1. Purposes

For the last ten years or so, the Government has enacted many laws and institutions to lessen corruption. In recent years, however, an increasing number of reports have been reported to the Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea(ACRC).
This is the follow-up study of 'Corruption Among Public Officials and Its Control (Seong-Jin Yeon and Jisun Kim, 1998)', which targeted public officials as well as citizens. The purpose of the present study is to examine changes in public officials' corruption in Korean society last ten years or so and to suggest legal and institutional policies that could get rid of corruption. Since 1997, Anti-corruption Act has been enacted and Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea was opened and various kinds of anti-corruption policies were practiced such as compensation for reporting of corruption and assessment of influence upon the corruption. This study uated policies that have been enacted so far. This study compared actual conditions and trends of public officials' corruption in 1997 and in 2010, and examined whether political efforts were effective.

2. Methodology

In this study, literature research, official reports of statistical analysis, analysis on corruption indexes, and questionnaire survey of public officials and office workers were carried out. The study investigated definition, causes, types and structure of corruption, and legal system and control policy by literature research. The study examined the actual conditions and judicial process of public officials' corruption by analyzing crimes (Supreme Prosecutors' Office), white paper of the crimes (the Legal Research and Training Institute), statistical yearbook of the justice (Administration of Supreme Court of Korea), administration and safety statistics yearbook and personnel statistics of local
government's public officials (Ministry of Public Administration and Security). The study investigated corruption indexes by corruption perception index as well as global corruption barometers that the Transparency International released every year. The questionnaire was used to investigate perception on the degree and seriousness of corruption as well as factors influencing corruption. The subjects were 800 public officials and 1,500 office workers.

3. Actual Conditions and Causes of Public Official's Corruption

A. An Analysis of Official Statistics

1) Occurrence of Public Officials' Crimes

The study examined four types of corruption, which are dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe and giving a bribe:
First, public officials committed the four crimes aforementioned as many as 2442.2 cases in average from 1997 to 2009. But, the average number of crime was 1681.7 cases during the same period except for year 1999 when the number of the cases was the highest during the period. The average number of crime was between 1,400 and 1,500 except for years 1999, 2000 and 2002, and the number was 1,664 in 2009, which was higher than 1,492 in 2008.
Second, the crime was committed 2.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 1997, 3 cases in 1998, 5.6 cases in 2000, and 3.2 cases in 2008, which fluctuates each year. The number of the cases increased in 2009 compared to the previous year.
Third, the number of crimes including dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights and taking a bribe except for giving a bribe greatly increased in 2002 and 2009 than that of previous year, and the number of dereliction of duty, in particular, greatly increased in 1999. Giving a bribe in 1999 and 2000 greatly increased than usual, and that in 2001 and 2002 was much more than usual, and that in 2009 increased much more than previous year. This was because the Presidential Election was made in 2002 and New Government launched in following year after 1999 and 2009, respectively.

2) Actual Conditions of Public Official Criminals

a) Public Official Criminals by Type of Crimes
By taking advantage of position as an official, public officials committed embezzlement and breach of trust among corruption related crimes such as dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe and other property related crimes:
First, the number of public officials who committed six kinds of corruption related crimes increased from 664 persons in 1997 to 799 persons in 1998, and then it almost doubled to 1,504 persons in 1999. The number decreased a little in 2000 to be 1,104 and it increased again in 2001 to be 1,212 and it greatly decreased in 2002 to be 891. The number was 1,265 in 2008 and 1,478 in 2009, increasing remarkably compared to 791 in 2007.
Second, the percentage of six corruption related crimes of the Criminal Act by public officials constantly increased; for instance, 32.1% in 1997, 33.8% in 1998, 40.9% in 1999, 39.2% in 2000 and 40.6% in 2002. It decreased to 22.9% in 2006 and 21.9% in 2007. Then it increased again to 25.7% in 2008 and 26% in 2009.
Third, the number of dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe, embezzlement and breach of trust greatly increased in 2008 and 2009, and the number of giving a bribe has increased since 2007 by small amount.

