SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: Jeena Kim, Kyunghwan Lee, Eunyoung Row and Bochan Kim, Bae, Kim & Lee LLC
The Public Interest Whistle-Blower Protection Act Articles 26 through 29 of the Public Interest Whistle-Blower Protection Act also contain pro - visions to incentivise whistle-blowers, as follows. Compensation If the report leads to the recovery or increase of direct revenue for the State or local government, or if the legal relationship regarding it is finalised, a reward can be requested within the range of 30% of the confirmed amount (with no upper limit on the payment). Financial Reward If a public interest report results in significant financial benefits for a public institution or pre - vents a loss, or contributes to the promotion of the public interest, a reward of up to KRW500 million may be granted, or honours such as dec - orations or medals may be awarded. Relief Money Whistle-blowers, their co-operators or their rela - tives/household members who suffer from the following due to the public interest report may apply for compensation, including: • physical and mental treatment costs; • relocation expenses incurred due to reassign - ment, secondment, etc; • costs incurred in legal proceedings related to the public interest report; and • wage loss during the period of retaliatory actions.
administrative sanctions imposed are as refer - enced in 5.1 Penalties on Conviction . Additionally, if a bribery crime leads to direct financial loss or infringement of rights, the victim may seek compensation through a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator (the person who offered or received the bribe). Since bribery is a legally prohibited act, if someone suffers harm as a result, the victim can claim damages based on Article 750 of the Civil Code (liability for unlaw - ful acts). For example, if a prosecutor accepts a bribe from a complainant and files charges in a case, the defendant in that case may be able to seek damages from the prosecutor. Furthermore, Article 399 of the Commercial Code stipulates that directors are liable for damages to the company if they engage in illegal acts. If a director uses company funds to offer a bribe while performing company duties, it constitutes a violation of the law as defined by Article 399. Therefore, the director is responsible for com - pensating the company for the amount of the bribe, as ruled in the Supreme Court decision of 28 October 2005 (Case No 2003Da69638). 7.2 Enforcement Bodies Public Prosecution Prosecutors have prosecutorial powers to inves - tigate and prosecute bribery and corruption. Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act grants prosecutors the authority to begin an investiga - tion if there is suspicion of a crime being com - mitted. However, according to Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if a prosecutor believes a crime has occurred based on their investigation, they may choose not to pursue prosecution, tak - ing into account factors such as the offender’s
7. Enforcement Trends 7.1 Enforcement
When an individual or a corporation is convict - ed of a bribery-related crime, the penalties or
388 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook