17정책0003

유엔 고문 및 그 밖의 잔혹한，비인도적인 또는 굴욕적인 대우나 처벌의 방지에 관한 협약(이하 “협약”이라 한다)에 따른 대한민국 제3，4，5차 국가보고서(이하 “국가보고서”라 한다) 심의와 관련하여， 유엔 고문방지위원회에 본 의견서를 제출

1. 국가인권위원회는 유엔 「고문 및 그 밖의 잔혹한·비인도적인 또는 굴욕적인 대우나 처벌의 방지에 관한 협약」(이하 “협약”이라 한다)에 따른 대한민국 제3·4·5차 국가보고서(이하 “국가보고서”라 한다) 심의와 관련하여, 유엔 고문방지위원회에 본 의견서를 제출한다. 국가인권위원회는 독립적인 국가인권기구로서 「협약」의 이행 상황 모니터링을 통하여 「협약」의 완전한 국내 이행을 위하여 최선의 노력을 하고 있다.
2. 본 의견서는 「협약」을 비롯하여 「시민적 및 정치적 권리에 관한 국제규약」 등 국제인권조약과 각 조약기구의 권고사항, 일반논평 등을 검토기준으로 하였다. 본 의견서는 국가보고서 작성에 대한 지침(CAT/C/14/Rev.1)을 참고하여 대한민국 제3·4·5차 국가보고서 심의에 도움이 될 수 있는 정보와 의견을 제시하고자 작성되었다.

유엔 「고문 및 그 밖의 잔혹한·비인도적인 또는
굴욕적인 대우나 처벌의 방지에 관한 협약」
대한민국 제3·4·5차 국가보고서 심의에 대한
국가인권위원회 의견서
2017. 3.
국가인권위원회

- 목 차 -
쟁점번호 쟁점 제목 페이지
A. 서론 1
B. 협약이행상황 1
1 1. 고문의정의및범죄화 1
2 2. 국가보안법 2
3 3. 변호인의피의자신문참여등피의자권리보호 3
4
4. 가정폭력및성폭력방지 5
4-1.부부강간에대한처벌 5
4-2.가정폭력사건처리 5
4-3.여성장애인에대한가정폭력및성폭력대응 6
4-4.성희롱방지 7
4-5.학교내성폭력 8
4-6.데이트폭력및스토킹 8
4-7. 여성에대한무단촬영(몰래카메라),복수(復讐)포르노유포등디지털성폭력 9
5 5. 여성·아동인신매매 9
6
6. 고문위험국가로추방·송환·인도금지 11
6-1. 난민인정현황 11
6-2. 출입국항난민신청제도 12
7 7. 소년보호시설 13
8 8. 수용시설내의폭력·성폭력 13
9 9. 중국계여성이주노동자단속사건조사결과 14
10 10. 국가인권위원회의역할 15
11
11. 군대내부당한대우방지 15
11-1.군대내폭행·가혹행위 15
11-2.징계영창제도 16
12
12. 정신의료기관에서의부당한대우방지 17
12-1.정신의료기관에비자의(非自意)입원 17
12-2.정신의료기관에서의격리·강박 18
13 13. 학교및가정에서의체벌금지 18
14
14. 이주민의권리보호 20
14-1.이주노동자진정및조사제도 20
14-2. 출입국관리법 위반사범단속 21
14-3.외국인보호시설 21
14-4.난민신청자를불법체류자와같이보호하는지여부 22
15 15. 고문방지협약선택의정서비준 22
16 16. 양심적병역거부와대체복무제도입 23
17 17. 대테러조치 24

A. 서론
1.국가인권위원회는유엔 고문및그밖의잔혹한·비인도적인또는굴욕적인
대우나처벌의방지에관한협약 (이하 “협약”이라한다)에따른대한민국
제3·4·5차국가보고서(이하 “국가보고서”라한다)심의와관련하여,유엔
고문방지위원회에본의견서를제출한다.국가인권위원회는독립적인국가인
권기구로서 협약의이행상황모니터링을통하여 협약의완전한국내
이행을위하여최선의노력을하고있다.
2.본의견서는 협약을비롯하여 시민적및정치적권리에관한국제규약
등국제인권조약과각조약기구의권고사항,일반논평등을검토기준으로
하였다.본의견서는국가보고서작성에대한지침(CAT/C/14/Rev.1)을참고
하여대한민국제3·4·5차국가보고서심의에도움이될수있는정보와
의견을제시하고자작성되었다.
B. 협약 이행상황
Ⅰ.제1조 및 제4조(고문의 정의 및 범죄화)
쟁점 1.고문의 정의 및 범죄화(para. 3-5)1)
○국가보고서의설명과같이고문의구체적정의는 형법 등관련법률에
마련되어있지않다.그러나고문을금지하는내용의법률규정이존재한다.
헌법 제12조제2항전단2)은고문금지원칙을규정하고있고, 형사소송법
제309조3)는자백의증거능력을불인정하는사유의하나로서고문을들고
있다.
○그러나이들규정에서말하는 "고문"이 협약에서의 "고문"의정의와명확히
1) 괄호 안의 숫자는 해당 쟁점과 관련한 "대한민국 제3·4·5차 국가보고서"의 문단 번호를 표시한 것임.
2) 「헌법」 제12조
② 모든 국민은 고문을 받지 아니하며, 형사상 자기에게 불리한 진술을 강요당하지 아니한다.
3) 「형사소송법」 제309조(강제등 자백의 증거능력)
피고인의 자백이 고문, 폭행, 협박, 신체구속의 부당한 장기화 또는 기망 기타의 방법으로 임의로 진술한 것이 아니라
고 의심할 만한 이유가 있는 때에는 이를 유죄의 증거로 하지 못한다.

일치한다고보기어렵다.특히 협약은극심한정신적고통을가하는행위도
고문에포함시키고있으나,위고문금지에관한규정들이정신적고문까지
포함하는지불명확하다.
○ 형법 등관련법률에서 협약과일치하는 "고문"의정의를두는것이
바람직하며,특히정신적형태의고문을범죄화하는것이필요하다.
○법무부가 2015년국회에제출한자료에따르면, 2005년부터 2014년까지검찰
수사중에자살한피조사자는 90명이다.경찰수사중에피의자나참고인들이
자살하는경우가종종있지만통계조차관리하지않는다는지적이있다.
○대검찰청은 2015년 “피의자인권보호에만전을기해극단적행동을예방할
것”등의내용을담은 피의자수사관련업무지침을일선검찰청에하달하였
으나원론적내용에그치고있다는비판이있다.국가인권위원회는수사기관
조사과정에서피조사자가자살하는사고가반복되고있음에도근본적인
원인분석및재발방지대책이마련되지않은점에주목하고, 2016. 9.검찰총장
에대해수사과정에서피조사자의자살원인을분석하고유사한사고의발생
을줄일수있는개선책마련이필요하다는의견을표명하였다.검찰은이를
수용하여구체적인개선방안을검토하기로하였다.
쟁점 2.국가보안법(para. 6-10)
○국가보고서는 1997년부터 2002년까지 국가보안법 위반에따른구속건수
대비 2006년부터 2015년구속건수를비교하여구속사건이감소하고있다고
설명하고있다.그런데검찰이발표한 국가보안법위반사범처리현황(2006-2
015)에따르면, 2006년부터 2015년까지의구속건수는 2006년 22명, 2007년
17명, 2008년 16명, 2009년 18명, 2010년 32명, 2011년 19명, 2012년 26명,
2013년 38명, 2014년 7명, 2015년 26명으로 국가보안법 위반으로인한
구속이지속되고있다.
○ 국가보안법 위반사범중상당수는같은법제7조4) 위반이다.경찰청이
4) 「국가보안법」 제7조(찬양·고무등)
①국가의 존립·안전이나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 한다는 정을 알면서 반국가단체나 그 구성원 또는 그 지령을
받은 자의 활동을 찬양·고무·선전 또는 이에 동조하거나 국가변란을 선전·선동한 자는 7년 이하의 징역에 처한다.
② (삭제)
③제1항의 행위를 목적으로 하는 단체를 구성하거나 이에 가입한 자는 1년 이상의 유기징역에 처한다.

2012년국회에제출한자료에따르면, 2010년부터 2012년(8월현재)까지 국가
보안법 위반혐의로입건된사람은 372명이며,이중제7조위반혐의자가
313명으로약 84%이다.
○ 국가보안법 제7조는지나치게모호하고추상적으로규정되어있어표현의
자유등기본적인권을침해한다는우려가있다. 2014년 유엔인권옹호자
특별보고관보고서(A/HRC/25/55/Add.1) , 2015년유엔자유권규약위원
회의 대한민국제4차정기보고서에관한최종견해(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4) ,
2016년 유엔평화적집회및결사의자유특별보고관보고서(A/HRC/32/36
/Add.2)는 국가보안법의오남용가능성및같은법제7조로인한정치적
다원성훼손과표현의자유제약을지적하고있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2004년 국가보안법이사상과양심의자유,표현의자유
등을제한할소지가많은법률이라는이유로폐지를권고하였으나정부는
이를불수용하였다.국가인권위원회가 2016년 제3기국가인권정책기본계획
권고에서권고한바와같이,대한민국정부는 국가보안법 제7조의정비
등남용방지대책을수립할필요가있다.
Ⅱ.제2조(고문행위 방지를 위한 실효적 입법·행정·사법·기타 조치)
쟁점 3.변호인의 피의자신문 참여 등 피의자 권리 보호(para. 23-24)
○ 2007. 6. 1. 형사소송법 개정에따라변호인의피의자신문참여의법적
근거가마련되었다.그러나변호사가실제로피의자신문에참여하는비율은
낮다.경찰청이 2016년국회에제출한자료에따르면,변호사가피의자신문에
참여한비율은 2013년 0.10%, 2014년 0.13%, 2015년 0.17%이다.
○수사과정에서검사나사법경찰관의판단에따라변호사의피의자신문참여가
제한되는경우가있다. 형사소송법 제243조의2제1항5)은 “정당한사유가
④제3항에 규정된 단체의 구성원으로서 사회질서의 혼란을 조성할 우려가 있는 사항에 관하여 허위사실을 날조하거나
유포한 자는 2년 이상의 유기징역에 처한다.
⑤제1항·제3항 또는 제4항의 행위를 할 목적으로 문서·도화 기타의 표현물을 제작·수입·복사·소지·운반·반포·판매 또는
취득한 자는 그 각항에 정한 형에 처한다.
⑥제1항 또는 제3항 내지 제5항의 미수범은 처벌한다.
⑦제3항의 죄를 범할 목적으로 예비 또는 음모한 자는 5년 이하의 징역에 처한다.

없는한피의자에대한신문에참여하게하여야한다”고규정하고있으나,
"정당한사유"가무엇인지는명시하지않고있다.대법원은위 "정당한사유"에
대해변호인이신문을방해하거나수사기밀을누설할염려가있음이객관적으
로명백한경우를말한다고판시하였다.6)
○ 검찰사건사무규칙 제9조의2제4항은검사가변호인의피의자신문참여를
제한할수있는사유로서,검사의승인없이부당하게신문에개입하거나
모욕적인언동등을행하는경우,피의자를대신하여답변하거나특정한
답변또는진술번복을유도하는경우,피의자신문내용을촬영·녹음·기록
하는경우등을들고있다.검찰의내부지침인 변호인의피의자신문참여
운영지침 제5조제1항은 “검사는피의자후방의적절한위치에신문에참여
하는변호인의좌석을마련하여야한다”고규정하여,변호인이피의자와
나란히앉아법률조언을하는것을제약하고있다.
○대한변호사협회의 2015년 피의자신문시변호인의참여권침해설문조사에
따르면,조사대상변호사중 48.8%가피의자신문시에수사기관으로부터
부당한대우를받았다고답하였다.부당한대우의유형은변호인의의견진술
제지(56.6%),검사·사법경찰관의강압적행동(46.5%),피의자신문내용의
메모금지(45.1%),피의자옆자리동석금지(17.9%)등이다.대한변호사협회는
2017. 1.검찰이법령상의근거없이변호인의피의자신문참여권을제약하고
있다고비판하고,이러한수사방식을조속히시정할것을촉구하는성명을
발표하였다.
○국가인권위원회는 2013. 5.경찰이 범죄수사규칙 제59조제4항(위 검찰사건
수사규칙의피의자신문참여제한사유와동일함)을근거로변호인의피의자
에대한상담과조언을제지한행위가인권침해라고판단하고경찰청장에게
변호인의조력을받을권리가보장되도록 범죄수사규칙을개정할것을
권고하였으나경찰청은이를불수용하였다.또한 2016. 6.피의자신문과정에
서경찰이변호인의메모를제시할것을요구하여결국메모를보여준사건과
관련하여,이는피의자의변호인의조력을받을권리를침해한것이라판단하
5) 「형사소송법」 제243조의2(변호인의 참여 등)
①검사 또는 사법경찰관은 피의자 또는 그 변호인·법정대리인·배우자·직계친족·형제자매의 신청에 따라 변호인을 피의
자와 접견하게 하거나 정당한 사유가 없는 한 피의자에 대한 신문에 참여하게 하여야 한다.
6) 대법원 2008. 9. 12. 선고 2008모793 결정.