b) Corruption Criminals by Type of Public Officials
The study examined public official crimes by type of crimes of both central government officials and local government officials in the Administration: The crimes included dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe, embezzlement and breach of trust.
First, since the New Government took power two years ago, the number of public officials who committed crime of dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe, embezzlement and breach of trust increased remarkably compared to a 200~300 decreasing trend for the last two years.
Second, since the New Government took power, crimes by local government officials increased three times for the last two years.
Third, the number of public officials who committed crime of dereliction of duty was 107 among central government officials and 154 among local government officials in 1997, and the number of local government officials was more than that of central government officials until 2009.
Fourth, the number of criminals abusing officials' rights was 57 among central government officials and 31 among local government officials in 1997, and the number of criminals of central government officials was more than that of local government officials from 1997 to 2009 except for 2007.
Fifth, like dereliction of duty, the number of public officials who committed crime of taking a bribe was 70 among central government officials and 85 among local government officials in 1997, and the number of criminals of local government was more than that of central government officials from 1997 to 2009 except for 2001.
Sixth, like dereliction of duty and taking a bribe, the number of public officials who committed crime of giving a bribe was two among central government officials and four among local government officials in 1997, and the number of criminals of local government officials was more than that of central government officials for the last ten years except for 1999, 2004 and 2009.
Seventh, the number of public officials who committed embezzlement was 46 among central government officials and 39 among local government officials in 1997, and the number of local government officials was more than that of central government officials from 1997 to 2009.
Eight, like dereliction of duty, the number of public officials who committed breach of trust was 13 among central government officials and 26 among local government officials in 1997, and the number of local government officials was more than that of central government officials from 1997 to 2009.

c) Crimes of Public Officials by Position
This study investigated crimes of dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe and giving a bribe by position of public officials.
First, 11,519 public officials committed crimes. The number was divided by position as follows; 436 persons with the 3rd grade or higher, 1,844 persons with the 5th grade or higher, 4,673 persons with the 7th grade or higher and 2,724 persons with the 9th grade or higher and the rest was 1,842 (15.3%). Public officials with the 7th grade or higher position occupied the highest percentage, followed by those who with the 9th grade or higher and those who with the 5th grade or higher in order.
Second, 4,778 public officials committed crime of dereliction of duty for the last 11 years from 1999 to 2009. By position, 176 persons with the 3rd grade or higher (3.7%), 842 persons with the 5th grade or higher (17.6%), 2,038 persons with the 7th grade or higher (42.7%) and 992 persons with the 9th grade or higher and the rest was 730 (15.3%). Public officials with the 7th grade or higher position occupied almost half, which was the highest, followed by those who with the 9th grade or higher and those who with the 5th grade or higher in order.
Third, 2,859 public officials committed crime of abuse of officials' rights. By position, 91 persons with the 3rd grade or higher (3.2%), 319 persons with the 5th grade or higher (11.2%), 910 persons with the 7th grade or higher (31.8%) and 1,039 persons with the 9th grade or higher (36.3%) and the rest was 500 (17.5%). Public officials with the 9th grade or higher position occupied the highest percentage, followed by those who with the 7th grade or higher and those who with the 5th grade or higher in order.
Fourth, 2,452 public officials committed crime of bribes. By position, 97 persons with the 3rd grade or higher (4.0%), 463 persons with the 5th grade or higher (18.9%), 1,123 persons with the 7th grade or higher (45.8%), and 295 persons with the 9th grade or higher (12.0%) and the rest was 474 (19.3%). Public officials with the 7th grade or higher position occupied almost half, which was the highest, followed by those who with the 5th grade or higher and those who with the 9th grade or higher in order.

d) Prosecution Rate of Public Official Criminals by Crime Type
Public officials were prosecuted by dereliction of duty, which is the highest percentage in accumulation from 1997 to 2009, followed by abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe and giving a bribe in order. The prosecution percentage of dereliction of duty and abuse of officials' rights was very low, which is no more than 1.8% and 1.1% respectively. But, the percentage of taking a bribe and giving a bribe was high, approximately 41.9% and 70.1%, respectively.

