In an attempt to reform the special regulations(acts) system other than the Criminal Code, this report aims to examine whether and how penal provisions in special regulations relating to economic crimes can be integrated into the Criminal Code.
It would expound the problem of the wide-spread belief of so-called “the special regulation first” or “the almighty of the special regulation”, which in spite of every critique could not have been overcome yet. Questions are the following: whether without special regulations the fields, which by the Criminal Code alone would not be able to be covered, are to find, whether without that the Criminal Code could not get alone, and then which meanings it should obtain in the so-called “flood of special acts”. It is tried to ensured by scrutinizing criminal provisions in special regulations relating economic crimes, that by the Criminal Code, but without escaping to special regulations, could regulate every economic fields, and that contrary to every expectation the consistency of the criminal law system be able rather more to be enhanced without that.
To this end, this report distinguishes special regulations, (1) which can under the same criterion at once be reformed and (2) which are able to be modified separatedly or integrated directly into the Criminal Code:
(1) The similar criminal provisions, which in too many different laws are scattered, should be reformed under the same criterion, are for example 1) penal provisions, which distinguish criminal penalties according to the economic worth of proceeds of crimes or the amount of damage caused by crimes, 2) provisions for the confiscation and 3) penal provisions against improper solicitation and graft.
(2) The acts or regulations, which should be modified separatedly or integrated into the Criminal Code, are: 1) “Act on the aggravated punishment etc. of specific economic crimes”, 2) “Act on the aggravated punishment etc. of specific crimes”, 3) penal provisions on welfare fraud, 4) “Special Act on the prevention of the insurance fraud” and 5) “Act on the prevention of flight of domestic property”, “Illegal check control act” and “Special act on the preventing the loss caused by telecommunication-based financial fraud and the refunding for loss”.
It should be noted that this report focuses on individual criteria for the reform of special regulations, and the acts, which would be analyzed, are selectively chose. So all the regulations, which should be reformed, could not be here exhaustedly examined, and is not actually able to be done so.