고소속경찰관들에게교육을실시할것을권고하였으며해당경찰서는권고
를수용하였다.한편 2016. 12.경찰이조사대상자를 "피혐의자신분"으로
조사하면서진술거부권등피의자의권리를고지하지않은사건과관련하여,
비록피혐의자신분으로소환·조사하였더라도실제로는조사대상자의범죄
혐의를조사한것이라면경찰은미리진술거부권,변호인선임권등을고지했
어야한다고판단하고,경찰청장에대해피혐의자조사시에도진술거부권을
고지하도록지침을마련할것을권고하였다.경찰청은 2017. 2.현재위권고의
수용여부를검토중에있다.
쟁점 4.가정폭력 및 성폭력 방지(para. 41-71)
4-1.부부강간에 대한 처벌(para. 41)
○국가보고서가부부강간이인정된사례로제시한대법원판결은법률상의
부부관계는유지되고있으나실제로는오래전부터불화가지속되고있어
혼인관계가파탄된상황에서남편이부인을강간한사례이다.다만대법원은
같은판결에서 “혼인관계가파탄된경우뿐만아니라혼인관계가실질적으로
유지되고있는경우에도남편이폭행이나협박을가하여아내를간음하였다면
강간죄가성립한다”고명시함으로써부부강간을인정하지않던기존의입장
을변경하였다.
○다만위대법원판결의소수의견및일부학계는 형법의강간죄는문언
상 "비혼인관계에있는남녀간의강제적성관계"를의미하므로관련조항을
개정할필요가있다고주장한다.
○ 형법 등관련법률의개정을통해부부강간죄를명시하는것이바람직하다.
4-2.가정폭력 사건 처리(para. 42-46)
○국가보고서부록표 3. 가정폭력사건접수·처리현황 및국회입법조사처의
2013년 상담조건부기소유예제도의입법영향분석에따르면,가정폭력범죄
대비상담조건부기소유예를받은비율은 2008년 3.4%, 2009년 3.1%, 2010년

4.2%, 2011년 5.9%, 2012년 6.1%, 2013년 2.9%, 2014년 3.1%, 2015년 1.8%이다.
○가정폭력사건에대한상담조건부기소유예제도의효용성에대해견해가
나뉘고있다.국회입법조사처의위연구는가정폭력사범중에서상담조건부
기소유예를받은경우의재범률이상담조건부기소유예를받지않은경우의
재범률에비해낮다는점을근거로효용성을인정하고있다.반면여성인권
단체중하나인 "사단법인한국여성의전화"는 2016년가정폭력사건에대한
상담조건부기소유예제도는가정폭력가해자에게정당한처벌을가하지
않고면죄부를주는결과가되고있어폐지가바람직하다는정책제안을
발표하였다.
○ 2015년유엔자유권규약위원회의 대한민국제4차정기보고서에관한최종견
해(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)는가정폭력사범이상담조건부기소유예를받고
있어가정폭력피해자를적절히보호하지못하는점에대해우려를표명하고,
현재의가정폭력사범형사절차를개정할것을권고하였다.
○국가인권위원회가 2016년 제3기국가인권정책기본계획권고에서권고한
바와같이,가정폭력에대한신고의무자의신고를제고하고,특히결혼이민자
등에대한가정폭력예방과피해자구제방안을마련하는것이필요하다.
4-3.여성장애인에 대한 가정폭력 및 성폭력(para. 47-56)
○여성장애인,특히정신장애및지적장애등정신적장애유형의여성장애인이
가정폭력및성폭력에노출될가능성이높다는점이지적되고있다.보건복지
부의 2014년장애인실태조사에따르면,전체여성장애인이성희롱,성추행,
성폭력을경험한비율은 1.4%인데비해,여성정신장애인및지적장애인은
각각 10.7%및 4.9%로상대적으로높게나타났다.
○유엔장애인권리위원회는 2014년 대한민국제1차국가보고서에대한최종견
해(CRPD/C/KOR/CO/1)에서장애여성에대한성폭력및가정폭력방지를
위한대책이부족한점에대해우려를표명하고,장애인에관한입법과정책에
"성인지적관점"(gender perspective)을포함시킬것을권고하였다.
○국가인권위원회가 2016년 제3기국가인권정책기본계획권고에서권고한

바와같이,장애인특히장애여성에대한학대·폭력및착취의예방과피해자
보호·지원을위한정책을수립하고,법원및수사기관종사자에대해장애특
성에대한인식을갖출수있는교육을강화하는것이필요하다.
4-4.성희롱 방지(국가보고서 para. 66-71)
○국가인권위원회에접수된성희롱진정건수는 2006년 108건, 2007년 165건,
2008년 152건, 2009년 166건, 2010년 210건, 2011년 216건, 2012년 228건,
2013년 240건, 2014년 235건, 2015년 203건이다.
○여성가족부의 2015년성희롱실태조사에따르면,조사대상의 6.4%가재직
중인직장에서성희롱을당한경험이있었다.성별피해현황을보면조사
대상중여성의 9.6%,남성의 1.8%가성희롱을경험하였다.연령별피해
현황은 20대 7.7%, 30대 7.5%, 40대 4.3%등이다.직급별피해현황은관리직
4.6%,일반직 6.9%이다.고용형태별피해현황은정규직 6.4%,비정규직 8.4%
이다.즉여성,저연령층,하급직,비정규직의성희롱피해가상대적으로높은
것으로나타났다.
○서비스업종사자등과같은감정노동자에대해고객이성희롱을하는사례가
사회문제가되고있다. 2013년국회의 민간·공공서비스산업감정노동
종사자건강실태조사에따르면,조사대상의 29.9%에달하는감정노동자가
고객으로부터성희롱이나원하지않는신체접촉을당한경험이있었다.
○ 남녀고용평등과일·가정양립지원에관한법률 제14조의2는고객등이
근로자에게성적굴욕감또는혐오감등을느끼게하여해당근로자가고충
해소를요청할경우근무장소변경등의조치를취하도록노력할것을규정하
고있다.그러나이는강제적의무규정이아니며,고객의성희롱행위에
대한처벌근거등도마련되어있지않아실효성이없다는비판이있다.또한
고객에의한성희롱은국가인권위원회의조사대상이아니며,모욕죄또는
강제추행죄등의범죄에해당하는수준이아니라면형사처벌의대상도되지
않는문제점이있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2012년대형마트,백화점,콜센터등에서근무하는여성

감정노동자들의인권향상및개선을위해 여성감정노동자인권수첩을
제작하여배포하였다. 2016년에는고용노동부장관에대해성희롱피해노동
자의 2차피해예방을위해관련법률에성희롱피해자에대한불이익조치
금지를구체화할것,일정규모이상사업장에대해성희롱및 2차피해의
예방과구제절차에관한내부규정제정을의무화할것등을권고하였다.
이에대해고용노동부는 2016. 10.성희롱 2차피해방지에관한내용을담은
남녀고용평등과일·가정양립지원에관한법률개정안을국회에제출하는
등권고내용을일부수용하였다.
4-5.학교 내 성폭력
○학교내,특히같은학생간의성폭력사례가증가하고있으나이에대한
적극적인대책미비및수사과정에서의 2차적인권침해등이문제되고있다.
교육부가 2016년국회에제출한자료에따르면,학생대상성폭력건수는
2012년 679건, 2013년 892건, 2014년 1,306건으로지속적인증가추세를보이고
있다.같은기간중성폭력피해학생의 87%는같은 "학생"으로부터성폭력
피해를입은것으로나타났다.
○교육부,여성가족부,경찰청등학생성폭력관계부처는 2017. 2. 학교
내학생대상성폭력예방대책을발표하고,초등학교단계부터성폭력
예방교육적극실시,학생성폭력에대한신고·상담인프라강화,학교
내에서의피해학생보호와지원체계강화등을추진할방침임을밝혔다.
○학교내,학생간의성폭력문제에대해정부가보다적극적으로대응해야
하며,위예방대책등을일관성있게추진할필요성이있다.
4-6.데이트 폭력 및 스토킹
○여성가족부의 2013년성폭력실태조사에따르면,전체강간미수중 27.9%,
전체스토킹중 33.4%가 "헤어진애인"에의한것으로나타났다.같은실태조사
는헤어진애인뿐만아니라현재친밀한관계를유지중인애인에게자기
의사에반하여강간을당하는사례도많이있지만,이경우는사회통념상

여성이피해사실을드러내거나법적강간으로인정받는것이쉽지않다는
점을지적하고있다.
○경찰청은 2017. 3.그동안경찰이데이트폭력가해자에대해구두경고에
그치는등대응이미흡하였음을밝히고,향후 112범죄신고전화시스템의
사건분류코드에 "데이트폭력"코드를신설하고,가해자에대해서는서면
경고장을발부하여 2차적불법행위를자제시키며,피해자에대해서는신변보
호제도를안내하는등데이트폭력에대해적극대응할방침임을밝혔다.
4-7.여성에대한무단촬영(몰래카메라),복수(復讐)포르노(revenge porno)
유포 등 디지털 성폭력
○ 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법 제14조는카메라등을이용하여
다른사람의신체를그의사에반하여촬영하거나반포하는행위를금지하고
있다.그러나다른사람,특히여성을무단촬영하는범죄(몰래카메라)가
엄격히처벌되지않고있다.법무부가 2015년국회에제출한자료에따르면,
2012년부터 2015년(7월현재)까지발생한몰래카메라범죄건수는 10,640건으
로연평균 2,660건이다.그러나같은자료에따르면몰래카메라범죄에
대한기소율은 2012년 69.7%에서 2015년(7월현재) 32.1%로오히려감소하고
있다.
○방송통신심의위원회가 2016년국회에제출한자료에따르면,본인의의사에
반하여인터넷에유포된개인성행위영상(복수포르노)신고건수는 2012년
1,818건, 2013년 3,302건, 2014년 3,378건, 2015년 6,856건, 2016년(8월현재)
3,455건으로지속적으로증가하고있다.
○국가인권위원회가 2016년 제3기국가인권정책기본계획권고에서권고한
바와같이,데이트폭력,스토킹,성행위의무단촬영및인터넷유포와같은
새로운유형의성폭력에대한처벌강화와피해자보호대책마련등정부의
적극적대응이필요하다.
쟁점 5.여성·아동 인신매매(para. 72-81)

○대한민국정부가비준한 유엔초국가적조직범죄방지협약을보충하는
인신매매,특히여성과아동의인신매매방지,억제및처벌을위한의정서
제3조는인신매매의정의와관련하여,단순인신매매행위외에 “착취를
목적으로위협이나무력의행사,그밖의형태의강박,납치,사기,기만,
권력의남용등에의해사람을모집,운송,이송,은닉,인수하는것”까지도
포함하고있다.그러나 형법 제289조7)는인신매매행위자체만을범죄행위
로규정하고있어사람을물건처럼사고파는협소한개념으로보는문제점이
있다.
○미국국무부의 2014년인신매매보고서는대한민국을 1등급(tier 1)국가로
분류하고있으나,성매매와강제노동을당하는남성,여성,아동의송출국(orig
in)이자경유국(transition),목적국(destination)이라고지적하고있다.같은
보고서는대한민국에대해 “모든형태의인신매매를금지하고피해자를보호
할수있도록 "인신매매"에대한포괄적인정의규정을둘것”을권고하였다.
○유엔자유권규약위원회의 대한민국제4차정기보고서에관한최종견해(CCP
R/C/KOR/CO/4)는농업근로자들이강제노동등의착취목적으로당사국
에인신매매되고있음을우려하였다.유엔여성차별철폐위원회의 대한민국
제7차국가보고서에대한최종견해(CEDAW/C/KOR/CO/7) ,유엔인종차
별철폐위원회의 대한민국제15·16차국가보고서에대한최종견해(CERD/
C/KOR/CO/15-16)는예술흥행비자(E-6)로당사국에입국한외국인여성
들이다양한경로로인신매매및성매매를강요당하고있다고지적하였다.
○여성가족부의 2011년 외국인여성성매매실태및제도개선방안연구는
국내유흥업소에서근무하는외국인여성중일부는이른바인신매매브로커
에속아입국한인신매매피해자일가능성을지적하고있다.
○국가인권위원회가 2014년실시한 예술흥행비자소지이주민인권상황실태
조사에따르면,예술흥행비자(E-6)소지이주민의현황을유엔마약범죄사무
소(United Nation Office on Drugs and Crimes; UNODC)의인신매매일반적
7) 「형법」 제289조(인신매매)
① 사람을 매매한 사람은 7년 이하의 징역에 처한다.
② 추행, 간음, 결혼 또는 영리의 목적으로 사람을 매매한 사람은 1년 이상 10년 이하의 징역에 처한다.
③ 노동력 착취, 성매매와 성적 착취, 장기적출을 목적으로 사람을 매매한 사람은 2년 이상 15년 이하의 징역에
처한다.
④ 국외에 이송할 목적으로 사람을 매매하거나 매매된 사람을 국외로 이송한 사람도 제3항과 동일한 형으로 처벌한다.

