본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

결과 내 검색

동의어 포함

고급검색

인명/단체명

저자정보 상세정보
인명/단체명을 입력하세요.

키워드

  • 대표어

  • 외국어

-

초록보기

Purpose: This study examines the institutional limitations of the Security Services Industry Act (SSIA) of Korea, which classifies private security services into six statutory categories but does not explicitly define “executive pro-tection” (gyeongho) despite its extensive use in industry and everyday discourse. Instead, protection work is sub-sumed under “personal protection services,” which may not sufficiently capture the operational reality of protec-tion tasks. The study aims to identify how this definitional gap generates interpretive confusion, increases field-level errors, and weakens accountability and training standards.

Method: The research adopts a qualitative design combining doctrinal review of the SSIA and its subordinate regulation, comparative legal and policy review of Japan, EU-related standards (EN 15602 and ISO 18788), and the U.S. (California) regulatory materials, and semi-structured in-depth interviews with seven practitioners who each have more than ten years of field experience in protection-related work. Interview topics addressed the gap between statutory and field terminology, task-boundary decisions, liability attribution, training adequacy, and desired legislative amendments.

Results: The findings indicate that practitioners consistently understand executive protection as an integrated risk-management service rather than a single protective act. Core components repeatedly identified include pre-event risk assessment, movement and route (itinerary) control, access control, crowd interface management, and on-site risk management—functions that frequently overlap with facility security and crowd/traffic control. How-ever, the current SSIA definition of personal protection services is purpose-oriented (protection of life and body) but operationally abstract, leaving the boundaries of lawful task performance and responsibility allocation uncer-tain. This ambiguity contributes to inconsistent interpretations across contracting entities, supervisory authorities, and training providers, and may intensify disputes when incidents occur.

Conclusion: Rather than restructuring the six-category system, this study proposes a legislative refinement that preserves the existing classification framework while revising the definition clause of “personal protection services” to explicitly include operational essentials of executive protection (movement/route control, access control, and on-site risk management). Such clarification is expected to reduce interpretive burden in the field, improve con-sistency in supervision and training, and strengthen the legitimacy and professionalization of protection work in Korea.

권호기사

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 목차
(A) study on the policy response of child abduction crimes Gunwoong Yeom p. 1-11
Countermeasures with criminal law against terrorism Kwanghyun Park p. 12-24
Limitations of defining executive protection under the Security Services Industry Act and legislative remedies : focusing on overseas systems and practitioner perceptions Jeonghoon Ha p. 25-33
Five structural reasons why presidential protection cannot be exclusively handled by the police : focusing on the Korean case Sunggu Jo p. 34-45
Changes in U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy and implications for South Korea’s national security under the post-Cold War period Jaein Lee, Jiwon Yun p. 46-57

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차

권호

기사명 원문보기 기사목차
닫기