Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A

Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 261.

“One possibility of describing this term corresponds to the allocation of the competent
organs. Administrative Penal Law is hence a quasi-Penal Law, which allows state or
local administrative bodies to impose sanctions, which have the character of, or at least
are similar to punishments. In this sense, the term administrative penal law was first
introduced into legal language by James Goldschmidt's, "Das Verwaltungsstrafrecht"
(Berlin, 1902). The term has not only become established in Germany, but also in
several other countries. Many national and supranational legal systems however are
using different terms for it. Normally: penal law for keeping good order, penal law of
the police, administrative penal law or quasi-penal law.”

- Administrative Penal Law ialah Hukum Pidana Semu, dimana hal ini memberikan
kuasa bagi badan administrasi untuk memberi hukuman/sanksi.

“A second definition specifies administrative penal law as that part of penal law, to
protect the role of public administration. Administrative penal law therefore consists of
those penal provisions, contained in (administrative) regulations other than the penal
code. Or, more exactly, administrative penal law epitomizes in penal regulations outside
the penal code, the military penal code, juvenile justice act etc.' Its location may be
determined by traditional patterns or the criminal policy, which assign penal
regulations outside the penal code. Usual terms are secondary penal law, administrative
penal law, law on economic offenses, law on fiscal (or revenue) offenses, penal labour
law, environmental penal law or financial penal law etc.”

- Administrative Penal Law ialah bagian dari Hukum Pidana, diciptakan untuk menjaga
peran dari Administrasi Publik.

- Isi dari Hukum Pidana Administrasi ialah peraturan pidana yang belum ada peraturan
pidana pada umumnya. Seperti KUHP, UU Pidana Anak, dll.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 261.
“In many national legal systems these two definitions do not coincide due to disputes.
Determination of the competent authority and establishment of the location, both these
possibilities of definition cause a certain uneasiness among modern jurists. For a long
time, administrative penal law has been characterized as a means to accomplish
administrative tasks through compulsion.”

- Hukum Pidana Administrasi dapat diartikan sebagai cara untuk melaksanakan tugas-
tugas administrasi melalui paksaan.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 263

In this field of administrative penal law in the first definition (law of infringements), the
problem focusses on a possible monopoly of the judiciary to sentence, i.e. on the
principle of the separation of powers, as laid down in Art. 92 of the Bonner Grundgesetz
(the German constitution). Based on Art. 92, which entrusts the judiciary to the judges,
the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) ruled that the competence
of the executive powers to punish is unconstitutional.

- Hukum pidana administrasi pada dasarnya didefinisikan sebagai hukum pelanggaran,

yang berfokus pada kemampuan bagian yudisial untuk menghukum. Pada Konstitusi
Jerman telah diatur bahwa kemampuan yudisial jatuh pada tangan hakim sehingga
pada akhirnya kekuasaan eksekutif tidak boleh menghukum karena pada dasarnya itu
inkonstitusional.

“Through different reforms of penal and administrative regulations in Germany, penal

law and the law of infringements were separated completely. This legal position
provides an easy answer to the long and heavily disputed question of the difference
between criminal penal law and administrative penal law: the modem law of
infringements is rooted in the administrative penal law in the first definition. This
answer also can be applied to the famous dogmatic debates on the difference between
criminal illegality and administrative illegality, between disciplining and punishing,
between administration and jurisdiction.”

- Infringements – Melanggar hukum/pelanggaran

 - Dalam perkembangannya di Jerman, separasi antara hukum pidana dan hukum
pelanggaran menjadi jelas
- Dengan kesimpulan, bahwa hukum pelanggaran yang modern ini ialah akar dari
hukum pidana administrasi

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 264

“Like most penal s y s t e m s , Korean, Japanese and German penal law are governed
by the principle of codification. Accordingly, a whole field of penal law is summed up
and regulated in a systematic corpus of law. The value of such a codification of one field
of law lies in the summing up, the systematic arrangement, critical examination and the
conclusive presentation of the relevant material.' But it is neither possible nor advisable
to incorporate all criminal offenses from the beginning or in a later stadium into the
Penal Code. Therefore, a large amount of "non-codified" penal law can be found
outside the Penal Code. In comparison with the penal law of the Penal Code, the "non-
codified" penal law consists of regulations that are either applicable only to special
groups of people, related to special areas of community life or finally regulations, which
prohibit a certain behaviour, which can only be defined in the context of non-penal
regulations. The penal sciences of Korea, Japan and Germany each use different
criteria for the categorization and systematization of codified and non-codified penal
law.”

- Tidak mungkin untuk mengatur dan memasukkan setiap jenis kejahatan pada KUHP
diawal pembentukannya.
- Sehingga banyak jenis-jenis aturan mengenai tindak pidana yang tidak tercantum di
KUHP.
- Jika dibandingkan dengan isi KUHP, maka “aturan pidana yang tidak ada di KUHP”
ini terdiri dari aturan yang dapat diterapkan pada beberapa orang atau kumpulan, atau
peraturan yang melarang orang untuk melakukan sesuatu dll.
“German penal science usually divides the main penal regulations (basic, core or main
penal law (strafrechtliche Hauptgesetze, Grund-, Kern- or Hauptstrafrecht)) from the
secondary penal regulations (secondary penal law (strafrechtlichen Neben- gesetze)).”

- Hukum pidana jerman terbagi menjadi dua, primer dan sekunder

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 264

In addition, Maurach and Zip, make a distinction between Allgemeines Strafrecht

(general penal law) and Sonderstrafrecht (special penal law). Accordingly, all
regulations for a criminal offence that can be applied to every person underlying the
national jurisdiction, are called general penal law. Only those regulations of which the
application is limited to a certain group of people, mainly persons who owe the state a
higher degree of loyalty, are called special penal law. As the most important Acts on
special penal law, the authors do not only list the WehrStG (Military Penal Code), but
also the articles on malfeasance in the StGB (Penal Code).”

- Allgemeines Strafrecht – General Penal Law – Setiap peraturan yang terkait tindak
pidana yang dapat diterapkan pada setiap orang pada yurisdiksi negara.
- Sonderstrafrecht – Special Penal Law – Peraturan yang memiliki penerapannya
terbatas pada beberapa kelompok saja.

In Japan, in two recent commentaries on the important penal acts outside the Penal
Code, the non-codified penal law is unanimously called special penal law
(Tokobetsukeiho). According to the system of the authors of the commentaries, the
special penal law consists of the penal regulations that can be found outside the Penal
Code in other acts. The commentators have thus created a standard term for the
previously mentioned different terms of different authors. The title of the commentaries
is accordingly: "Commentary on Special Penal Law." According to conventional
systematization the Penal Code, as "penal law in its narrower or formal sense" was
confronted with the other penal acts as "penal law in its broader or substantive sense,."
In addition, in official as well as non-official compendiums of law in Japan as well as
Korea, a special category of laws on criminal matters (Keijiho) can be found, which are
the core of penal law and criminal procedure. Part of these so called laws on criminal
matters are the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the penal
regulations that supplement the Special Part of the Penal Code. The regulations which
supplement the Special Part of the Penal Code and which are part of the laws on
criminal matters are called quasi-Penal Code (Junkeiho). Where Nishihara has only
defined these special laws on criminal matters i.e. the quasi-Penal Code as special penal
law, while defining the remaining non-codified penal acts (especially the penal
regulations on administrative acts) as administrative penal law, Hirano, Sasaki and
Fujinaga in the foreword of their commentary, have used the term "special penal law"
in the sense that it includes special laws on penal matters as well as administrative penal
law.

- Tokubetsu = Special

- Keiho = Hukum Pidana

- Menurut sarjana-sarjana di Jepang, yang salah satunya menulis buku “Commentary

on Special Penal Law”, KUHP ialah hukum pidana secara sempit dan formal.
Sedangkan regulasi terkait pidana selain KUHP ialah hukum pidana secara luas dan
substantif.

- Keijiho ditopang oleh Junkeiho yang merupakan quasi penal code, berisi peraturan
khusus mengenai aturan-aturan pidana beserta aturan pidana yang memuat hal-hal
berbau administrative, hingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa Junkeiho ini memuat
Administrative Penal Law.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 266

In Korea, in the non-codified penal law many things are still not clear and the
terminology depends on the author. Most Korean textbooks still use the customary
categorization into penal law in its formal and its substantive sense; sometimes the
terms special penal law and administrative penal law according to Nishihra or,
following the use in German legal literature, the term secondary penal law can be
found. According to the seriousness and intensity of crimes, Kim Ki-Chul wants to
differentiate between a so called quasi- Penal Code and a special penal law, which
includes the important penal regulations of different special acts.

- Masih belum ada separasi yang jelas antara Penal Code dan Special Penal Law.
- Kim Ki Chun berpendapat bahwa harus ada perbedaan yang jelas didasarkan pada
tingkat keseriusan dan intensitas kejahatan yang ada.