지표8)에적용하여본바,전체 36개지표중에서 23개항목이해당되어인신매
매개연성이높은것으로나타났다.
○이에따라국가인권위원회는인신매매에관한국제협약을이행하기위한
법령정비,실행체계구축,사회적인식제고가필요하다고보고, 2016. 6.
인신매매피해자를조기에식별하여보호하기위한 인신매매피해자식별
및보호지표를개발하고이를활용할것을법무부,경찰청등관계부처
및지방자치단체에권고하였다.법무부등은 2017. 2.현재위권고의수용
여부를검토중에있다.
Ⅲ.제3조(고문받을 위험 있는 국가로의 추방·송환·인도 금지)
쟁점 6.고문 위험 국가로 추방·송환·인도 금지(para. 82-85)
6-1.난민 인정 현황(para. 82-85)
○대한민국정부는아시아에서최초로 2012년 난민법을제정하였으며,소관
부처인법무부내에난민과신설,출입국·외국인지원센터(난민센터)건립
등국제적수준에부합하는난민지원체계를구축하기위해노력하고있다.
○그러나난민인정률은아직다른국가와비교하여낮은편이다.법무부의
2015년출입국·외국인정책통계연보에따르면, 2015년말기준난민
인정률은 7.2%이다.반면 2014년기준국제평균난민인정률은 27%에달한다.
2012년 난민법 제정이후난민신청자는 2012년 1,143명, 2013년 1,574명,
2014년 2,896명, 2015년 5,711명이며,난민인정자는 2012년 60명, 2013년
57명, 2014년 94명, 2015년 105명이다.인도적체류허가를받은사람9)은 2012년
8) UNODC, “Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons”, 2008.
9) 「난민법」 제2조(정의)
이 법에서 사용하는 용어의 뜻은 다음과 같다.
1. "난민"이란 인종, 종교, 국적, 특정 사회집단의 구성원인 신분 또는 정치적 견해를 이유로 박해를 받을 수 있다고
인정할 충분한 근거가 있는 공포로 인하여 국적국의 보호를 받을 수 없거나 보호받기를 원하지 아니하는 외국인 또는
그러한 공포로 인하여 대한민국에 입국하기 전에 거주한 국가(이하 "상주국"이라 한다)로 돌아갈 수 없거나 돌아가기
를 원하지 아니하는 무국적자인 외국인을 말한다.
3. "인도적 체류 허가를 받은 사람"(이하 "인도적체류자"라 한다)이란 제1호에는 해당하지 아니하지만 고문 등의 비인
도적인 처우나 처벌 또는 그 밖의 상황으로 인하여 생명이나 신체의 자유 등을 현저히 침해당할 수 있다고 인정할 만
한 합리적인 근거가 있는 사람으로서 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 법무부장관으로부터 체류허가를 받은 외국인을

31명, 2013명 6명, 2014년 539명, 2015년 194명이다.
○ 2014년및 2015년에인도척체류허가를받은자가큰폭으로증가한것은
시리아내전을이유로난민인정을신청한시리아국적자가증가하였기때문
이다.
6-2.출입국항 난민신청 제도
○난민신청자에대해서난민인정심사가절차적으로보장되지않을경우,출입국
항에서해당난민신청자가고문이나박해를받을위험이있는사람인지여부
가판명되지않은채고문을받을위험이있는국가로강제송환될우려가
있다.따라서난민인정심사를절차적으로보장하는것은 협약 제3조및
난민의지위에관한협약 등의이행을위해매우중요하다.
○ 난민법시행령 제5조는난민신청자가대한민국의안전또는사회질서를
해칠우려가상당한경우등일정한요건에해당하면난민인정심사에회부하
지않을수있도록규정하고있다.법무부가 2016년국가인권위원회에제출한
자료에따르면,출입국항에서난민인정신청에대한심사불회부결정은
2013년부터 2015년까지평균 33.9%, 2016. 4.기준으로 51.9%이다.
○난민인정신청을하였다가난민인정심사에회부되지않은외국인이이에
불복하는소송을제기하는과정에서출국대기실10)의열악한환경하에장기간
머무르는사례도발생하고있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2016년폭넓게난민인정심사를받을수있도록 난민법
시행령의난민인정심사불회부사유를형식적사유로한정하여최소화하고,
불회부결정에대한이의신청절차를마련하며,난민인정심사에서불회부
통지를받은외국인이소송등으로다툴경우해당기간동안 난민법 상
"난민신청자"에준하여기본적인처우를제공할것등을법무부장관에게
권고하였다.
○이에대해법무부는난민신청제도악용,국경관리시스템의무용화,심사의
말한다.
10) 출국대기실은 원래 입국을 허가받지 못한 외국인이 송환되기 전까지 단기간 대기하는 출입국항 내의 장소를 말함.
2016년 현재 인천국제공항 등 8개 국제공항 및 부산항에 설치되어 있음.

신속성과효율성저해우려등의사유로신중히검토하겠다는소극적답변을
하였다.다만불회부통지서교부및출국대기실법적근거마련에대해서는
수용의사를밝혔다.
Ⅳ.제11조(고문 방지를 위한 개인 구금제도 검토)
쟁점 7.소년보호시설(para. 106)
○국가보고서에서는소년보호시설의소규모화및개별처우화를강화하고있는
것으로보고하고있으나현실과부합되지않는측면이있다.법무부가 2016년
국회에제출한자료에따르면,전국소년보호시설의수용정원은 1,250명인
반면실제수용인원(2016. 6.기준)은 1,498명으로정원대비 120%가넘었으며,
일부소년보호시설은수용인원초과율이더욱높았다(안양소년원 191%,서울
소년원 154%,부산소년원 132%).
○소년보호시설에대한관리·감독도미흡한면이있다.법무부의위자료에
따르면,소년보호시설내에서수용자간의상호폭력등의사고는 2011년
306건에서 2015년 1,011건으로 3배이상증가하였다.한편수용인원증가에도
불구하고전국소년보호시설관리인력은 2011년 681명에서 2015년 663명으로
오히려감소하고있다.
○소년보호시설에수용된인원의처우향상을위해정부의적극적인관심과
조속한대책마련이필요하다.
쟁점 8.수용시설 내의 폭력·성폭력(para. 115)
○국가보고서에서는교정시설공무원에의한성폭력문제를서술하고있으나,
그외에수용자상호간의폭력및성폭력등에대한현황은제시하지않고
있다.
○법무부의 2014년범죄백서에따르면,수용시설내에서발생한수용자간의
폭행치사상사건은 2006년 419건, 2007년 412건, 2008년 401건, 2009년 377건,
2010년 433건, 2011년 432건, 2012년 373건, 2013년 375건이다.학계연구에

따르면,성인남성수용자의 5.9%가동성으로부터성교를강요받거나원하지
않음에도성기를만지는등의성적피해를입은것으로나타났다.
○수용자상호간의폭력및성폭력사건의방지를위해지속적인관리·감독이
필요하다.
Ⅴ.제12조 및 제13조(고문에 대한 조사 및 조사받을 권리 보장)
쟁점 9.중국계 여성 이주노동자 단속사건 조사결과(para. 140)
○국가보고서가제시한사례는출입국관리공무원이중국국적의여성불법체류
자를단속하는과정에서해당여성 2명을강제로끌고가고,단속차량에
탑승시킨뒤여성의목부위등을수차례구타한사건이다.수사도중에
그공무원은피해여성들에게합의금을지불하였고,피해여성들은그공무원
의처벌을원하지않는다고밝혔다.검사는폭행죄(형법 제260조11))의경우
피해자가가해자에대한처벌을원하지않는다는입장을명시적으로밝힐
경우기소할수없다는관련규정에따라 "공소권없음"처분을하였다.
○법무부는출입국관리공무원의외국인보호업무는인신구속에관한직무에
해당하지않기때문에직무수행중폭행이있더라도 형법 제125조(인신구속
에관한직무를행하는자의폭행·가혹행위)가아니라 형법 제260조의
폭행죄로의율해야한다고보고있다.그러나출입국관리공무원은 사법경찰
관리의직무를수행할자와그직무범위에관한법률에따라사법경찰관리의
직무가부여되어있고,그업무의실질에있어서인신구속업무와크게다르지
않다.또한출입국관리공무원도 형법 제125조의적용대상(인신구속에
관한직무를행하는자)으로보는유력한학설도있다.따라서국가보고서가
제시한사례는 형법 제260조를적용하여당사자간합의를이유로 "공소권
없음"처분할것이아니라 형법 제125조를적용하여기소하였어야한다.
11) 「형법」 제260조(폭행, 존속폭행)
① 사람의 신체에 대하여 폭행을 가한 자는 2년 이하의 징역, 500만원 이하의 벌금, 구류 또는 과료에 처한다.
③ 제1항 및 제2항의 죄는 피해자의 명시한 의사에 반하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다.

쟁점 10.국가인권위원회의 역할(para. 142-145)
○국가인권위원회는 1993년유엔총회에서결의한 국가인권기구의지위에
관한원칙 (일명 "파리원칙")등을기초로 국가인권위원회법에따라 2001.
11. 25.입법,행정,사법등 3부어디에도속하지않는독립적국가기관으로
설립되었다.국가인권위원회는지난 15여년간국가기관의인권침해를예방
및구제하고,국가인권정책기본계획수립권고등인권증진을위한중차대한
임무를담당하여왔다.
○국가인권위원회는보편적인권실현을위한법적지위보장을보다확고히
하기위해향후헌법개정시헌법기관화하는것이필요하다.
Ⅵ.제16조(고문에 미치지 않는 잔혹,비인도적,굴욕적 대우나 처벌)
쟁점 11.군대 내 부당한 대우 방지
11-1.군대 내 폭행·가혹행위(para. 172-179)
○정부및군의다각적인노력에도불구하고,군대내의폭행및가혹행위가
지속되고있다.국방부가 2016년국회에제출한자료에따르면,공식적으로
확인·신고된군대내폭행은 2012년 649건, 2013년 569건, 2014년 947건,
2015년 800건, 2016년(6월현재) 349건이며,가혹행위는 2012년 83건, 2013년
40건, 2014년 65건, 2015년 88건, 2016년(6월현재) 40건이다.
○ 2014년에는피해병사가선임병들로부터지속적인폭행및가혹행위,따돌림을
당해오다사망한일명 "윤OO일병폭행사망사건",평소집단괴롭힘을당해오
던병사가가해자들에게총기를난사하여 5명이사망한일명 "GOP12) 임OO
병장총기난사사건"이발생하였고, 2016년에는선임병들이피해병사들에게
대량의음식을강제로먹게하고성기를만지는등가혹행위와성추행을
한일명 "해병대식(食)고문사건"이발생하는등군대내폭행및가혹행위가
사회적문제가되고있다.
12) GOP : General Out Post(일반전초).

○ 2014년야당인새정치민주연합에서실시한 군성폭력실태조사에따르면,
조사대상여군의 19%가군대내에서성적괴롭힘을당한적이있으며,
다른여군에대한성적괴롭힘을목격한경우는 28%에달했다.피해자의
계급은하사,소위,중위등입대후 5년이하의초급부사관이나초급장교들이
대부분이었고,13) 가해자의계급은주로영관급(42.5%),장성급(27.6%)이었다.
즉군대내의성적괴롭힘이나학대는주로계급에따른위계질서의영향을
받는것으로나타났다.
○국회는 2014. 11. "군인권개선및병영문화혁신특별위원회"를구성하여
군대내인권문제개선을논의하였으며, 2015. 7.결과보고서를발표하고
총 39개의개선과제를제안하였다.특히위특별위원회에소속된여야국회의
원들은공정하고객관적인조사를수행할수있는독립적인군옴부즈만인
"군인권보호관"을국가인권위원회에설치하기로합의하고법률안을제출하
였다.그러나국방부는군인권보호관에대해군지휘권혼란및보안문제
등을이유로반대하였다.결국동법률안은제19대국회임기만료로제정되지
못하였다.이후제20대국회(2016. 5. ~ 2020. 5.)에서국가인권위원회에군인권
보호관을두는내용의 국가인권위원회법 개정법률안이다시발의되었다.
국가인권위원회는군인권침해문제의특성상군외부에군인권보호관을
두는것이공정성과객관성을확보할수있고,이미국가인권위원회가군
인권침해조사등의업무를수행하고있는점을고려할때군인권보호관을
국가인권위원회에두는것이바람직하다는입장이다.
11-2.징계영창 제도
○한국군에는병사를징계목적으로단기간구금하는 "징계영창제도"가시행되
고있다. 군인사법 제57조는장교,준사관및부사관에대한징계처분과
병에대한징계처분을구분하고,병에대한징계처분으로강등,영창,휴가
제한,근신을규정하고있다.즉징계영창제도는병계급에게만적용된다.
"영창"이란부대나함정내의구금장소에감금하는것을의미하며기간은
15일이내이다.
13) 대한민국은 장교 및 부사관에만 여군이 존재하며 병 계급에는 여군이 없다.

