame of risk criminal law poses a threat to freedom of citizens, it is risky to actively accept risk criminal law.

Chap 4. New Risk Control and Each Law
In the course of reviewing each law based on risk criminal law, two characteristics have been found. The first one is the application of the possibility of punishment at the earlier stage under the principle of abstract endangering offence. In the field of environmental crime, environment-related laws adopt abstract endangering offence while enforcement decree on the crackdown and aggravated punishment on environmental crimes adopts concrete endangering offence. In the legislation of food sanitation law, precautionary regulations have been made to eliminate or markedly reduce risk sources so that sanitary hazard can be prevented. In the legislation of nuclear energy law, likewise, the principle of abstract endangering offence has been adopted.
Although socially risky acts defined by the concept of abstract endangering offence have the attribute of risk, it is not certain whether such acts violate any specific benefit and protection of law. If the principle of the benefit and protection of law is switched to the risk prevention principle that says there is no crime without social risk, the boundary will collapse between criminal law that controls violation of the benefit and protection of law and police law that prevents potential risk. Now the ground for endangering offence that can be justified by traditional criminal law is not the probability of violation of individual liberty interest identified by repeated acts of multiple people, but the actual possibility of violation of other’s liberty interest identified by one individual’s act. When abstract endangering offence includes general risk against the benefit and protection of law, it completes a crime. The problem is that it is not easy to get an exact answer about what general risk of abstract endangering offence is. If criminal law is applied ex post facto after the benefit and protection of law is violated in risk society, it is impossible to impose effective sanctions. Therefore, it is inevitable to acknowledge that acts with general risk against the benefit and protection of law are possible to be punished. That is why the concept of abstract endangering offence is now widely applied as a countermeasure under criminal law against new risk sources despite a lot of criticism. Still, regarding new risk sources, it is not appropriate to define minor offences or violations of public order as abstract endangering offence and exaggerate their possibilities of punishment since it will violate the principle of criminal law of law-governed state. Moreover, although the concept of abstract endangering offence is preferred in the course of legislation in modern society, it is still doubtful whether it is effective. Therefore, questions could be raised about the need to criminalize abstract endangering offence despite potential conflict with traditional criminal law. Within such limits, countermeasure with criminal law should be carried out only when it is indispensable to secure essential basis of human survival in harmony with principles of clarity, responsibility, proportionality, and subsidiarity. Even in this case, acts that do not violate the benefit and protection of law should not be criminalized, and it is reasonable to restrictively criminalize certain risky acts only when they are related to actual risks threatening the benefit and protection of law in general.
The next one is about restructuring of criminal liability of corporation. When it comes to crimes related to environment, food, and nuclear energy, ordinary citizens can be the subject of criminal liability, but most cases of such crimes are committed by corporations. There are mixed opinions about whether to acknowledge the criminal liability of corporations. As long as corporations earn profits through their performance each year, it is reasonable to burden them with obligation to deal with risks caused by their performance for effective protection of the benefit of law.
However, it is not certain if corporations could be the target of criminal punishment for effective protection of the benefit of law. In other words, acknowledging corporations as the subject of criminal acts does not correspond with the view of traditional criminal law where only an individual can be the subject of criminal acts, and the challenge here is how to resolve such a gap in two different views. Acknowledging corporations as the target of criminal punishment is intended to effectively secure the benefit and protection of law. Therefore, liability of a group or an organization should not be simply generalized. The grounds for acknowledgement of corporations as the target of criminal punishment should be deducted not from the nature of corporations, but from the function of punishment. In other words, burdening corporations with criminal liability should be aimed at effectively securing the benefit and protection of law by making corporations properly control risks they cause. However, given the expanded range of the subject of criminal acts and the demand for effective control over corporate crimes under criminal law, it seems not easy to restructure theories related to criminal liability of corporations.