3) Disciplinary Action by Type of the Crimes

Public official were imposed on legal penalty because of committing corruption crime, and they were under disciplinary action from Ministry of Public Administration and Security because of violation of laws and regulations:
First, public officials were given disciplinary actions from 1997 to 2009; for instance, 6,140 persons in 1998, which is the highest, and 1,469 persons in 2005, the lowest, and the percentage has increased since 2006 and there was 81.2% increase in 2009 compared to the previous year.
Second, public officials committing crimes of dereliction of duty, abuse of officials' rights, taking a bribe, giving a bribe, embezzlement and diversion of public money were given disciplinary actions from 1997 to 2009; for instance, abuse of officials' rights (1%), dereliction of duty and negligence (18.1%), taking or giving a bribe (9.7%, in other words, 5,645 officials), diversion of public money (1.2%) and embezzlement (0.9%). The public officials who were given disciplinary actions by committing corruption crimes occupied 30.9%, one third of the total who received disciplinary punishment.
Third, types of violation of laws and regulations were: 120 persons committed crime of the abuse of officials' rights in 1999, which are the highest and then the number starts to decline recording 1 person in 2004 and approximately 5 persons thereafter and 3 persons in 2009. And, 1,831 persons committed crime of dereliction of duty and negligence in 1998, when the number reached the highest and it then declined until 2006 and increased again thereafter. In particular, the crime rate was almost 50% higher in 1998 than the previous year. 117 persons committed crime of diversion of public money in 1998, which are the highest, and 3~40 persons committed the crime each year thereafter except for 70 persons in 2000 and 57 persons in 2005, and the remarkably increased number of 73 persons committed the crime in 2009. 43 persons who committed crime of embezzlement were given disciplinary action in 1997, and 2~40 persons were given disciplinary action each year except for 43 persons in 2006 and 54 persons in 1999: The number of persons being given disciplinary action was 16 persons in 2007, 23 persons in 2008 and 69 persons in 2009, tripled compared to the previous year.

B. Analysis on Corruption Index

1) Corruption Perception Index

The Transparency International announces corruption perception index (CPI) every year: South Korea recorded 5.4 of CPI in 2010 to have a considerable gap compared with 7 advanced countries. CPI of South Korea was much lower than the average CPI of OECD, which was 6.94 in 2010. CPI of South Korea changed from 1995 to 2010; 4.29 in 1995 when the Transparency International released CPI for the first time, 3.8 in 1999, and 4.5 in 2004. The CPI was 5.0 in 2004, 5.1 in 2006, 5.1 in 2007 and 5.6 in 2008 reaching the highest. Since 1995 the CPI has increased each year. In 2009, however, the CPI was 5.5 and 5.4 in 2010, decreasing by 0.1 each year.

2) Global Corruption Barometers

The global corruption barometers (GCB) reflecting civilian's cognition and experience of corruption can show people's ideas on the most corrupted public area, the government's anti-corruption policy and levels of future corruption. Six major areas with high GCB in Korea were political parties, the National Assembly, enterprises, the press, public officials and the justice and the average of the six areas was 3.9 (the scale was from 1 'no corruption' to 5 'extremely corrupted'), which is higher than the average of the world, 3.6. The political parties were found to be influenced the most by corruption, followed by the National Assembly (4.2), enterprises (3.8), public officials (3.7) and the press (3.6) in order. The average of GCB of South Korea can be compared with that of the world: The GCB of political parties of South Korea (4.3) was higher than that of the world, and that of the National Assembly (4.2) was also higher than that of the world (3.7). The GCB of enterprise of South Korea (3.8) was higher than that of the world (3.5), and that of the press of South Korea (3.6) was higher than that of the world (3.2), and that of the justice of South Korea (3.6) was higher than that of the world (3.5). On the other hand, the GCB of public officials of South Korea (3.7) was lower than that of the world (3.8).
The interviewees selected one area among the six that could be the most influenced by corruption. The public officials (12%) was less influenced by corruption than the average of public officials of the world (26%). The interviewees in South Korea said that they thought public officials affirmatively compared with the average of the world.
The interviewees uated anti-corruption activity of the current government as follows. They said that the activity was effective (16%) and ineffective (81%), reflecting their thinking of anti-corruption activity by the government as negative. The figure of 81% was much higher than the average of anti-corruption of the world (56%).

C. Analysis of the Questionnaire

1) Cognition on Actual Conditions of the Corruption

At first, the office workers replied to the question of degree of corruption level of Korean public officials: common level of corruption was the highest (50.8%), followed by rather corrupted (31.9%) and very much corrupted (4.1%). 36% of the office workers said that public officials were corrupted. The average of the degree of corruption was 3.26 from the full score of 5. On the other hand, public officials said that they were corrupted (7.8%) and incorrupted at large (56.4%) and the average was 2.47 out of 5, which is much different from the cognition of civilian.

2) Prence and Seriousness of Public Officials' Corruption

This study examined public officials and civilian's cognition on prence and seriousness of three types of public officials' corruption, which are non-performance of duties, illegal behavior and unfair behavior. The public officials rated non-performance of duties more seriously than illegal behavior and unfair behavior. The midpoint of the scale was 3 and the average of each question by public officials was below 2.5. On the other hand, the average of each question by civilians exceeded 3. Therefore, civilians thought corruptions more seriously than public officials. The result of 2010 differed from that of 1997. Non-performance of the duty recorded a low score, showing that cognition on prence of the corruption has decreased. In particular, the interviewees thought of dereliction of duty and negligence favorably than the other areas. The interviewees thought illegal and unfair behavior favorably, but illegal behavior showed no difference.

3) Seriousness of Public Officials' Corruption

The interviewees said that corruption of public officials would give less damage to the society than that of civilian would do. The bribery that public officials received in compensation for permitting and licensing illegal behavior was thought to be the most serious. Benefit and convenience that office workers received by using human relations were thought to be the most serious. The interviewees thought that seriousness of corruption was alleviated in 2010 than it was in 1997. However, the decrease in the average of corruption of public officials was lower than that of civilian was, which resulted in different viewpoint between the two groups though it was minor. Not only illegal behavior but also unfair behavior showed the same trend that the difference in viewpoint was expanded. The public officials said that seriousness of unfair behavior of public officials was lowered, and that the seriousness of civilian made no change. So, the difference in the averages of both groups was expanded.

4) Corruption at the Level of Organizations

In South Korea, corruption is said to be popular at organizations. The study examined whether such a belief was true. Illegal dealing, congratulatory or condolence money without compensation and money offered to their senior, etc did not reach 5 percent. In particular, approximately 75 percent of the interviewees said that they did not take such illegal actions and strongly denied corruption in their organizations. 2.5% of the interviewees admitted of illegal dealing in the department, and 2.6% received congratulatory or condolence money without compensation from job related business and affiliated organizations, and only 3.4% used money offered to the senior to pay operating expenses of their organizations. The atmosphere that allowed corruption in the organization was: 83.4% of the interviewees said that those who disclosed minor corruption were not scorned. 87.4% of them said that minor corruption of fellow workers could not be allowed. 82.3% of them said that boss did not complete corruption of subordinates silently but censured. However, bosses do not always censure their subordinates. So, the former is interested not in prevention of corruption, but in punishment. Therefore, a program is needed to prevent public officials from being corrupted.
85.3% of the interviewees said that those one who offered a bribe to the boss in their department were not given favor and promotion. And 19.7% of them said that those who did not follow illegal and unreasonable practice were rejected at their department. No more than 12.8% of them said that there always existed an opportunity to join corruption at their organization.
Therefore, corruption was not allowed in the organization. People's interest in and awareness level of public officials become so high that public officials themselves try to change their attitude towards corruption in their organizations.


5) Supply of Money and Entertainment

This study investigated corruption by civilians to supplement insufficiency of official statistics and survey results of public officials: 95.6% of civilian said that they gave neither money nor entertainment last year. Those who were in entertain business said that 10.4% of them gave either money or entertainment. The survey result of 2010 was found to be quite different from that of 1997. In other words, 36.0% of the interviewees said that they gave either money or entertainment during the previous year in 1997, while no more than 4.4% did in 2010. So, civilian's corruption was found to be lowered very much. All of business types showed the same trend of lowered corruption. Further studies are needed to investigate the findings.

6) Who asked public officials to accept requests?

This study investigated who asked public officials to accept their requests most frequently. The public official's boss stood the highest to be 26.1%, followed by politicians and other external force to be 23.0%, those who have relationship such as regional relations, school and college relation and so on to be 19.8%, no one to be 17.1%, unknown person who wants to settle civil affairs of 10.8%, and family and relatives to be 3.3%, the lowest. The result of 2010 mostly remained unchanged compared with that of 1997. 288 interviewees gave money to ask public officials to accept their requests. 44.4% of them asked public officials to settle either traffic control or traffic accident, which is the highest.

7) Cognition on Causes of the Corruption

The study examined what either public officials or civilians thought of as causes of corruption, and what they thought was responsible to control corruption, either government activities or systemic programs. The public officials thought that the causes of corruption were officials' desire, low wage and salary, civil petitioners' temptation and lure, climate of social absurdities, organizational practice, shortage of either organization operation expenses or business activity subsidy, and the government's excessive administration control. On the other hand, civilians thought that the causes of corruption were minor punishment and penalty against corruption of public officials, climate of social absurdities, inactive audit of concerned government authority and desire of official in charge. The result of 2010 was compared with that of 1997: The former showed that public officials more thought of their low salary and allowance, civil petitioner's lure, and desire of official in charge as the causes of corruption than public officials in 1997. The civilian thought that public officials took corruption actions because of minor punishment and penalty.

8) uation on Assessment and Inspection at Public Official Society

78.2% of the interviewees said that laws and regulations of punishment and penalty against corrupted public officials kept a good order to assess and inspect the society of public officials. And, 76.4% of the interviewees said that self-inspection agency acted very actively, and 74.3% of them said that assessment was done well. And, 72.1% of the interviewees said that assessment was done fairly to rely upon it. 63.4% of the interviewees said that upper class agency inspected administration effectively. In other words, public officials said that current inspection and assessment had no problem of strength, and that upper class agency discovered corruption of the administration effectively. When the results between 2010 and 1997 were compared, self-inspection agency was uated to inspect better. However, effectiveness of discovery, effectiveness of punishment laws and regulations, and strength and fairness of the assessment did not make any change or were thought to be slightly bad.

9) Strength of Punishment and Penalty against Corrupted Officials and Cognition on the Officials who were the Most Corrupted

This study investigated civilian's cognition on strength of punishment and penalty against corrupted public officials: In other words, 49.3% of the interviewees said that punishment against high class officials was rather low to be 2.58 in average, and 58.3% of them said that punishment against mid-and low-class officials was rather high to be 3.62 in average. The interviewees answered who were the most corrupted among public officials: 35.4% of civilian said that ministers, vice-ministers and other high-ranking officials were the most corrupted, followed by directors and head of the department (33.1%), section chief (17.7%) and junior official (8.1%). The interviewees said that the 7th class or lower official were not much corrupted (5.0%) and the 9th class or lower officials were corrupted the least (0.7%). When the results between 1997 and 2010 were compared, more interviewees said that ministers, vice-ministers, directors, head of the department and other high-ranking officials were corrupted, and they had bad impression on high-ranking officials.