○징계영창제도는현행범또는긴급체포사유에해당하는경우가아님에도
법원이발부하는영장없이행정적징계절차에의해병사를인신구속한다는
점에서인권침해논란이있다.국방부가 2013년국가인권위원회에제출한
자료에따르면,영창에구금된사람은 2009년 12,223명, 2010년 12,912명,
2011년 15,464명, 2012년 21,225명, 2013년(6월말기준) 8,520명이다.
○국방부는징계영창제도에대한인권침해논란을감안하여, 2006년 군인사법
을개정하여징계사유를보다명확히하고, "인권담당군법무관"의적법성
심사절차를거쳐징계권자가처분하도록하는등징계영창제도를일부개선
하였다.그러나인권담당군법무관은대부분부대내의법무참모이거나법무
실소속장교로서사실상해당부대지휘관의지휘를받으므로독립성에
의문이제기되고있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2013. 11.국방부장관에게징계권자의자의적영창처분을
방지하기위해국방부차원의통합적인징계규정을마련할것,인권담당
군법무관의업무상독립성을강화하는방안을마련할것,거실내대화를
금지하거나정좌자세를강요하는관행등수용자처우와환경을개선할것을
권고하였다.국방부는 국방부군인·군무원징계업무처리훈령을개정하여
통합적징계기준을반영하는등권고를일부수용하였다.
쟁점 12.정신의료기관에서의 부당한 대우 방지(para. 190-194)
12-1.정신의료기관에 비자의(非自意)입원(para. 190-194)
○보건복지부및국립정신건강센터의 2015국가정신건강현황결과보고서에
따르면, 2014년기준정신보건시설에수용되어있는인원은총 81,625명이며,
이중 70.3%가가족등보호의무자에의해비자의로입원한환자들이다.
○국가인권위원회는 2015. 5.보호의무자에의한비자의입원제도에대한
위헌법률심판사건에대해,보호의무자 2인의동의및의사 1인의진단만으로
정신질환자를비자의입원시킬수있는 정신보건법 제24조제1항및제2항
은헌법상적법절차원칙에위배되고신체의자유를과도하게제한함으로써

헌법에위반된다는의견을헌법재판소에제출하였다.
○헌법재판소는국가인권위원회의의견등을반영하여, 2016. 9. 정신보건법
제24조제1항및제2항은정신질환자의신체의자유침해를최소화할수
있는적절한방안을마련하지않아헌법에위반된다고판단하고,다만위
심판대상조항에대해단순위헌결정을하면법적공백상태가발생하므로
입법자의개선입법이있을때까지심판대상조항이계속적용되도록하는
헌법불합치결정을선고하였다.14)
○보건복지부는 2016. 5. 29. 정신보건법을 정신건강증진및정신질환자
복지지원에관한법률로전면개정하고,정신질환자의보호의무자 2명이상
의신청과국립·공립정신의료기관에소속된정신의학전문의 1명을포함한
2명이상의정신의학전문의의판단에따를경우에만비자의입원을시킬
수있도록하였다.개정법률은 2017. 5. 30.부터시행예정이다.
12-2.정신의료기관에서의 격리·강박
○정신의료기관에서환자를격리·강박하는사례가문제되고있다.격리·강박
조치는시행근거가미비하고적용범위가광범위하며,절차가구체적이지
못하여정신장애인의기본적인권을침해하고있다는지적이있다. 2011년~20
15년간국가인권위원회에접수된정신보건분야진정중에서정신의료기관
의격리·강박으로인한인권침해사건은전체의 7.0%를차지하고있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2015년 정신병원격리·강박실태조사를실시하고그
결과를바탕으로 2016년보건복지부장관에게정신의료기관에서환자의격
리·강박조치에대한구체적조건과절차등을포함한법령을강화할것,
격리실의구조·설비·강박도구의표준화를연구할것,격리·강박을대체
할수있는대체프로그램을추진할것등을권고하였다.보건복지부는 2017.
2.현재위권고의수용여부를검토중에있다.
쟁점 13.학교 및 가정에서의 체벌 금지(para. 195-198)
14) 헌법재판소 2016. 9. 29. 2014헌가9 결정.

○ 2011. 3. 18.개정된 초중등교육법시행령은학생에대한훈육·훈계시에
“도구,신체등을이용하여학생의신체에고통을가하는방법을사용해서는
아니된다”라고규정하여체벌을금지하고있다.일부지방교육청은학교에서
의체벌을금지하는내용의 "학생인권조례"를제정·시행하고있다(2010년
경기도교육청, 2011년광주광역시교육청, 2012년서울특별시교육청, 2013년
전라북도교육청).
○교육현장에서는아직도직·간접적인체벌이일부발생하고있다.한국청소년
정책연구원이 2013년실시한 한국아동·청소년인권실태연구 Ⅳ에따르
면,조사대상의 23.7%의초·중·고등학교학생들은 1년에한번이상학교에
서체벌을받은경험이있었다.
○국가인권위원회는 2012년국립특수학교에서교사들이장애학생들에대해
지속적체벌을 가한사안에대해해당교사들을엄중징계할것및정기적
지도·감독을실시할것등을해당지방교육청교육감및교육부장관에게
각각권고하였으며,교육부및해당학교에서는국가인권위원회의권고사항
을수용하여해당교사징계등을시행하였다.
○가정내에서아동에대한부모의훈육및징계는 민법 상의친권에근거를
두고있다.그러나정상적인훈육및징계의범위를벗어나는아동체벌과
학대가발생하고있다.보건복지부의 2014전국아동학대현황보고서에
따르면,아동보호전문기관을통해확인된아동학대사례는총 17,791건이다.
학대행위자는친부모 77.2%,계부모및양부모 4.7%,조부모등기타친인척
5.6%로,가정및친족내에서의학대가전체의 87.5%로나타났다.학대의
유형은방임 18.6%,정서학대 15.8%,신체학대 14.5%등이며,신체학대를
포함한두가지이상의학대가복합적으로발생하는경우도 48.0%에달했다.
○보건복지부의위보고서에따르면,아동학대신고의무자15)에의한신고건수는
2006년 2,012건에서 2014년 4,358건으로 2배이상증가하였으나, 2014년전체
아동학대신고대비아동학대신고의무자의신고율은 29%에그쳐호주(73%),
일본(68%),미국(58%)등주요국가에비해서낮은수준이라고지적하고,
신고의무자에의한아동학대발견과신고가활성화되어야한다고밝히고
15) 「아동학대범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법」 제10조 제2항에 따른 아동학대 신고의무자는 아동복지시설의 장 및 그 종
사자, 아동복지전담공무원, 사회복지 전담공무원 및 사회복지시설의 장과 그 종사자, 초·중등학교의 교직원 등임.

있다.
○보건복지부가 2016년국가인권위원회에제출한자료에따르면, 2015년아동보
호전문기관에서분리보호조치한아동은총 3,017명에달하는반면학대피해
아동쉼터는 2016. 3.기준전국 47개소(수용규모약 250여명)에불과하고,
위탁가정에서보호한아동도 30명에그치고있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2016년교육부장관,법무부장관,보건복지부장관에게아동
학대예방및피해아동의인권보호를위한종합적인정책개선을권고하였다.
이에대해보건복지부는피해아동에대한전용쉼터확충및전문가정위탁제도
도입등권고를수용하였고,교육부및법무부도권고를일부수용하였다.
쟁점 14.이주민의 권리 보호(para. 137-138, 199-206)
14-1.이주노동자 진정 및 조사제도 (para. 137-138)
○고용노동부의 2015년 노동정책실업무통계에따르면, 2015. 6.기준근로감
독관 1인당업무대상은사업장 1,758개,근로자 15,000여명이다.또한근로감
독관 1인이처리하는신고사건은월평균 45건에달한다.국가보고서는
이주노동자가학대또는불합리한처우를받을경우근로감독관제도를통해
구제받을수있다고설명하나,근로감독관은다양한근로형태에대해폭넓은
보호활동을하는일반적감독자의지위에있으며많은업무부담을안고
있어이주노동자를특별히보호하기위한제도로서한계가있다.
○농축산업및어업등에서이주노동자의사업장이탈을방지하기위한수단으로
신분증을압수하는사례가있다.국가인권위원회가 2012년실시한 어업이주
노동자인권상황실태조사에따르면,조사대상어업이주노동자중에서여권
과외국인등록증을모두본인이소지하고있는경우는 20.7%에그쳤다.
○외국인이주노동자에대한폭행도종종발생하고있다.국가인권위원회의
조사에따르면,어업이주노동자의 42.6%(위실태조사),농축산업이주노동자의
14.9%(국가인권위원회 2013년 농축산업이주노동자인권상황실태조사 ),
건설업이주노동자의 15.7%(국가인권위원회 2015년 건설업종사외국인근

로자인권상황실태조사 )가사업장에서폭행을당한경험이있었다.
○사업장에서발생하는이주노동자에대한학대·폭행등에대한조사·구제의
실효성을제고할수있는정부의대책마련이필요하다.
14-2. 출입국관리법 위반사범 단속(para. 199-200)
○법무부의 출입국·외국인정책통계월보에따르면, 2016. 12.기준대한민국
에체류하는외국인은 2,049,441명으로서전체인구의 4%수준에해당한다.
2007년 100만명을넘어선이후 9년만에 200만명을넘어서서빠른속도로
증가하고있다.
○ 출입국관리법 제2조제11호는강제퇴거의대상이되는외국인에대한
"보호"에대해 “강제퇴거대상에해당된다고의심할만한상당한이유가있는
사람을출국시키기위하여외국인보호실,외국인보호소등에인치하고수용
하는집행활동을말한다”고정의하고있다.즉외국인에대한보호조치는
외견상으로는행정적절차이나실제로는형사사법절차에따라야하는인신
구속의성격을지니고있어인권침해논란이있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2009년 출입국관리법일부개정법률안과관련하여,법무
부장관에대해 출입국관리법 상외국인보호업무는본질적으로형사사법
절차상의인신구속과유사하므로,형사사법절차(사전영장발부원칙,긴급체
포시에도체포후구속영장청구)에준하는권리보장체계를마련하는것이
바람직하다는의견을표명하였으나해당법률개정에는반영되지아니하였
다.
14-3.외국인보호시설(para. 205)
○국가인권위원회는 2010~2011년외국인보호시설총 7개소를대상으로방문조
사를실시하고, 2011. 11.법무부장관에대하여보호거실의쇠창살구조를
개선할것,보호외국인에게시설생활규칙,권리구제방법,고충처리상담
등에대한안내를강화하고보다다양한언어로정보를제공할것,종교의
자유가충분히보장되도록배려할것,장기보호외국인에대한건강정기검진

을강화할것등을권고하였다.법무부는외국인보호시설내의언어서비스
개선등일부를수용하였다.
○대한변호사협회의 2015년 외국인보호소실태조사결과보고서는외국인에
대한보호를 "구금"으로보지않는시각이근본적인문제라고지적하고,전화
및인터넷사용(본국과의통화및난민신청에따른증거자료입수등),동계
난방시설,면회실환경,신체검사절차의개선및의료진과환자간의통역서비
스,급식등의상황을개선할것을권고하였다.
14-4.난민신청자를 불법체류자와 같이 보호하는지 여부(para. 206)
○국가인권위원회의 2010~2011년외국인보호시설방문조사결과에따르면,
외국인보호소에보호되는외국인들은일반적으로평균 10일정도보호된
후자신의출신국으로퇴거조치된다.그러나난민신청에따른심사절차
진행을이유로외국인보호소에서장기간보호되는경우가있다.
○법무부의 2009년 난민신청자에대한각국의지원시설과사회통합제도연구
에따르면,한이란인은종교개종을이유로난민신청을하였고이후난민인정
절차가진행되는약 3년 9개월간외국인보호소에서보호된사례가있다.
○국가인권위원회는 2011. 11.법무부장관에대하여난민신청자의난민인정
심사를신속히하고,장기간보호가예상되는경우보호일시해제조치를
적극검토해야하며,궁극적으로난민신청자들을위한대안시설설치를
검토할것을권고하였다.법무부는위권고를불수용하였으나난민신청자를
포함한장기보호대상자에대한건강관리개선등을일부수용하였다.
쟁점 15.고문방지협약 선택의정서 비준(para. 207)
○대한민국정부는 2012. 10.유엔인권이사회의제2기국가별인권상황정기검토
(Universal Periodic Review; UPR)심의에서,스페인등 6개국으로부터 협약
선택의정서를비준할것을권고받았다.
○국가인권위원회는 2006. 4.법무부장관에대하여 협약 선택의정서를조속히
서명·비준할것및 협약 선택의정서에따른국가예방기구(National Preve

ntive Mechanism; NPM)로는국가인권위원회가지정되는것이바람직하다
는의견을표명하였다.
쟁점 16.양심적 병역거부와 대체복무제 도입
○대한민국은 2017. 2.현재까지양심적병역거부를법적으로인정하지않으며,
개인의신념에따라입영또는집총을거부하는자에대해서는 병역법
제88조제1항에따라징역형이선고되고있다.이는자신의신념에따른
행위로말미암아 협약 제16조제1항에서규정한 "고문에미치지아니하는
잔혹한·비인도적인또는굴욕적인대우나처벌"을받는것에해당될여지가
있다.
○유엔인권이사회가 2013. 6.발표한 유엔인권최고대표의양심적병역거부에
대한분석보고서 (Analytical Report on Conscientious Objection to Military
Service)에의하면 2012년기준교도소에수감중인전세계의양심적병역거부
자는모두 723명이며그중한국인이 669명으로약 92.5%에해당한다. 2015년
유엔자유권규약위원회의 대한민국제4차정기보고서에관한최종견해(CC
PR/C/KOR/CO/4)는양심적병역거부에대한대체복무제도가마련되어
있지않음에따라양심적병역거부자들이형사처벌을받는데대해우려를
표명하고,양심적병역거부를법적으로인정할것을권고하였다.
○대한민국의 1심법원에서는 2017. 1.현재총 14명의양심적병역거부자에
대해무죄판결이내려졌고, 2016. 10.에는 2심(항소심)법원에서처음으로
무죄판결이내려졌다. 2017. 1.예비군훈련에불참한양심적병역거부자에
대해서도 1심법원에서무죄판결이내려졌다.그런데대법원은 2004년양심적
병역거부는정당한입영기피사유가아니라고판결한이래현재까지동일한
입장을취하고있다.헌법재판소는 2004년및 2011년두차례에걸쳐양심적
병역거부자를처벌하는 병역법 규정에대해합헌결정을내렸고, 2017.
2.현재양심적병역거부에대한심리가다시진행중에있다.
○국회에서과거발의되었던양심적병역거부인정및대체복무도입을위한
병역법개정안은국회임기만료로폐기되었으나제20대국회(2016. 5.
~ 2020. 5.)에서다시 병역법개정안이발의되어있다.