This overview on the terminology of non-codified penal law in Korea, Japan and
Germany shows that the same term, e.g. special penal law, has different meanings
depending on the author, e.g. Maurach and Zipf, Uchida, Nishihara, Hirano, Sasaki and
Fujinaga, Chong Sung-Gun and Kim Ki-Chun. Although the diverse categorizations of
penal law are not of big importance in the three countries, they are counter-productive
for the comparison and the understanding of the different legal systems. To make at
least the understanding of foreign legal systems easier, the terms "core penal law" and
"secondary penal law" can be recommended, as especially in Korea and in Japan the
terms "special penal law" or "administrative penal law" were often mixed up with the
law of infringements The use of the terms "special penal law" and "administrative
penal law" in Japanese and Korean legal literature (but not by Maurach and Zipf)
usually coincides with administrative penal law in the second definition, i.e. secondary
penal law.

- Korea, Jepang, dan Jerman pada dasarnya menyebut non-codified penal law sebagai
special penal law/hukum pidana khusus. Walaupun terdapat perbedaan interpretasi
dari setiap sarjana di tiap-tiap negara.

- Untuk mempermudah pemahaman maka penulis merekomendasikan seperti berikut:

o Core Penal Law dan Secondary Penal Law

o Dalam literasi jepang dan korea, penggunaan kata-kata special penal law dan
administrative penal law selalu disambungkan dengan pengertian APL ialah
secondary penal law.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 267
In the last decades, Germany has strived to limit the use of penal law to a minimum of
punishable crimes while also trying to treat acts, which are ethically not reprehensible,
but have to be fought in order to protect certain goods, differently. These efforts to find
criteria for distinguishing between criminal penal law and administrative penal law
have been going on for years, with James Goldschmidt contributing enormously to legal
science, and have increased tremendously with the growth of administrative penal law.
Although German legal science has not yet been able to find a clear model, which makes
it possible to distinguish between criminal wrong and mere administrative wrong,
German legislation has introduced the law of infringements as a new branch of penal
law. Notwithstanding the change of the terminology (especially Bufigeld (fine) instead of
Strafe (penalty)), the modern Ordnungswidrigkeitenrecht (law of infringements) means
nothing else than Verwaltungsstrafrecht (administrative penal law) in the sense of
Goldschmidt. Therefore, administrative penal law in the second sense, which in Korea
and Japan is often used instead of secondary penal law, is not identical with the
administrative penal law of Goldschmidt, which corresponds with the modern law of
infringements.

- Jerman masih belum bias menemukan titik jelas pemisah antara kesalahan pidana dan
kesalahan administrasi, namun Jerman membuat Law of Infringement sebagai cabang
dari hukum pidana.
- Menurut James Goldschmidt, OWig ialah sejatinya Hukum Pidana Administrasi.
Dimana menurut pemahaman di Korea dan Jepang, APL ialah secondary penal law.

In Korean and Japanese legal literature the German criteria are understood as criteria
for distinguishing between criminal law and administrative penal law in the second
sense, i.e. as secondary penal law. Most Korean and Japanese authors are in favour of
not distinguishing between core penal law and administrative penal law in its earlier
sense, but between core penal law and secondary penal law. But their theory bases on
the theories on administrative penal law, developed by James Goldschmidt and
extended by Erik Wolf and which base on the material difference between criminal
offenses and administrative offenses. This concept contradicts itself. According to this
theory, administrative penal law-in the definition of secondary penal law-is ruled by
different principles than primary penal law. Thus, in certain cases, the principles of
penal law shall be modified for administrative penal law. For example it is claimed that,
depending on administrative purposes, negligence can even be punished in cases where
the administrative regulations do not contain any rules on negligent behaviour. This
totally mistaken conclusion is based on thorough misunderstanding of the underlying
German aim to try to distinguish between criminal penal law and administrative penal
law which includes the modem law of infringements.

- Pada dasarnya Jepang dan Korea menggunakan teori yang dibuat oleh James
Goldschmidt dan Erik Wolf untuk membedakan Hukum Pidana dan APL, yang
dianggap sebagai secondary penal law. Sehingga teori tentang APL dalam
pemahaman Goldschmidt dan pemahaman mereka mengenai APL sebagai secondary
penal law, bertentangan satu sama lain. Hal ini terjadi karena Goldshmidt tidak
menganggap APL sebagai secondary penal law.
- Teori mereka ialah Hukum Pidana Administrasi – dalam konsep secondary penal law
– diatur menggunakan prinsip yang berbeda dari hukum pidana pada umumnya.
Sehingga prinsip hukum pidana primer harus diubah untuk disesuaikan pada Hukum
Pidana Administrasi. Sebagai contoh: Kelalaian dapat dihukum dimana peraturan
adminstratif yang ada bahkan tidak memuat peraturan apapun yang mengatur tentang
Kelalaian.
- Teori tersebut salah karena Korea dan Jepang tidak memahami bahwa Jerman
bertujuan untuk memberikan separasi yang jelas antara hukum pidana dan hukum
pidana administrasi yang memuat hukum pelanggaran yang modern.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 267