10) Detection System of Corruption of the Public Officials

This study uated efficiency of detection system of corruption of the public officials: All of the questions were given 3 out of 5 so that public officials received good scores of efficiency of the detection system of corruption. Investigation into anonymous letter by the police was rated to be 3.38, the highest, while registration system of public officials' property was rated to be 3.14, somewhat low. Comparison of results between 1997 and 2010 showed that assessment on five kinds of systems changed in an affirmative way. The findings showed that detection system of corruption of public officials were found to be effective for the last ten years, and that many people had consensus.

11) Public Officials' Corruption Behavior and Factors

The public officials' bribe had significant influence upon discretion, contacts with citizens, prence of the corruption and practice of the organizations.
The study examined factors having influence upon being paid large amount of money, small amount of money and facilitation payment: All of the three behaviors were found to be influenced by cognition of the prence of corruption, threat to legal punishment, threat to shamefulness and threat to embarrassment

12) Summary

The practice of corruption in this society decreased considerably than before. In the results of self-reports by public officials, 'Nothing' stood to be 95% throughout the questions except the following: Bosses' request to ask subordinate officials to make an effort to work in a favorable way, and request from family and relatives to ask officials to do difficult work in accordance with laws and regulations. The public officials had never been given bosses' request (83.1%), and were given request one time or more during six months (16.8%), and were given no request from either family or relatives (89.4%), and were given one time or more during six months (10.7%). The public officials were given special allowance from either job related business or an affiliated organization last six months (3.7%), and were given facilitation payment (3.6%), and were given bribe amounting to approximately 100,000 Won in compensation for tacit consent of either control or illegal actions (3.6%), and were given bribe amounting to some million Won (3.6%). Bosses and family members who had close relations with public officials had more opportunity for corruption. Such a fact showed that those who should control and prevent corruption developed atmosphere of the corruption. Those who could have influence upon public officials may lower officials' and lessen guiltiness on corruptive behavior so that not only officials but also those who have close relations with officials had better correct their ideas. Comparison of the results between 1997 and 2010 showed that change was in a good direction in 2010 considering that 66.5% answered 'nothing' to bosses' request that looked like semi-order in 1997.

4. Control of the Corruption

This study suggested corruption control from view point of social structure, social culture, organization and duty. Anti-corruption & Civil Rights Commission of Korea that is anti-corruption agency is working passively, and it does not have practical and powerful rights enough to prevent corruption and is not independent from politics: So, the anti-corruption agency needs to be assured of political independence and to be given rights of investigation regardless of position and title considering successful case of Singapore. The corruption problem has close relation with its causes to put an emphasis upon reliability and strictness of legal punishment and penalty in order to control corruption. The court sentence of bribe crime of South Korea does not differ from that of foreign countries to have good laws and systems. To get rid of corruption, rate of the prosecution against corruption criminals needs to be raised and to have strict judicial process.
In this study, bribery factors include prence of the corruption, cognition on punishment and penalty, opportunity of the corruption for the last five years, discretional disposition, permit of the use of illegal means, moderation mechanism, and contact with civilians. The bribery factors were found to have significant influence. First of all, government agencies shall control corruption of their own officials to strengthen punishment and penalty and to raise fearfulness of the punishment.
The survey of public officials showed that the officials were asked to accept request from bosses (26.1%) and politicians and external force (23%). The interviewees were mostly 6th class or lower officials, which makes acceptance of requests from politicians and external force less than high-ranking officials. So, the requests from external force were thought to be given from bosses. At comparison between 1998 and 2010, low class officials were asked less to accept requests from their bosses. The requests from family members and relatives were almost negligible (3.3%), and the requests from those who have either regional relation or academic relation (19.8%) were less than those from bosses and politicians were. The public officials were asked to accept requests from either bosses or politicians who had power and position for the officials to have difficulty in rejection. Such a phenomenon remains unchanged for the last ten years. The public officials may reject requests from those who have either regional relations or academic relations, but they are mostly unable to reject requests from either bosses or politicians who know officials' duties well. The organizational practice is thought to rely upon will of bosses, high-ranking officials and politicians who have power.