○국가인권위원회는 2005. 12.국방부장관에게양심적병역거부권을인정하고
대체복무제도를도입할것을권고하였으나국방부는이를불수용한바있다.
국가인권위원회는 2016. 11.헌법재판소에서심리중인양심적병역거부자를
처벌하는 병역법 제88조제1항에대한헌법소원사건에대해, 2005년권고
결정의입장을재확인하고양심적병역거부자를형사처벌하는것은양심의
자유를침해하는것이라는의견을제출하였다.
Ⅶ.기타 사항
쟁점 17.대테러 조치(para. 208)
○대한민국정부는 2001. 11. 테러방지법제정안을처음발의하였으나테러
방지활동으로인한인권침해우려가있어사회적논의끝에제정되지않은
바있다.그러나 2015년 "파리테러"등국제적테러빈발을계기로테러방지를
위한법률제정필요성이다시제기되어 2016. 3. 2. 국민보호와공공안전을
위한테러방지법을제정하였다.
○위법률은테러방지를위해국가정보원장이테러위험인물에대한출입국,
금융거래,통신이용등관련정보를수집할수있고,테러위험인물의개인정보
및위치정보를개인정보처리자나위치정보사업자에게요구할수있도록규정
하고있다.또한국가정보원장이대테러활동에필요한정보나자료수집을
위해대테러조사를하거나테러위험인물에대한추적을할수있도록규정하
고있다.
○ 2015년유엔자유권규약위원회의 대한민국제4차정기보고서에관한최종견해
(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)는당시국회에계류중이던 국민보호와공공안전
을위한테러방지법제정안과관련하여,대테러법률은명백히테러행위에
해당하는범죄에만적용되도록할것을권고하였다.
○국가인권위원회는 2002년 테러방지법제정안에대해테러행위에대한
개념규정,형벌규정,절차규정등이헌법및국제인권법기준에위반하여
인권침해우려가있다는이유로반대의견을표명하였고, 2003년 테러방지법

수정안에대해서는국가정보원장의판단에의해군특수부대출동을요청하
는것이위헌소지가있고국가정보원의권한강화에따라국민의기본권이
제한될우려가있다는이유로역시반대의견을표명하였다. 2016년 국민보호
와공공안전을위한테러방지법시행령안에대해서는대테러인권보호관의
권한은인권침해예방에한계가있으므로보완이필요하며,테러사건대책본
부장의요청에따라군사시설이외에서대테러특공대를투입할수있도록
한것은헌법에위반될소지가있다는의견을표명하였다.

Independent Report of
National Human Rights Commission of Korea for
Consideration of Third to Fifth Periodic Reports submitted by
Republic of Korea under
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or punishment
Submitted by March 2017

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Issue No. Title of Issue Page
A. Introduction 1
B. Status of Convention Implementation 1
1 1. Definition and Criminalization of Torture 1
2 2. National Security Act 2
3
3. Protection of the Rights of Suspects such as Legal Counsel"s
Participation in Suspect Interrogation
3
4
4. Prevention of Domestic or Sexual Violence 4
4-1. Punishment for Marital Rape 4
4-2. Handling Cases of Domestic Violence 5
4-3. Domestic or Sexual Violence against Women with Disabilities 5
4-4. Prohibition of Sexual Harassment 6
4-5. Sexual Violence in Schools 6
4-6. Dating Violence and Stalking 7
4-7. Digital Sexual Assault such as Upskirt Pictures or Revenge Porno 7
5 5. Trafficking of Women and Children 8
6
6. None Deportation, Extradition, or Refoulement to a Country with
the Danger of Torture
9
6-1. Status of Refugees Recognition 9
6-2. Refugee Status Application at Ports of Entry 10
7 7. Juvenile Correctional Facility 10
8 8. Violence & Sexual Assault in Correctional Institutions 11
9 9. Investigation Results of Crackdown on Chinese Migrant Workers 11
10 10. Role of the NHRCK 12
11
11. Prevention of Unfair Treatment in the Military 12
11-1. Violence and Abuses in the Military 12
11-2. Detention in a Guardhouse 13
12
12
12. Prevention of Unfair Treatment in Mental Health Institutions 14
12-1. Prevention of Unfair Treatment in Mental Health Institutions 14
12-2. Seclusion and Restraint in Mental Medical Institutions 15
13 13. Prohibition of Corporal Punishment at School and Home 15
14
14. Protection of Rights of Immigrants 16
14-1. Petition and Investigation System for Migrant Workers 16
14-2. Crackdown on the Breach of the Immigration Control Act 17
14-3. Immigration Detention Facilities 17
14-4. Protection of Refugee Status Applicants vis-a-vis Illegal
Migrants
18
15 15. Ratification of OP-CAT 18
16 16. Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service 18
17 17. Counter-terrorism Action 19

1
A. Introduction
1. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “NHRCK”)
submits hereby its opinion to the U.N. Committee Against Torture in regard to the consideration
of third, fourth, and fifth Periodic State Reports (“State Reports”) submitted by Republic of
Korea (“Korea”) under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (“Convention”). The NHRCK is an independent national human rights
institution that makes its utmost efforts to ensure full implementation of the Convention within
Korea through its monitoring activities.
2. This Opinion Report is written based on recommendations and general comments of treaty
organizations and international human rights treaties such as the Convention as well as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Taking into account the General guideline
regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by State Parties under Article
19, Paragraph 1, of the Convention (CAT/C/14/Rev.1), this Opinion Report has been prepared in
order to provide information and opinions which may be helpful in the consideration of the third,
fourth, and fifth periodic state reports submitted by Korea.
B. Status of Convention Implementation
1. Article 1 and 4 (Definition and Criminalization of Torture)
Issue 1. Definition and Criminalization of Torture (para. 3-5)1
l As explained in the State Reports, the specific definition of torture is not prescribed
under any relevant laws such as the Criminal Act; however, there exist legal provisions
which ban torture. Article 12 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution2 stipulates that torture
shall be prohibited while Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act3 cites confession
made by torture as one of the examples which shall not be taken as evidence of guilt.
l However, it seems controvertible that “torture” prescribed in the provisions above makes
clear equivalent of what is defined in the Convention. In particular, those provisions
seem unclear if they include mental pain or suffering as part of torture as does the
Convention.
l Relevant laws such as the Criminal Act might as well carry a clear definition of torture
which matches that of the Convention, paying special attention to criminalization of the
mental form of torture.
1 Numbers in parentheses represent the number of paragraph in the third, fourth, and fifth periodic state reports.
2 Article 12 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
No citizen shall be tortured or be compelled to testify against himself in criminal cases.
3 Article 309 (Probative Value of Confession Caused by Duress, etc.) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Confession of a criminal defendant extracted by torture, violence, or threat or after prolonged arrest or detention, or which is
suspected to have been made involuntarily by fraud or other means, shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt.

2
l A document submitted by the Ministry of Justice to the National Assembly in 2015
shows that the number of people under prosecutors" investigation who had committed
suicide from 2005 to 2014 totals 90. It is also noted that there is not even a survey to
record how many testifiers or suspects take their own lives during police investigation
even though they do from time to time.
l The Supreme Prosecutors" Office distributes the “Guideline for Investigating Suspects”
to prosecutors" offices in 2005, which orders to prevent extreme actions by carefully
protecting human rights of suspects; this guideline, however, only ignited criticism that it
shows nothing but a theoretical principle. The NHRCK paid attention to the fact that a
series of suicide by those under investigation led to neither analysis of fundamental
cause nor prevention measures; thus, it delivered its opinion to Prosecutor General in
September 2016, stressing the needs to determine the cause of suicide attempts and
prepare measures to address the issue. The prosecution has accepted the opinion and
agreed to ponder on the measures in detail.
Issue 2. National Security Act (para. 6-10)
l The State Reports say that the number of persons detained under the National Security
Act significantly decreased from 2006 to 2015 in comparison with the number from
1997 to 2002. However, the “Status of Prosecutory Dispositions for Violators of
National Security Act (2006-2015)” released by the prosecution shows a continuing
trend of detainment under the National Security Act where the number of persons
detained from 2006 to 2015 breaks down into 22 in 2006, 17 in 2007, 16 in 2008, 18 in
2009, 32 in 2010, 19 in 2011, 26 in 2012, 38 in 2013, 7 in 2014, and 26 in 2015.
l Most of the violators are subject to Article 7 of the National Security Act
4. According to
a document submitted by the Korean National Police Agency to the National Assembly
in 2012, a total 372 people had been charged with the violation of the act from 2010 to
2012 (as of August), 313 or 84% of whom violate Article 7.
4 Article 7 (Praise, Incitement, etc.) of the National Security Act
(1) Any person who praises, incites or propagates the activities of an antigovernment organization, a member thereof or of the
person who has received an order from it, or who acts in concert with it, or propagates or instigates a rebellion against the
State, with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental
order, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years.
(2) Deleted.
(3) Any person who constitutes or joins an organization aiming at the act as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be punished by
imprisonment for a definite term of one or more years.
(4) Any person who is a member of the organization as referred to in paragraph (3), and fabricates or circulates any falsies fact as
to the matters which threaten to provoke any confusion of social order, shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term
of two or more years.
(5) Any person who manufactures, imports, reproduces, holds, carries, distributes, sells or acquires any documents, drawings or
other expression materials, with the intention of committing the act as referred to in paragraph (1), (3) or (4), shall be
punished by the penalty as referred to in the respective paragraph.
(6) Any person who has attempted the crime as referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) through (5), shall be punished.
(7) Any person who prepares for or plots the crime as referred to in paragraph (3) with the intention of committing it shall be
punished by imprisonment for not more than five years.

3
l There have been worries about Article 7 being too vague and abstract, as a result, leading
to violation of basic civil rights such as freedom of expression. “Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/25/55/Add.1)” in 2014,
“Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Republic of Korea
(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)” by the U.N. Human Rights Committee (“UNHRC”) in 2015 and
“Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association on his mission to the Republic of Korea (A/HRC/32/36/Add.2)” in 2016 all
point out the possible abuse and misuse of the act and damage to political pluralism and
restriction on freedom of expression brought by Article 7.
l In 2004, the NHRCK recommended to abolish the act as it leaves a substantial room for
infringement on freedom of thought and conscience and expression, which the Korean
government refused to accept. As suggested by the NHRCK in 2016 in its
recommendations for the “Third National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights,” it is imperative for the Korean government to establish measures to
prevent abuse of the National Security Act including amendment of Article 7.
2. Article 2 (Effective Legislative, Administrative, Judicial or Other Measures to Prevent Acts
of Torture)
Issue 3. Protection of the Rights of Suspects such as Legal Counsel"s Participation in
Suspect Interrogation (para. 23-24)
l The Criminal Procedure Act was amended on June 1, 2007 to explicitly provide for the
participation of legal counsel in suspect interrogation; however, legal counsel is rarely
invited to interrogation. A document submitted by the Korean Police National Agency to
the National Assembly in 2016 shows that the participation ratio of legal counsel in
suspect interrogation records 0.10% in 2013, 0.13% in 2014, and 0.17% in 2015.
l The prosecution or police may use their discretion to restrict the participation of legal
counsel in the interrogation process. Article 243-2 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal
Procedure Act5 states that the defense counsel shall be allowed to participate in the
interrogation of the suspect, unless there is good cause; however, what constitutes “good
cause” is not stated. The Supreme Court ruled that the good cause can be found when it
is clear by any objective measure that legal counsel causes disruption to the investigation
or reveals confidential information on the investigation6.
l Article 9-2 Paragraph 4 of the “Regulations on Prosecutory Affairs” presents the
examples of the ground for the prosecution to restrict the participation of legal counsel in
the interrogation, including a) intervening on the interrogation process without receiving
approval from the district prosecutor, or behaving or speaking in an insulting manner, b)
5 Article 243-2 (Defense Counsel"s Participation) of the Criminal Procedure Act
(1) Upon receiving an application from a criminal suspect, his/her defense counsel, legal representative, spouse, lineal
relative, or sibling, a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer shall allow the defense counsel to have an interview with the
suspect or shall allow the defense counsel to participate in the interrogation of the suspect, unless there is good cause.
6 Supreme Court Ruling 2008Mo793

4
answering in place of suspects or inducing certain answers or changes in the suspect"s
testimony, c) videotaping, recording, or transcribing the interrogation, and so on. Article
5 Paragraph 1 of the prosecution"s “Internal Guidelines on Presence of Counsel during
Suspect Interrogation” states that they shall provide legal counsel with a seat somewhere
suitable behind a suspect, limiting the suspect"s access to side-by-side advice from legal
counsel.
l The “Survey on Violation of Legal Counsel"s Participation in Suspect Interrogation” in
2015 by the Korean Bar Association reveals that 48.8% of the respondents, lawyers, say
that they have been treated unfairly by the investigation authority during suspect
interrogation. Unfair treatments include a) deterring them from raising opinion (56.6%),
b) coercive behavior of prosecutors or police officers (46.5%), c) prohibiting them from
writing down an interview (45.1%), d) banning them from sitting next to a suspect, etc.
In January 2017, the Association announced the statement to immediately address this
investigation practice, criticizing that the prosecution restrains groundlessly legal
counsel"s right to participation in suspect interrogation.
l In May 2013, the NHRCK decided that Article 59 Paragraph 4 of the “Criminal
Investigation Rules” of the Korean National Police Agency infringes upon human rights
by deterring legal counsel from providing a suspect with advice and counseling for the
same ground as the “Regulations on Prosecutory Affairs” and, thus, recommended
Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency to amend the rules in
order to ensure the suspect"s access to legal aid, which was not accepted by the Agency.
In June 2016, police officers requested and received a memo written by legal counsel
during suspect interrogation. The NHRCK determined this case constitutes the violation
of the suspect"s right to legal aid and recommended to educate the police officers, which
was admitted by the police station.
l In December 2016, the police failed to inform a suspected person (i.e. a person who is
under the suspicion of the case internally investigated) of his/her rights to remain silent.
The NHRCK determined that the police should have delivered the notice of the rights to
remain silent and legal aid in advance even though persons were summoned and
questioned not as a suspect but for possible criminal charges. Thus, the NHRCK went on
to advise Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency to prepare the
guidelines on informing persons subject to investigation on a suspected crime of their
rights to remain silent. The Agency is reviewing the recommendation as of February
2017.
Issue 4. Prevention of Domestic or Sexual Violence (para. 41-71)
4-1. Punishment for Marital Rape (para. 41)
l The State Reports takes the Supreme Court"s ruling as an example of marital rape in
which a husband raped a wife when their marriage had completely failed due to conjugal
unhappiness for a long period of time while their legal marital status remained intact.
The Supreme Court changed its stance now to criminalize marital rape, ruling that a
husband who forcibly had sexual intercourse with his wife after suppressing her
resistance with threats and violence was found guilty of rape whether their marriage
remained intact or not.
l However, a dissenting opinion and some scholars argue that relevant provisions need to

