On March 29, 2019, the National Commission on Human Rights receives these questions on the Inquiry Prohibition Bulletin Board.

"To encourage police officers and firefighters who are struggling in public security and disaster scenes, we would like to offer scholarships to our scholarships for children of police and firefighters (children in school) who are hard-to-life or hard-to-life. If you pay 500,000 won per person in the name of the scholarship foundation, does it violate the related provisions such as the Anti-Solicitation Law? "

● Police officers and fireman children's scholarships… "Well, in principle, no"

This question is answered on April 2, 2019 by the National Civil Rights Commission.

"Under the Solicitation Act, public officials, etc. shall not accept, request or promise money, etc., exceeding one million won at one time or more than three million won in each fiscal year, regardless of whether or not they are job-related."

"Even if the scholarship is paid to the child who is not a public official, the scholarship is considered to be given to the public officials in that the parents pay most of the children's education expenses. Therefore, the scholarship should be determined in accordance with the payment to public officials. In addition, if there is a provision in the relevant laws and standards, it may be allowed in accordance with other laws and standards of Article 8 (3) 8 of the Anti-Solicitation Act.

"If payment is allowed in accordance with the social provisions of Article 8 (3) 8 of the Anti-Solicitation Act, exceptions may be made."

(Please refer to the captured image below for the full text of the answer ※).
In short, if you receive a scholarship for being a child of a police officer or fireman, you may be in violation of the Unlawful Solicitation Act (also known as the Kim Young-ran Act), and are only allowed to receive scholarships if the money is acceptable under social statutes. . This is a negative interpretation by the Kwon Ik-won for the anonymous questioner who wants to provide scholarships to police officers and firemen's children.

(※ However, in the case of the question, it is possible to interpret that it does not violate the Kim Young-ran law. If parents pay for their education, the scholarships paid to their children will also be given to the officials. ')

● What is the scholarship received from my daughter?

Suddenly, the story of Kim Young-ran's voting interpretation is due to a scholarship controversy involving the daughter of his homeland candidate.

The daughter of her father-in-law attended the Pusan ​​National University School of Medicine and received six consecutive semester scholarships from the first semester of 2016 to the second semester of 2018. Each year, 2 million won was paid to Cho's daughter, totaling 12 million won. Cho was a professor at Seoul National University, who is defined as a public official in the interpretation of the Kim Young-Ran law throughout all these periods. Since May 2017, he has served as a senior vice president of the Blue House, who is treated as a vice minister. In other words, the scholarship received by Cho's daughter was the same as the scholarship received by a firefighter or police officer's child.

In particular, it is important to note the nature of the scholarship received by Cho's daughter. This scholarship was an external scholarship, not an in-school scholarship with certain selection procedures or standards. This scholarship fund, which is created by an academic advisor, does not disclose the criteria for selecting scholarship recipients. Scholarship selection is also determined at the discretion of the academic advisor. For this reason, the daughter of her father-in-law was able to receive the scholarship for six consecutive terms, despite failing and being paid once during the period of receiving the scholarship. The other six students who received the same scholarship received only one semester. The question is whether it is unusual for a student with a generous family and a failed student to give a scholarship for six consecutive semesters, unlike other students. There is no. '

● Is law equal to all? What is the answer?

I have a question. If the scholarships given to the children of firefighters or police officers are "determined in accordance with the payment to public officials," it is natural that the scholarships given to the professor of Seoul National University and the daughter of Min Jung-su, the professor of the Blue House, are not allowed in principle. Wouldn't it be? Firefighters, police officers and Cheong Wa Dae's civilian officers are all officials under the Kim Young-Ran law, regardless of their high or low ranks.

To confirm this, SBS put a questionnaire on the National Civil Rights Committee on 23rd through Kim Jong Suk's office. After many scholars learned about the controversy over the scholarship debate of the daughter of the US Attorney General. However, I wrote a questionnaire for anonymous public officials with the exception of the words "homeland" or "private senior citizen" in order to avoid answering the case to avoid mentioning a specific case. The query was as follows:

Question. If a child of a public official who attends a professional school receives several scholarships in excess of one million won each time his or her supervisor personally pays, will the public official be charged with a violation of the Anti-Solicitation Law? Or not? (※ The child is 20 years old or older. The child does not have independent economic activity and has no regular income. Parents receive tuition or housing fees.)