Chap 5. Further Challenges and Policy Direction
It is not easy to predict the future role of criminal law in risk society.
Considering such an uncertainty, the direction of criminal law should be determined in a careful and strict way. In post-modern society, changes in criminal law are inevitable in that science and technology control the world while human survival is threatened by such a control. In other words, the range protected by criminal law tends to expand to deal with new risks of risk society in post-modern society. In Korea, there are lack of support to the view that thinks of the role and function of criminal law as the best methods to deal with risk society. That is because going beyond the criminal law frame of traditional law-governed state is considered a new risk to the freedom of citizens. However, many think that it is inevitable to modify the assuring function of criminal law for effective risk management by expanding the range of abstract endangering offence and risky acts that could be punished. Still, as seen in specific laws that reflect modified assuring function of criminal law, although it seems true that criminal law should be applied flexibly in especially risky situations as a strong and overriding method and that the role of criminal law tends to be maximized as a preventive and effective method for security in the fields of environmental or nuclear energy criminal laws, it is hard to deny that there are also a host of problems.
First, there is no choice but to enforce severe punishment for security of citizens in post-modern society with high risks. It is needed to do an in-depth analysis to identify if severe punishment only exists as actual power in criminal policy in post-modern society, or if it has enough justification.
Second, it is necessary to carefully consider changes in legislation and management of criminal law and see if the demand for security from public has enough justification and reasonability as the grounds for such changes. If criminal law is thoughtlessly applied to prevention of risks, the boundary between criminal law and police law or those related to government organizations’ administrative actions will become ambiguous.
Third, along with changes in functions of criminal law, in the course of transition of the major type of crimes from infringement to concrete endangering offence to abstract endangering offence, the issue about significant causal relations or possibility to impose criminal liability to individual is not sufficiently considered. There should be an in-depth discussion on this issue in a new phase of theoretical approach of criminal law in risk society.
Fourth, since it is difficult to consider criminal law and policy for risk management without the benefit and protection of law in modern society, it might be possible to restructure the concept of the benefit and protection of law. As seen in crime cases related to environment and nuclear energy, it is still debated about what kinds of benefit of law could be protected in such criminal acts and if it could be direct or indirect protection. It is necessary to carry out an in-depth discussion to see if the concept of the benefit and protection of law can be established by reviewing the concept of risk control and analyzing the benefits of law that need to be protected under criminal law. It is also needed to see how the concept differs from the current one.
Fifth, when it comes to the fields of environment, nuclear energy and food safety, mutual self-regulation against risk source is important between researchers and consumers or citizens. It is necessary to enact a practical and comprehensive code of ethics to regulate each field that is already organized by legitimate process of law in response to social consensus, to primarily manage risks through permanent committees such as Commission of Environmental Ethics, Safety Inspection Committee, and Nuclear Safety and Security Commission before the law intervenes, and to efficiently limit atypical risky acts. To this end, expert groups should share information with citizens. To help citizens easily access to expert information, every process should be transparent and fair discussion should be held.
Sixth, there must be some doubts about whether new risks of post-modern society could be prevented only by criminal law. It is impossible to remove every cause of social anxiety and risk in advance by preventive measures. For example, the model applied to environmental criminal law has changed from resolution to prevention to improvement of self-purification capacity. This indicates that it is important to change perspectives to adopt open social integration model rather than adopting extreme models using criminal law such as resolution and prevention models. The authorities should come up with comprehensive policies to help society enhance its self-recovery capacity to return to peaceful daily life by overcoming risks and disasters made and avoid worse social trauma from the aftermath.
Finally, it is not easy to keep proper and reasonable balance between freedom and security under the constitution in specific cases. Along with freedom, security is another important value to be protected in modern industrial society. However, it is difficult to realize these two values ideally at the same time, and they are compatible only in a limited range. It is not easy to find the perfect answer to balance between freedom and security yet at this early stage, and there should be more research on this issue. To this end, the following should be considered.

a) In the range of law-governed state, the principles of clarity and clear standards must be observed. Therefore, law should clearly specify the standards for the government’s intervention and violation.
b) If the satisfaction of elements of offence becomes guilty, it is necessary to supplement with measures using adjective law and substantive law.
c) In uncertain situations, there will be constant demand for new methods and direction of the government’s intervention. Since balancing between freedom and security is part of the process of continuous change, modification, and improvement, the law related to security should be assessed and uated any time.