5
be amended as rape under the Criminal Act only refers to “forced sexual intercourse
between unmarried man and woman.”
l It is desirable to revise relevant laws including the Criminal Act to clearly state marital
rape.
4-2. Handling Cases of Domestic Violence (para. 42-46)
l <Table 3> 「Receipt and Prosecution of Domestic Violence Offenders」in the State
Reports" Addendum and the “Study on Legislative Impact of Suspension of Indictments
on the Condition of Receiving Counseling” released by the National Assembly Research
Service in 2013 found that the ratio of the conditional suspension of indictments to a
total domestic violence cases records 3.4% in 2008, 3.1% in 2009, 4.2% in 2010, 5.9% in
2011, 6.1% in 2012, 2.9% in 2013, 3.1% in 2014, and 1.8% in 2015, respectively.
l Opinion is divided on whether the conditional suspension of indictments for domestic
violence is effective. The study by the National Assembly Research Service concluded
that the suspension is effective based on a lower rate of crime recurrence by the domestic
violence perpetrators who received suspension of indictment on the condition of
receiving counseling than that of those who did not. On the other hand, the Korea
Women"s Hot Line, one of Korean women"s human rights organizations, made a policy
recommendation in 2016 to discard the conditional suspension for domestic violence
perpetrators, which, in fact, acquits them rather than imposes proper punishment.
l “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Republic of
Korea(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)” by the UNHRC in 2015 raised concerns that the
conditional suspension to which most perpetrators are sentenced fails to adequately
protect victims and advised that the Korean government should revise its current
criminal procedures for domestic violence perpetrators.
l As advised by the NHRCK in its recommendations in 2016 for the “Third National
Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,” the Korean government
needs to prepare measures to encourage those who are obliged to report domestic
violence and, in particular, to prevent domestic violence against marriage immigrants
and provide victims with remedies.
4-3. Domestic or Sexual Violence against Women with Disabilities (para. 47-56)
l It is noted that women with disabilities - in particular, those with mental disabilities such
as intellectual disability or mental retardation - are more vulnerable to domestic and
sexual violence. The “2014 Survey Report for Persons with Disabilities” by the Ministry
of Health and Welfare indicates that 1.4% of women with disabilities have experienced
sexual harassment, assault, or violence, while the number rises to 10.7% and 4.9% for
women with mental retardation and intellectual disability, respectively.
l In its “Concluding observations on the initial report of the Republic of Korea
(CRPD/C/KOR/CO/1)” in 2014, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities raised its concerns about the lack of sufficient measures to prevent domestic
and sexual violence against women with disabilities and, hence, recommended that
legislation and policies concerning persons with disabilities include a gender perspective.

6
l As the NHRCK recommended for the “Third National Action Plan for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights” in 2016, the Korean government should establish
policies to prevent harassment, violence, and exploitation against persons with
disabilities, in particular women with disabilities, and protect and support victims, while
enhancing education program for officials in court and investigation authorities to
deepen their understanding about the unique nature of disabilities.
4-4. Prohibition of Sexual Harassment (para. 66-71)
l The number of communications received by the NHRCK regarding sexual harassment
stands at 108 in 2006, 165 in 2007, 152 in 2008, 166 in 2009, 210 in 2010, 216 in 2011,
228 in 2012, 240 in 2013, 235 in 2014, and 203 in 2015.
l According to the “2015 Survey Report for Sexual Harassment” released by the Ministry
of Gender Equality and Family, 6.4% of the respondents experienced sexual harassment
in work place with 9.6% of them being women and 1.8% men. The victims in their 20s
account for 7.7%, 7.5% in their 30s, and 4.3% in their 40s. 4.6% of them are in
managerial positions, while 6.9% in general positions. Regular workers take up 6.4%,
while part-time workers 8.4%. Women, younger workers, lower ranking employees, and
part-time workers seem more easily falling victim to sexual harassment.
l Sexual harassment against workers in service industries such as emotional laborers has
become a hot social issue. The “Survey Report for Mental Health of Emotional Laborers
in Public and Private Industries” by the National Assembly in 2013 shows that up to 29.9%
of them had to endure sexual harassment or unsolicited physical contact from customers.
l Article 14-2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance
Assistance Act stipulates that if any person, such as a client, causes a worker to feel
sexual humiliation or repulsion and such worker requests resolution of the grievance,
his/her employer shall endeavor to take all possible measures, such as the change of
place of work and transfer. However, the provision is criticized for the dearth of
effectiveness as it does not grant mandatory legal obligation and lacks any legal ground
for punishing customers" sexual harassment. Another problem is that customers" sexual
harassment is neither subject to investigation by the NHRCK nor criminal punishment
unless it constitutes contempt or indecent assault.
l In 2012, the NHRCK distributed the “Handbook for Human Rights of Female Emotional
Laborers” to promote and facilitate human rights of female emotional laborers working
at big box stores, department stores, and call centers. It also advised Minister of
Employment and Labor in 2016 that the relevant rules and regulations carry specific
measures to prevent sexual harassment victims from suffering disadvantage and
secondary damage and some businesses larger than a certain size be bound to set up
internal rules for preventing sexual harassment and secondary damage and offering
remedies. The Ministry, thereby, accepted some parts of the recommendation and
submitted the amendment to the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family
Balance Assistance Act in October 2016, which includes the prevention measures for
secondary damage from sexual harassment.
4-5. Sexual Violence in Schools

7
l There are a growing number of sexual violence incidents in schools and, in particular,
between students; however, the lack of active measures and secondary violation of
human rights during investigation have posed another issue. A document submitted to
the National Assembly by the Ministry of Education in 2016 show that the number of
sexual violence against students continues to climb, recording 679 in 2012, 892 in 2013,
and 1,306 in 2014. During the same period, 87% of the victims are reported to be
assaulted by their school mates.
l Government departments related to sexual violence against students such as the Ministry
of Education, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the National Police Agency
released the “Measures for Preventing Sexual Violence against Students in Schools” in
February 2017, announcing their plans to actively promote education on sexual violence
even as early as elementary schools, improve the infrastructure of counseling and
reporting the incidents of sexual violence, and enhance protection and support for
victims.
l The Korean government needs to be more proactive when it comes to sexual violence
among students in schools and consistent in promoting the prevention policies.
4-6. Dating Violence and Stalking
l The “2013 Survey Report for Sexual Violence” by the Ministry of Gender Equality and
Family shows that 27.9% of a total attempted rapes and 33.4% of a total stalking are
inflicted by former romantic partners. The survey also points out that women are socially
discouraged to report date rape which is hardly legally recognized as a crime even
though a number of women are raped against their will not only by a former partner but
also by a current one.
l In March 2017, the National Police Agency admitted that its response had been
insufficient, i.e., issuing a mere verbal warning against date violence perpetrators and,
therefore, announced its more proactive plans to establish a separate code for dating
violence as a new case classification code for Crime Report Hotline 112, issue a written
warning against perpetrators to stop secondary crime, and introduce victims to a
protection system.
4-7. Digital Sexual Assault such as Upskirt Pictures or Revenge Porno
l Article 14 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes
prohibits taking or distributing photos of another person"s body against her/his will by
using a camera or similar mechanism; however, the crime taking photos of another
person, especially women, i.e., upskirt pictures, are not properly being punished.
According to a document submitted to the National Assembly by the Ministry of Justice
in 2015, the number of upskirt picture crimes totals 10,640 from 2012 to 2015 (as of
July), an average 2,660 cases a year. The same document, on the other hand, shows that
the rate of indictment on taking upskirt pictures declined from 69.7% in 2012 to 32.1%
in 2015 (as of July).
l A document offered to the National Assembly by the Korea Communications Standards
Commission in 2016 says that the number of reported sex videos released online against
a person"s will (revenge porno) continues to rise, 1,818 in 2012, 3,302 in 2013, 3,378 in
2014, 6,856 in 2015, and 3,455 in 2016 (as of August).

8
l As suggested by the NHRCK in its recommendations for the “Third National Action
Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” in 2016, the Korean
government needs to be more active in punishing the new type of sexual violence such as
dating violence, stalking, and illegal filming and distribution of sex videos and in
preparing measures to protect victims.
Issue 5. Trafficking of Women and Children (para. 72-81)
l Article 3 of the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime ratified by the Korean government defines human
trafficking, even including “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or
receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of
abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power for the purpose of exploitation.”
Article 289 of the Criminal Act7, however, seems to have an issue to criminalize human
trafficking in its narrowest definition as trading persons.
l The “2014 Trafficking in Persons Report” by the U.S. State Department classifies Korea
as Tier 1 state which is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and
children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. The report recommends the
Korean government to formalize the government"s legal definition of “trafficking” in the
criminal code so that it comprehensively prohibits all forms of trafficking and protects
victims.
l “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Republic of Korea
(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)” by the UNHRC raised its concerns about agricultural workers
being trafficked to the country for the purpose of exploitation such as forced labor.
“Concluding observations of the Committee on the seventh periodic report of the
Republic of Korea (CEDAW/C/KOR/7)” by the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women and “Concluding observations on the fifteenth and
sixteenth periodic reports of the Republic of Korea (CERD/C/KOR/CO/15-16)” by the
U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination indicate that female
foreigners having arrived Korea with Arts & Performances (E-6) visa are forced into
human trafficking and prostitution through various channels.
l The “Survey for Prostitution of Female Foreigners” by the Ministry of Gender Equality
and Family in 2011 points out that some of foreign female workers in adult
entertainment establishments are possibly victims deceived by human trafficking brokers
to have come to Korea.
7 Article 289 (Trafficking in Persons) of the Criminal Act
(1) A person who buys or sells another shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years.
(2) A person who buys or sells another for the purpose of engaging in an indecent act, sexual intercourse, marriage, or for gain,
shall be punished by imprisonment for at least one year up to ten years.
(3) A person who buys or sells another for the purpose of labor exploitation, sex trafficking, sexual exploitation, or the
acquisition of organs shall be punished by imprisonment for at least two years up to fifteen years.
(4) The preceding paragraph shall apply to a person who buys or sells another for the purpose of transporting him/her or her
out of the Republic of Korea, or a person who transports a purchased person out of the Republic of Korea.

9
l The “Survey Report for Human Rights of Migrants with E-6 Visa” conducted by the
NHRCK in 2014 shows that the status of E-6 visa holders in Korea is highly indicative
of possible human trafficking as 23 out of 36 general indicators of human trafficking
offered by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crimes8 are applicable.
l Thus, as the NHRCK found it necessary to improve rules and regulations, build an
implementation system, and raise social awareness in an effort to implement
international covenants related to human trafficking, it developed “Human Trafficking
Victim Identification and Protection Guidelines” in June 2016 and recommended
relevant government departments such as the Ministry of Justice and the National Police
Agency and local governments to refer to the guideline. As of February 2017, the
Ministry of Justice and the others are reviewing the recommendation.
3. Article 3 (None Deportation, Extradition, or Refoulement to a Country with the Danger of
Torture)
Issue 6. None Deportation, Extradition, or Refoulement to a Country with the Danger of
Torture
6-1. Status of Refugees Recognition (para. 82-85)
l Korea became the first Asian country in 2012 to establish the Refugee Act and has been
striving to build refugee support system in line with the international standard by having
installed a refugee division within the Ministry of Justice and the Korea Immigration
Service (Refugee Center).
l However, Korea"s refugee acceptance rate is still lower than other countries. The “Korea
Immigration Service Statistics 2015” released by the Ministry of Justice shows that the
rate is 7.2% as of the end of 2015. On the other hand, the international average reaches
up to 27% as of 2014. The number of asylum seekers has been going up 1,143 in 2012,
1,574 in 2013, 2,896 in 2014, and 5,711 in 2015 since the establishment of the Refugee
Act, of whom 60 in 2012, 57 in 2013, 94 in 2014 and 105 in 2015 were granted the status.
The number of people who acquire a humanitarian visa9 is 31 in 2012, 6 in 2013, 539 in
2014, and 194 in 2015.
8 UNODC, “Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons”, 2008.
9 Article 2 (Definitions) of the Refugee Act
Definitions of the terms in this Act are as follows:
1. A “refugee” refers to an alien who is unable or unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of his/her country of
nationality owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion; or who, not having a nationality, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to
return to the country of his/her former residence (hereinafter “the country of habitual residence”) prior to entry into the
Republic of Korea.
3. “A person who is given permission to stay on humanitarian grounds” (hereinafter “humanitarian status holder”) refers to an
alien to whom subparagraph 1 does not apply but for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe his/her life or
personal freedom may be egregiously violated by torture or other inhumane treatment or punishment or other
circumstances, and who is given permission to stay by the Minister of Justice in accordance with the Presidential Decree.