(Note 1) The scholarship is a privately funded scholarship that is provided by the scholarship fund of the official of the official's child at his own expense. It is known to be given at the discretion of the academic advisor who raised the scholarship fund.

(Note 2) Since the official was hired as a public official, the number of scholarships that the child received was 3 times, each with 2 million won each, and a total of 6 million won while the father was a public official.
[Note: The question was only for questions received after the appointment of the Blue House.

(Note 3) In this case, please ask the relevant public official whether he or she is charged with a violation of the Anti-Solicitation Law. There is room for interpretation as to whether or not there is a job-related relationship with the advisor who provided the scholarship. First of all, please answer on the premise that there is no job relatedness.


● The opposite of the case of police and fireman children. The reason is?

In response, the National Rights Commission submitted the following response to Congressman Kim Jong Suk.

"Please understand that there is a limit to answering in a state where the specific facts of an individual case are unknown. The Anti-Solicitation Act prohibits the receipt of money by officials and their spouses." In this case, the anti-solicitation law does not apply unless there is a special situation that can be directly received by a public official. "
In any case, it is the opposite of what the police and firefighters said in April. In April, a question from a person who wanted to give a policeman or a fireman's child a question was evaluated as "a scholarship given to a public official in the sense that the parents would pay most of their child's education, even if the scholarship was given to that child, not a public official." "The Prohibition of the Solicitation Act prohibits the collection of money of public officials and their spouses," including the question asked after the controversy over the country's chief daughter. If the rest of the family receives money (not shown), the Anti-Solicitation Act does not apply. ”Even though the official assumes that they are paying for their children's education.

The day after receiving the response, a member of the House of Representatives Kim Jong-suk met with the National Civil Rights Commission. Representative Kim Jong-suk told the Kwon Ik-wi side that 'the issue of the daughter of a motherland candidate was reported to the media several times, and the questionnaire specifically stated the facts of the case of the candidate of Cho's daughter. Do you have written an answer saying that it does not fall under Kim Young-Lan law? ' In response, the authorities did not give a clear answer about whether or not they knew this at the time of writing. Representative Kim Jong-seok replied, 'Then, we have now revealed that the official in the questionnaire is the father-in-law of the country, and if so, are the contents of the answer different?' In response, the official answered, 'The answer does not change depending on who the official is.' In other words, the scholarships given to the children of Min Jung are not considered to be paid to the 'public officials and their spouses' as defined by the Kim Young Ran Act. (※ This official did not answer when I asked, `` I didn't know that the official was a candidate for my country when I wrote the response. '')

I thought this decision by the Commission was a clear double standard. Aside from whether scholarships for officials 'children can be seen as acceptable money in accordance with social statutes, KIC noted that the scholarships given to firefighters and police officers' children in April were "in the sense that parents paid most of their children's education. Scholarships are evaluated as being offered to officials. " In fact, this is not the only answer. Even in June 2017, the Committee on Rights and Rights said, "In the event that it is formally provided to public officials, etc., even if it provides money, etc., to persons who are not subject to the above application, it shall be considerably subject to the rules of the Anti-Solicitation Act." In October 2018, he answered, "Even if you provide money for public officials' children, if you can actually give them to public officials, it may be a matter of violating the Anti-Solicitation Act." In other words, it seems to have consistently concluded that while public officials are paying for their children's education, the scholarships given to their children should be interpreted as money provided to public officials.

However, this time, unless the official and his / her spouse have received it directly, even though it is clearly assumed that the public pays for the education of their children, the “anti-solicitation law does not apply unless there are special circumstances that can be seen as directly received by a public official”. I answered. Even after reiterating the question related to the senior citizens, they answered 'the answer does not change'. The attitudes of the authorities who said they were not allowed to the children of police and firefighters in principle, and in other cases, provided that they were actually provided to public officials, the attitudes of those who judged themselves to be subject to the Anti-Solicitation Law were reversed.

