1. The results of the research on the “corruption in the public sector” can be summarized as follows:

(1) The chapter 2 checked whether the system the criminal provisions on the corruption of public officials are consistent.

The criminal sanctions against the bribery of public officials, which are based on the Provisional Draft of a Revised Japanese Penal Code of 1940, have remained almost without any changes since its enactment in 1953. Thus, there are good reasons to modernize the criminal law on the corruption of public officials.
In particular, it is indeed feasible to combine two types of bribery offences, i.e. “directly accept the bribe for himself” (§ 129 Korean Criminal Code(KCC)) and “accept the bribery for a third person” (§130 KCC). Such a combination cannot be but now simply achieved, because §130, unlike §129, requires “an unjust solicitation”. It is however noteworthy that these two types of the bribery equally belong to the “passive bribery”, so that the difference between them is not significant.
According to the decision of the Korean Supreme Courtthe and the prevailing opinion, the aim of the criminal provisions on the bribery of public officials is to ensure not only the fair function of the public administration but also the public confidence in a fair administration. But if the public confidence is regarded as a “legal good” to be protected (Rechtsgut), so the scope of the anti-corruption law could be extraordinarily expanded; and this all the more so since the criminal sanctions against the bribery are interpreted as “abstract endangerment offences” (abstrakte Gefährdungsdelikte). Hence, the “legal good” of the anti-corruption provisions should be more precisely defined.
The benefits must be in return for any official proceeding (§129 KCC); this relation requirement indicates the unlawfulness of bribery, although not so strict relation does have to be proven. Therefore, if the legislator would use a concept of bribery, which does not imply the relation, he has to find other ways to indicate the unlawfulness of bribery.

(2) The chapter 3 discussed about the problems relating to the concept of public officials. Defining public officials is of high importance, because it determines the application objects and the scope of the criminal provisions against corruption of public officials. It would thus be best to define public officials in the general provision (Allgemeiner Teil) of the Criminal Code, but if not, this should be defined in the relevant provisions. Even in this case, persons entrusted with public service functions must also be involved in the concept of public officials. A legal term such as public officials should be so used that it has the same meaning and scope, no matter in which regulation it is used, in order to ensure that the regulations which have the same purpose can be consistently applied.

(3) The chapter 4 dealt with the problems of punishing legal entities which commit an act of corruption and confirmed that it is a worldwide trend to implement and to extend criminal liability of such corporate entities. In Korea, legal entities which commit a crime can indeed be punished by penal provisions, but not in the case of corruption. If the legislator will continue to maintain corporate criminal liability, it is recommended to install penal provisions in the regulations against corruption too.

(4) The chapter 5 drew attention to the fact that the measures of confiscation and deprivation reduce the motivation for corruption, by showing that the benefit generated by corruption is not attributed to the offenders. In practice confiscation and deprivation often reach their limits. Therefore legislators in some countries attempt to enhance the effectiveness of confiscation, especially by punishing unjust enrichment itself or shifting the burden of proof. But it is questionable whether these steps can be justified, since they are compatible not so simple with the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination.

2. The results of the research on “corruption in the private sector” can be summarized as follows:

From the perspective of the criminal law doctrine (Strafrechtsdogmatik) the corruption can be defined as the behavior of an agent who takes benefit from a third person and giving benefit to a third person by violating his duty to his principal. If the agent is an official, and thus his principal is a state, then corruption is classified into “corruption in the public sector”. If, on the contrary, the agent and his principal are both civilians, corruption belongs to “corruption in the private sector”.
The criminal liability of corruption in the private sector can be sought in the fact that the corruption breaches the duty to manage another’s business fairly or hampers fair competition. Penalizing corruption in private sector for ensuring the duty of fair management of another’s business can contribute to fight corruption effectively, but creates the risk of being misused to interfere excessively in the freedom of civilians. However, this risk can be significantly reduced, if a business has a public character and can therefore be treated more or less as an official business. On the other hand, in the field of commercial practice corruption can be criminalized for ensuring fair competition. It is remarkable that the legislators in many countries tend to protect fair competition not only in business transactions, but also in sport.
On the basis of the foregoing, this article divided penal provisions against corruption in the private sector, which are scattered in many different laws, into three groups: provisions to protect the legal good “fair management of another’s business”, provisions to protect the legal good “fair competition” and provisions to protect these two legal goods at the same time. This categorization could help to improve and to systematize the provisions against corruption in the private sector.