10
l The number of humanitarian status holders has been jumping dramatically in 2014 and
2015 due to the rising number of Syrian asylum seekers fleeing the Syrian civil war.
6-2. Refugee Status Application at Ports of Entry
l If denied due procedures for refugee status confirmation (“RSD”), a refugee status
applicant, or a refugee claimant, may be at risk of deportation to a country where he/she
could face torture, with no prior fact-finding work at a port of entry on how likely it is
for the claimant to be tortured or persecuted. Therefore, ensuring a proper RSD
procedure is vitally important for the implementation of Article 3 of the Convention, the
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
l Article 5 of the Presidential Decree of the Refugee Act stipulates that it is possible not to
refer a refugee status applicant, or a refugee claim, to RSD procedure if certain criteria
are met such as in the case where the claimant is highly likely to pose a considerable
threat to the safety or social order of Korea. According to a document submitted to the
NHRCK by the Ministry of Justice in 2016, non-referral decisions made in the run-up to
RSD procedure at ports of entry averaged 33.9% from 2013 to 2015 and stood at 51.9%
as of April 2016.
l Quite a number of cases have been found where a foreign national stays for longer than
expected in an uncomfortable, overcrowded departure waiting area10 at a port of entry as
he/she has filed a lawsuit to challenge a non-referral decision on his/her refugee claim.
l In 2016, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Justice simplify the criteria for
the non-referral of refugee claims under the Presidential Decree of the Refugee Act to
the completeness of forms and submission requirements only so that more refugee
claimants can go through the RSD procedure, establish a procedure to object a
non-referral decision, and ensure that a foreigner, if challenging the non-referral of
his/her refugee claim via a lawsuit, etc., is basically treated like a "refugee status
applicant" as prescribed in the Refugee Act for the time being.
l The Ministry of Justice was lukewarm on the recommendations, stating that the Ministry
had to weigh the matter carefully due to the concerns about possible abuses of the
refugee claim system, dysfunction of border control, slowdown and inefficiency of the
RSD procedure, etc. Yet, the Ministry was receptive to some of the recommendations
such as offering a written notice of non-referral decision or developing a legal
framework for departure waiting area.
4. Article 11 (Review of Individual Detention System for Torture Prevention)
Issue 7. Juvenile Correctional Facility (para. 106)
l Although the State Reports indicate that juvenile correctional facilities are on the course
of downsizing and offering inmates with a more personalized treatment, it is a bit out of
10 A departure waiting room refers to a place at a port of entry where foreigners with no immigration permission temporarily
stay until repatriation. In Korea, as of 2016, departure waiting areas are in place at eight international airports including
Incheon International Airport, and the Port of Busan.

11
touch with reality. According to a document submitted to the National Assembly by the
Ministry of Justice in 2016, entire juvenile correctional institutions in Korea could
accommodate up to 1,250 persons while the actual number of juvenile inmates reached
1,498 (as of June 2016), thus, exceeding 120% of the maximum capacity on average; the
over-crowdedness was even more pronounced in some facilities (191% in An-yang
Juvenile Correctional Center, 154% in Seoul Juvenile Correctional Center, and 132% in
Busan Juvenile Correctional Center).
l In addition, the management and supervision of juvenile correctional facilities needs to
be improved in general. The aforementioned document of the Ministry of Justice
demonstrates that violence or other similar incidents among inmates more than tripled
from 306 cases in 2011 to 1,011 cases in 2015. Meanwhile, despite the growing inmate
populations, supervisory manpower at nation-wide juvenile correctional institutions is
rather on the decline from 681 in 2011 to 663 in 2015.
l Much more attention and a swift action plan are needed from the Korean government to
offer better conditions for inmates at juvenile correctional facilities.
Issue 8. Violence & Sexual Assault in Correctional Institutions (para. 115)
l The State Reports, although describing the problems of sexual violence by correctional
officers, do not deal with the current status of violence, sexual assault, etc. among
inmates.
l According to the "2014 Crime White Paper" of the Ministry of Justice, the number of
assault causing fatalities among inmates was 419 in 2006, 412 in 2007, 401 in 2008, 377
in 2009, 433 in 2010, 432 in 2011, 373 in 2012, and 375 in 2013. Academic research has
revealed that 5.9% of adult male inmates have been forced by other male counterparts
into unsolicited sexual intercourse or sexual contact such as genital fondling, etc.
l Constant management and supervision is imperative for the prevention of violence and
sexual assault among inmates in correctional facilities.
5. Article 12 and 13 (Investigation on Torture and Ensuring the Right to Receive an
Investigation)
Issue 9. Investigation Results of Crackdown on Chinese Migrant Workers (para. 140)
l The State Reports present a case where two illegal Chinese migrant women were caught
in a crackdown by an immigration control officer and dragged into a van where they
were repeatedly beaten in the neck and elsewhere. During an ensuing investigation, the
officer paid the female victims to settle the issue and they said that they didn"t want the
officer to be punished. The prosecutor in this case concluded that there were "no grounds
to prosecute" the officer as it is impossible to initiate a criminal prosecution if the victim
explicitly objects a punishment against the perpetrator in accordance with Article 260 of
the Criminal Law11 on assault.
11 Article 260 of Criminal Law (Assault, Assault on Ascendants)
①
A person who uses violence against another shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years,
a fine not exceeding five million KRW, detention, or a minor fine.

12
l The judgment of the Ministry of Justice was that an immigration control officer, even if
having committed an assault while performing his/her public duties, should be governed
by Article 260 of the Criminal Law on assault crime, not Article 125 (on acts of violence
or cruelty committed in the process of performing one"s public duty to arrest) since
his/her duty to protect foreigners is not supposed to include an arrest. An immigration
control officer, however, is required to serve as a judicial police officer under the Act on
the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officers and the Scope of Their
Duties, and their actual work is never a far cry from making an arrest. Furthermore, a
compelling argument in the academia suggests that an immigration control officer should
be subject to Article 125 (as a person with a public duty to perform an arrest). Therefore,
in the aforementioned case in the State Reports, prosecution should have been brought
under Article 125, instead of concluding that there were "no reasons for prosecution" as
both the perpetrator and victim had reached a settlement in pursuit of Article 260.
Issue 10. Role of the NHRCK (para. 142-145)
l On November 25, 2001, the NHRCK was founded under the National Human Rights
Commission Act as an independent national organization which is separate from the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of power based on the Principles relating to
the Status of National Institutions (“Paris Principles”), which had been resolved by the
U.N. General Assembly in 1993, etc. For the past 15 years, the NHRCK has served a
pivotal role in, among others, preventing and remedying the human rights abuses of state
organizations and advancing human rights by making recommendations on basic
planning for national human rights policy.
l The NHRCK needs to be granted an elevated status as a constitutional institution through
an amendment to the constitution in the future so that the Commission can be
empowered to promote universal human rights by offering a more protected legal status.
6. Article 16 (Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment or Punishment not Amounting to
Torture)
Issue 11. Prevention of Unfair Treatment in the Military
11-1. Violence and Abuses in the Military (para. 172-179)
l Despite the various efforts of the Korean government and the military authorities,
violence and abuses die hard among men and women in uniform. According to a
document submitted to the National Assembly by the Ministry of Defense in 2016, the
number of officially reported violence cases in military bases was 649 in 2012, 569 in
2013, 947 in 2014, 800 in 2015 and 349 in 2016 (as of June) while that of abuses stood
at 83 in 2012, 40 in 2013, 65 in 2014, 88 in 2015, and 40 in 2016 (as of June).
l The 2014 was marred by the “assault-causing-death case of Private First Class Yoon **”
who had suffered from constant violence, abuses, and bullying, and ended up dying after
group beating, and the “GOP12 shooting case of Sergeant Ihm **” who killed five
③
The crimes referred to in Article 260.1 and 260.2 shall not be prosecuted in the face of an objection expressed by
the victim.
12 GOP: General Out Post

13
colleagues in his unit who had long bullied him. The year 2016 was not without
problems such as the so-called “Marine Corps force-feeding case” where bullying
soldiers forced their subordinates into eating an enormous amount of food, as well as
sexual harassment such as unwanted genital touching, etc. All in all, violence and abuses
in barracks have persisted as a huge part of social malaise.
l According to the “Survey on the Sexual Violence in the Military” conducted by the
opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD) in 2014, 19% of female
military respondents said that they had experienced sexual harassment in their base while
a whopping 28% responded that they had witnessed their female comrades being
sexually harassed. Most of the victims turned out to be entry-level NCOs (Staff
Sergeants, etc.) or low-ranked officers (Second Lieutenants, First Lieutenants, etc.)13
whose year of service was no longer than five years, while bullies were mostly
Field-grade Officers (42.5%) or Generals (27.6%), implying that sexual abuses or
harassment in the military are strongly influenced by the rigid pecking order.
l In November 2014, the National Assembly set up the "Ad-hoc Committee on
Improvement of Human Rights and Progressing the Culture in the Military" to find
solutions for human rights abuses in the military. In July 2015, the Ad-hoc Committee
announced its outcome report and suggested 39 agenda items for improvement. In
particular, the lawmakers from across the aisle in the Ad-hoc Committee agreed on and
introduced a bill to establish under the NHRCK a “military ombudsman office” which is
designed to initiate fair, objective investigation as an independent entity. The bill,
however, was opposed by the Ministry of Defense on the ground that it would lead to
such problems as confusion of command authority, weakening of security, etc., and was
discarded as the term of the 19th National Assembly expired. In the 20th National
Assembly (May 2016 - May 2020), another bill was proposed to set up a military
ombudsman office under the NHRCK by amending the National Human Rights
Commission Act. The NHRCK maintains that it is desirable for the Commission to have
a military ombudsman office, because, given the nature of human rights abuses within
military bases, an external ombudsman entity is able to remain fair and objective, and
because the Commission has been already handling relevant tasks such as investigations
on military human rights abuses.
11-2. Detention in a Guardhouse
l The Korean military implements “detention in a guardhouse” as a disciplinary measure
to detain a soldier for a short-term period. Under Article 57 of the Military Personnel
Management Act, disciplinary measures are classified into a set of actions against
officers, warrant officers, and NCOs, and another set of actions against soldiers―the
latter of which include demotion, detention in a guardhouse, restriction on leave, and
probation; in other words, guardhouse detention only applies to soldiers. The term
"detention in a guardhouse" means being detained in a stockade in a military unit or in a
ship for less than 15 days.
l Guardhouse detention often causes a controversy over human rights violation because a
soldier is to be arrested simply through an administrative disciplinary procedure without
a court-issued warrant even if he is not caught red-handed in the crime scene or there is
no ground for a warrantless arrest. According to a document submitted to the NHRCK
13 In the Korean military system, women in uniform can only become either NCOs or commissioned officers; there are no female
rank-and-file soldiers.

14
by the Ministry of Justice in 2013, the number of soldiers detained in a stockade was
12,223 in 2009, 12,912 in 2010, 15,464 in 2011, 21,225 in 2012, and 8,520 in 2013 (as
of late June).
l In consideration of the human rights controversy over guardhouse detention, the Ministry
of Defense amended the Military Personnel Management Act in 2006 to further specify
the grounds for disciplinary measures in the military, and partially ameliorated the
guardhouse detention system in the way that military personnel with disciplinary
authority should go through a review of legality led by “military judicial officers for
human rights” prior to making a disciplinary decision. However, many raise questions
over how independent military judicial officers for human rights can be from the
commander of their unit since they mostly serve as a legal staff officer or are stationed in
a legal office within a military unit.
l In November 2013, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Defense establish an
overarching disciplinary regulation at the ministerial level to prevent personnel with
disciplinary authority from arbitrarily deciding on guardhouse detention, take effective
measures to help military judicial officers for human rights execute their work more
independently, and better treat inmates in an environment that discourages old practices
such as prohibiting them from chatting in a living room or ordering them to sit or stand
still, etc. The Ministry accepted some of the recommendations such as the establishment
of an overarching disciplinary regulation by amending the “Directive of the Ministry of
Defense on Disciplinary Measure Procedures for Service Members and Civilian
Workers.”
Issue 12. Prevention of Unfair Treatment in Mental Health Institutions (para. 190-194)
12-1. Involuntary Admission to Mental Health Institutions (para. 190-194)
l According to the "2015 Outcome Report on the Current Status of National Mental
Health" by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Center for Mental
Health, the total number of patients at mental health institutions was 81,625 in
2014―70.3% of which have been involuntarily hospitalized by their family or other
legal guardians.
l In May 2015, regarding the adjudication on the constitutionality of involuntary
admission by a legal guardian"s consent, the NHRCK submitted an opinion to the
Constitutional Court of Korea that Article 24 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Mental Health
Act, which makes possible an involuntary admission of a mentally-ill patient simply via
the consent of two legal guardians and the diagnosis of a doctor, is unconstitutional as
the said provisions violate the due process of law under the Constitution and seriously
restrict personal freedom.
l In September 2016, taking into account the opinion of the NHRCK, etc., the
Constitutional Court ruled14 Article 24 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Mental Health Act as
unconstitutional on the ground that the provisions do not serve as a proper legal basis for
minimizing the infringement of a mentally-ill patient"s personal freedom; however, the
Court also added that the said provisions remain effective until an alternative bill is
14 The Constitutional Court ruling, Act No. 2014A9, 29th Sept. 2016

