This research studies law and policy on the chemical castration, as a treatment of persistent sex offenders.

1. In its first chapter, the objectives and methodology of this study will be presented. In the second chapter, the characteristics and limits of castration as a means of criminal sanction will be dealt with. As for methods of castration, there are physical or surgical and chemical castration. From the year of 2011 on, chemical castration will be implemented under the Act on Treatment of Sexual Urge 2010, which aims to deter sex offenders from re-offending by use of chemical substances. Castration under the Act can be understood as a measure of special prevention against limited group of sex offenders. Court, under the Act, has given a power to impose chemical castration without consent of the offender. As the consent from the offender who will be under treatment is a key to justify such measure under the Constitution, the legality of chemical castration will be under dispute both in theory and practice of criminal justice.
According to empirical studies, chemical castration has very limited effect on persistent sex offender. Its effectiveness may be reviewed by recidivism rate, which again under dispute, as the method of estimating recidivism and the effect of psychiatric treatment accompanied by the chemical castration treatment are criticized.
This research includes comparative study of castration laws in the US, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Chez, and Poland. This will be followed by the review on the legislative introduction of the Act in 2010. The objectives, conditions of the treatment, application procedure and criminal sanctions of the Act will be explained.

2. Firstly, the sex urge treatment order under the Act may breach constitutional right of the offender, as it does not demand the consent of the offender under treatment. Offender's cooperation is the key to the success of the treatment. For the purpose of successful implementation of the order, the treatment needs to be considered as a sentencing factor. In the case of the order on inmate, the Prole Board should consider it as a factor of the review on parole.
Secondly, the Act does not clearly defined conditions when the treatment order is imposed on inmates. As the Act demands consent of the inmate, his voluntariness should be practically protected. In case of chemical castration order on the inmate who is under treatment custody may avoid judicial decision by way of application to the Treatment Custody Review Committee. Such possible irregularities should be amended before full implementation of the Act, so that the introduction of the chemical castration would be both effective and justifiable measure against serious sex offenders in our society.