● Additional terms for 'Kim Young-ran Act' violation: the meaning of "social rules"

Of course, one more requirement must be met for a scholarship given to a child of an official to be illegal. Even if a scholarship received by a child of a public official was interpreted as a souvenir provided to the public official in accordance with an ICT vote, the scholarship was allowed in accordance with social statutes, ie, "does not violate social norms". This is because the law says that it cannot be seen as illegal. In other words, it is illegal in principle to give public officials more than 1 million won or more than 3 million won a year, but it may be acceptable if it can be considered acceptable in the light of social ethics or myths. Will

If so, in what cases can a scholarship paid to a child of a public office be "an act that does not violate social standards"? In regards to other questions related to this, the August 2017 Commission on Rights and Rights said, "As a result of a fair and transparent process, not a scholarship as a child of a public official, but a child including a public official, unless otherwise specified, Prohibition of the law will not be a problem. " In other words, if the scholarship is paid by a fair and transparent process, not because it is a child of a public official, it will not violate the Kim Young-ran law, but the money given to the child of the official at the discretion of the fair and transparent process or at the discretion of the individual It means that there is a possibility of violation of Kim Young-ran law. For example, if scholarships were selected for scholarship based on grades, economic circumstances, or certain social contributions, according to school rules, the scholarships given to the official's children would not be a problem, but they would be paid according to a process that was not fair or transparent. Scholarships are problematic.

● Does the country's candidate daughter's scholarship not violate "social rules"?

Could the scholarship received by Cho's daughter be "fair and transparent"? As we have seen, this scholarship is an external scholarship with no open selection criteria. It is known as money paid at the discretion of the advisor. Therefore, it seems difficult to see it as a transparent process. In addition, it may not be easy to assume that the economic situation was given by a "fair process" in that a rich, failing, and paid student was given six consecutive scholarships that only one student received. The Supreme Court also uses a precedent to call "an act that does not violate social norms" as "an act that can be tolerated in the light of the spirit of the entire law or the social ethics or social notions behind it." Legitimacy, second, the equivalence of the means or methods of action, third, the legal interest balance between protection interests and infringement interests, fourth, urgency, fifth, and supplementaryness that no other means are available. The Supreme Court ruled November 14, 1997, and I wonder if the scholarships paid to Cho's daughter are any of these.

[** The concept of "an act that does not violate social statutes" as defined in the Kim Young-Ran Act can be seen as coming from Article 20 of the Criminal Code. The cited precedent defines the concept of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.]

Let me summarize. In the event that money is paid more than 1 million won or more than 3 million won annually, it is important to determine whether the other party is a public official. The IRC analyzed the scholarships given to police officers and firefighters' children, saying that they were evaluated as being provided to public officials in the sense that parents paid their child's education expenses. However, after the scholarship debate of the country's nominee's daughter had been questioned, he maintained the interpretation that it was "difficult to be paid to officials and their spouses" even after making clear that the scholarship was given to Min Jung's daughter. Secondly, the law states that even scholarships paid to public officials are permitted if they are "non-compliance with social standards" because of the transparent and impartial process. However, the scholarships given to the daughters of the country's candidates are difficult to interpret as socially acceptable in light of the process and selection process. Rather, a fair and transparent selection criterion may be considered to be "not in violation of social standards" by selecting a certain number of children of police and firefighters to provide scholarships.

● The definition of the daughter of a firefighter, the daughter of Min Jung, and the candidate for homeland.

President Moon Jae-in presented as a slogan a sentence still in the hearts of many people as a presidential candidate: "Opportunities will be equal. Processes will be fair. Results will be just." It is questionable whether the rights of the authorities, which judge that scholarships that were banned for firefighters and police officers' children, would be acceptable for the children of civil affairs, guarantee equality of opportunity. The other student doubts that it is the fairness of the course that the daughter of Min Jung, who is unable to find any qualification objectively for a scholarship that is difficult to receive once, has been kept. Thus, if many people feel that the results obtained by Cho's daughter are unjust, whether or not it violates the current Kim Young-ran law, it would be time for Cho to ask himself whether he is eligible as minister of the Moon Jae-in government. What a firefighter's daughter is not allowed is a definition that is not allowed to a civilian daughter.

※ Since the news was reported in SBS 8 News on August 23, 2019, the National Rights and Rights Commission of Korea around 00:00 distributed the following explanation data. The process of reporting on rights and interests is explained in detail in the body of the report. However, in view of showing the rights-rights claim as it is, we will move the original clarification data to the coverage file.