15
proposed since a legal vacuum could be created otherwise.
l On May 29, 2016, the Ministry of Health and Welfare broadly amended the Mental
Health Act into the Mental Health Promotion and Welfare Support for Mentally-ill
Patients Act―prescribing that an involuntary admission of a mentally-ill patient is only
possible by an application of more than two of the patient"s guardians and the opinion of
more than two psychiatrists including one from a national or public mental medical
institution. The amended act will go into effect on May 30, 2017.
12-2. Seclusion and Restraint in Mental Medical Institutions
l The seclusion or restraint of patients at mental medical institutions is becoming
increasingly concerning. There are criticisms that seclusion and restraint infringe the
basic rights of the mentally-impaired as these methods are being used too broadly
without firm legal grounds and specific procedures. Human rights abuses from seclusion
or restraint at mental medical institutions took up 7.0% of the petitions on mental health
care filed with the NHRCK from 2011 to 2015.
l In 2015, the NHRCK initiated the “Survey on Seclusion and Restraint at Mental
Hospitals”, and based on the results, recommended in 2016 that the Minister of Health
and Welfare, among others, bolster legislations on specific requirements, procedures, etc.
regarding the use of seclusion and restraint at mental medical institutions, standardize the
structure, facility, and restraint tools of seclusion rooms, and develop alternative
programs to replace seclusion and restraint. In February 2017, internal discussions are
well under way in the Ministry to weigh whether to accept the recommendations.
Issue 13. Prohibition of Corporal Punishment at School and Home (para. 195-198)
l The Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was
amended on March 18, 2011, prohibits the use of corporal punishment as it stipulates
that discipline and admonition “shall not involve methods which inflict physical pain on
a student"s body using punishing tools and body parts”. Some offices of education in
other provinces and municipalities have legislated and implemented “the Municipal
Ordinance on Student Human Rights” banning corporal punishment at schools (the
Gyoenggi Province Office of Education in 2010, the Gwangju City Office of Education
in 2011, the Seoul City Office of Education in 2012, and the Jeollabukdo Office of
Education in 2013).
l Direct or indirect corporal punishments still linger in some schools. According to the
“Survey IV on the Human Rights of Korean Children and Adolescents” conducted by the
National Youth Policy Institute in 2013, 23.7% of primary, middle, and high school
respondents have experienced corporal punishment at least once a year at their school.
l In 2012, the NHRCK recommended that relevant offices of education, superintendents,
and the Minister of Education, among others, take grave disciplinary actions against, and
regularly provide guidance to and supervise teachers who have constantly imposed
corporal punishment on their students with disabilities at public special schools. The
offices of education and schools have accepted the recommendations and executed
follow-up measures like disciplinary actions against the teachers in question.
l Parental discipline and admonition for children at home are governed by the provisions

16
on parental authority under the Civil Act. However, there are children suffering from
corporal punishments and physical abuses which cannot be deemed as normal forms of
parental discipline and admonition. According to the “2014 Status Report on Child
Abuses in Korea” by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, child protection agencies
across the nation reported 17,791 cases of child abuse in total; 87.5% of child abusers are
birth parents (77.2%), step parents and foster parents (4.7%), and grandparents or
relatives (5.6%). By type, child abuses take the form of neglect (18.6%), emotional
abuses (15.8%), physical abuses (14.5%), etc., or at times, a combination of physical
abuses and other type of abuses (48%).
l According the aforementioned report of the Ministry, although the number of reported
child abuse cases by those obliged to report15 more than doubled from 2,012 in 2006 to
4,358 in 2014, the rate of report merely stood at 29%―much lower than 73% in
Australia, 68% in Japan, 58% in the U.S. or in any other major countries―suggesting
that those obliged to report should more actively monitor and report child abuses.
l According to a document submitted to the NHRCK by the Ministry of Health and
Welfare in 2016, the number of children isolated from child protection agencies for care
and protection reached a total of 3,017 in 2015, while as of March 2016, there were only
47 shelters (with the maximum capacity of about 250 persons) for abused children across
the nation, and just 30 children cared by foster families.
l In 2016, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Education, the Minister of
Justice, and the Minister of Health and Welfare enhance across the board the public
policies on prevention of child abuse and protection of human rights of abused children.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare was receptive to the recommendations and pushed
for initiatives such as expansion of shelters for abused children, certification of reliable
foster families, etc. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice partially
accepted the recommendations.
Issue 14. Protection of Rights of Immigrants (para. 137-138, 199-206)
14-1. Petition and Investigation System for Migrant Workers (para. 137-138)
l According to the “Statistics of Labor Policy Office” by the Ministry of Employment and
Labor in 2015, a labor supervisor"s scope work is as broad as 1,758 business sites and
15,000 workforces per person, as of June 2015. A single labor supervisor is forced to
handle 45 reported cases on average per month. Although the State Reports explain that
migrant workers, if abused or unfairly treated, can be remedied through the labor
supervisor scheme, labor supervisors are limited in helping migrant workers only owing
to the burden of their work because they are general, not specialized, supervisors who
ought to monitor and protect various types of workers in a wide range of fields.
l There have been cases where employers seize the identification cards of migrant workers
to deter them from escaping the worksite when it comes to agriculture, livestock industry,
fishery, or the likes. According to the “Survey on Human Rights Situation of Migrant
Workers in Fishery” by the NHRCK in 2012, the number of those holding both passport
15 Under Article 10.2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, Etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, any of the following persons
should report a crime of child abuse if necessary: heads and employees of child welfare facilities, public officials in charge of child welfare,
public officials in charge of social welfare, heads and employees of social welfare facilities, faculties of primary and middle schools, etc.

17
and alien registration certificate was merely 20.7% among the entire migrant respondents
in fishery.
l In addition, migrant workers in Korea are often exposed to violence at work. According
to the research led by the NHRCK, 42.6% of migrant workers in fishery (“Survey on
Human Rights Situation of Migrant Workers in Fishery” by the Commission in 2012),
14.9% of those in agriculture and livestock industry (“Survey on Human Rights Situation
of Migrant Workers in Agriculture and Livestock Industry” by the Commission in 2013),
and 15.7% of those in construction industry (“Survey on Human Rights Situation of
Migrant Workers in Construction Industry” by the Commission in 2015) have
experienced physical abuses at work.
l Against to such a backdrop, a solid policy package should be developed by the Korean
government to effectively investigate and remedy the abuse or violence afflicting
migrant workers at work.
14-2. Crackdown on the Breach of the Immigration Control Act (para. 199-200)
l According to the “Monthly Statistics Report on Immigration Policy” by the Ministry of
Justice, the number of foreign nationals in Korea reached 2,049,441 as of December
2016; almost 4% of the entire population of the country―the figure has rapidly
increased to surpass two million in just nine years since reaching a million in 2007.
l Under Article 2 Subparagraph 11 of the Immigration Control Act, the "protection" of
foreigners, which is given to those who are to be deported, is defined as “the
enforcement activities of an immigration control official to take into custody a person,
who is suspected to be a subject of deportation based on reasonable grounds, in an
immigration detention unit, an immigration detention center, or etc. Protection of
foreigners, although supposed to be a simple administrative process by definition, often
triggers a controversy over human rights violation as it resembles an arrest which should
follow criminal justice procedures.
l In 2009, with regard to a bill to partially amend the Immigration Control Act, the
NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Justice build a solid framework for human
rights protection befitting criminal justice procedures (such as complying with the
principle of issuing a warrant prior to an arrest, or issuing a warrant even after a
warrantless arrest) because protection of foreigners, as prescribed under the Immigration
Control Act, is basically similar to the criminal justice procedures for arrest; nevertheless,
the recommendations were not reflected into the said legal amendment.
14-3. Immigration Detention Facilities (para. 205)
l From 2010 to 2011, the NHRCK conducted field surveys in a total of seven immigration
detention facilities, and recommended in November 2011 that the Minister of Justice,
among others, improve the design of iron grating in the living room of the facilities,
better inform foreigners of what rules to follow in the facilities, how to remedy their
human rights issues, whom to contact for inquiries or grievances, etc., provide
information in various languages, ensure the freedom of religion is fully respected, and
step up regular medical check-ups for foreigners if protected for a long term. The
Ministry accepted some of the recommendations such as multiple language services
within the facilities.

18
l The “Outcome Report on the Current Status of Immigration Detention Centers” by the
Korean Bar Association in 2015 pointed out that it is fundamentally wrong to believe
that the protection of foreigners is different from "detention", and it was recommended
that the conditions of immigration detention centers be improved in terms of use of
phone and the internet (phone calls to home country, collection of evidence required for
refugee status application, etc), heating in winter, visitor"s rooms, physical check-ups,
interpreting services for medical staffs and patients, meals, etc.
14-4. Protection of Refugee Status Applicants vis-a-vis Illegal Migrants (para. 206)
l According to the findings of the field survey in immigration detention facilities by the
NHRCK from 2010 to 2011, foreigners usually stay in immigration detention centers for
10 days on average before being repatriated. Some foreigners, however, have to be left in
the facilities for longer than expected as it takes time for their RSD procedure to be
finished.
l According to the "Research on the Support Facilities and Social Integration Policy of
Nations for Refugee Claimants" by the Ministry of Justice in 2009, an Iranian made a
refugee claim on account of religious conversion and had to stay in an immigration
detention center for about three years and nine months until the RSD procedure was
completed.
l In November 2011, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Justice accelerate the
speed of RSD procedure, seriously consider the need for a temporary release when
detention is delayed longer than expected, and ultimately deliberate on the establishment
of alternative protection facilities for refugee claimants. The Ministry has rejected most
of the recommendations, but made some concessions such as improving the health
management of those staying long in the facilities including refugee claimants.
Issue 15. The Ratification of OP-CAT (para. 207)
l In October 2012, six nations including Spain recommended in the Second Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) of UNCRC that the Korean government ratify the Optional
Protocol of the Convention (OP-CAT).
l In April 2006, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Justice push for a swift
signature and ratification of OP-CAT, and that, once OP-CAT is in place, the
Commission is an optimal choice as a national preventive mechanism (NPM).
Issue 16. Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service
l As of February 2017, Korea does not legally recognize the rights to conscientious
objection. Anyone who refuses to be enlisted or carry a gun in the military owing to
personal beliefs is to be sentenced to imprisonment in accordance with Article 88
Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act. This can be interpreted as a situation where a
person acting in pursuit of personal beliefs faces a "cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment not amounting to torture", as prescribed under Article 16
Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
l According to the "Analytical Report on Conscientious Objection to Military Service" by

19
UNCRC in June 2013, the number of incarcerated conscientious objectors in correctional
institutions across the world was 723 in 2012―669 (92.5%) of which are Korean. In
"Concluding Observations on the fourth the Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea
(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)", the UNHRC expressed its concern that conscientious objectors
are criminally penalized as there are no alternatives to the military service in Korea, and
recommended that Korea recognize the legal rights of conscientious objectors.
l In January 2017, a trial court in Korea acquitted 14 conscientious objectors. In October
2016, for the first time in the Korean history, an appellate court delivered an acquittal
verdict on conscientious objection. In January 2017, conscientious objectors who refused
to participate in a drill for reserved forces were acquitted in a trial court. The Supreme
Court, however, has remain the same stance since its ruling in 2004 that conscientious
objection is not a valid ground for draft exemption. The provisions of the Military
Service Act on the punishment of conscientious objectors were ruled as constitutional
twice by the Constitutional Court in 2004 and 2011, respectively. In February 2017,
another hearing on conscientious objection was under way.
l There used to a bill to amend the Military Service Act tabled in the 19th National
Assembly with an aim to promote the recognition of the rights to conscientious objection
and introduce alternatives to the military service. The bill, however, was discarded in
vain as the term of the National Assembly expired. The bill was re-introduced in the 20th
National Assembly (May 2016 - May 2020).
l In December 2005, the NHRCK recommended that the Minister of Defense recognize
the rights of conscientious objectors and adopt alternative forms of military service.
However, the recommendations were dismissed by the Ministry of Defense. In
November 2016, the NHRCK submitted an opinion that the Commission reaffirmed its
recommendations in 2005 regarding a constitutional appeal about Article 88 Paragraph 1
of the Military Service Act on the punishment of conscientious objectors―which is
currently subject to a hearing by the Constitutional Court―and that it is the infringement
of freedom of conscience to criminally penalize conscientious objectors.
7. Others
Issue 17. Counter-terrorism Action (para. 208)
l In November 2001, a counter-terrorism bill was first tabled in the National Assembly.
The bill gave rise to concerns for human rights infringement by counter-terrorism
activities, and was eventually thwarted after a series of public discussions. However, the
demands for a counter-terrorism act resurfaced as the outbreak of the "Paris terror
attacks" in 2015 and many other terrorist threats reignited the public interest in
counter-terrorism, thereby leading to the enactment of the Act on Anti-Terrorism for the
Protection of Citizens and Public Security on March 2, 2016.
l The aforementioned act stipulates that, for the sake of counter-terrorism, the Director of
the National Intelligence Service (“NIS”) may collect information on terrorism suspects,
such as their entry into/departure from Korea, financial transactions, use of
communications, etc., and may request personal and location information of a terrorism
suspect from a personal information manager and a location information provider, and
that the NIS Director may conduct counterterrorism investigations, or trace terrorism

20
suspects to collect information or materials needed for counterterrorism.
l "Concluding Observations on the fourth Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea
(CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4)" of the UNHRC recommended in 2015 that an counter-terrorism
act be solely applied to crimes that are evidently deemed as acts of terrorism, referring to
a pending bill on the legislation of the Act on Anti-Terrorism for the Protection of
Citizens and Public Security.
l The NHRCK opposed a bill on the legislation of Counter-terrorism Act in 2002 for the
concern of human rights violation as the provisions on the definition of terrorism,
relevant penalties and procedures, etc. were considered unconstitutional and not in line
with the International Human Rights Law, and also objected to a revised
counter-terrorism bill in 2003 as it was deemed unconstitutional to allow the NIS
Director to request the mobilization of special forces under his/her own discretion, and
reinforcing the authority of the NIS may stifle basic rights of the public. In 2016,
regarding a bill on the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Anti-Terrorism for the
Protection of Citizens and Public Security, the Commission expressed an opinion that the
scope and extent of the authority of counter-terrorism human rights protection officers is
quite limited in fully protecting the infringement of human rights, and thus, should be
bolstered, and that it is deemed unconstitutional to authorize the head of terrorist incident
countermeasures headquarters to make requests at his/her will to dispatch
counterterrorism special forces for the operations outside military facilities.