It is known, that the law of infringements has its historic roots in the earlier police and
administrative penal law. Through the idea of a police penal law, the penal sanctions on
administrative offenses and offenses against regulations issued by police authorities
have fulfilled the role of administrative coercion. Police penal law as administrative
penal law in the first sense has existed, before the idea of the separation of powers
emerged. In Germany the Prussian Penal Code of 1851 treated offenses against
regulations, issued by police authorities as so called Formaldelikte (formal offenses),i.e.
offenses, in which the orders and prohibitions have a mere police preventive character.
With regard to the missing real unlawfulness of formal offenses, guilt was either not
required or it was replaced by the assumption of a characteristic kind of guilt, which
did not distinguish between intention and negligence, but which was to meet the mere
formal unlawfulness of these offenses. However, already in 1905, the Reichsgericht
(German supreme court) ruled, that offenses against police regulations require
subjektives Yerschulden (personal guilt) and that basically every offence requires intent
or at least negligence. In a later decision the Reichsgericht tried to cut back formal
offenses through reinterpreting the non-requirement of Schuldvermutung (a proof of
guilt) where possible, thus making the punishment in cases where grounds for
exemption from punishment were given, impossible. However, the Reichsgericht made
certain exceptions in the case of tax and custom offenses. Because of the criticism of
legal science at that time, the theory of formal offenses has vanished today.

- Sejarah hukum pelanggaran dimulai pada adanya hukum pidana polisi, hukuman yang
dikeluarkan polisi terhadap pelanggaran administrative dan pelanggaran terhadap
aturan telah memenuhi peran koersif administratif.

- Police penal law sebagai hukum pidana administrasi – definisi pertama – sudah ada
bahkan sebelum adanya pemisahan kekuasaan.

- Formaldelikte – pelanggaran formal – Pelanggaran melawan hukum yang dikeluarkan

oleh polisi. Saat itu pembuktian kesalahan tidak diperlukan, hanya mengandalkan
asumpsi akan kesalahan. Sehingga tidak ada perbedaan antara niat dan kealpaan.

- Namun teori tersebut hilang di masa kini. Pada tahun 1905 MA Jerman memutuskan
bahwa kejahatan terhadap regulasi polisi membutuhkan adanya niat atau setidaknya
kealpaan.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 269

In France in the three-divided system, police penal law ends up in the law of
infringements. Police penal law only distinguishes itself in view of the proof of guilt.
Formal offenses (délits purement materiels) are offenses which do not depend on
intentionally violating a penal regulation. Therefore, guilt need not be proofed. These
delits purement materiels, which are comparable to the Formaldelikte of former
German law, consist of simple formal violations of penal law (simple violation materielle
de la loi penale) and seemingly do not include an element of guilt (element moral); they
are called purement materiels, as only the fait materiel, the constitution of the physical
elements of the offence count. On the one hand, these offenses that do not require an
element of guilt, are seemingly distinguished from those which require intent or
negligence, on the other hand, offenses which do require intent are distinguished from
those, which do not require an intentional violation of a penal regulation. French legal
science disapproves of, or at least has modified this theory of formal offenses, often used
by French courts. The modified theory of formal offenses, the prevailing opinion in legal
science, sees formal offenses as offenses that require an element of guilt, but claims that
the guilt need not be proved, rather the accused must prove that he cannot be held
responsible for the offence. This leads to a presumption of guilt (offence with presumed
guilt).

- Dalam system hukum Prancis, Hukum Pidana Polisi berada pada hukum pelanggaran.
Hukum Pidana Polisi Prancis memiliki pandangan yang berbeda mengenai
pembuktian kesalahan.

- Sistem hukum prancis melakukan perubahan mengenai teori pelanggaran formal

sebagai pelanggaran yang membutuhkan elemen kesalahan namun pembuktian
kesalahan tidak diperlukan. Tersangka harus membuktikan bahwa ia tidak dapat
dijatuhkan pertanggungjawaban atas pelanggaran tersebut.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 271

Japanese and Korean textbooks on administrative penal law usually regard

administrative penalties as a sort of administrative coercion as reaction to
administrative offenses in the sense of obtrusive interference with administrative actions
of the state. Administrative penalties (gyoseibatsu) can be separated into administrative
criminal penalties (gyoseikeibatsu) and administrative penalties for offenses against the
public order (gyoseichitsujo). Administrative criminal penalties are penalties that are
laid down in the Penal Code. According to Isozaki, the administrative criminal penalty
is a quasi-penalty, while the administrative penalty for offenses against the public order
is the real administrative penalty. Usually the prevailing opinion of the administrative
science separates between administrative penalties and penalties, ergo between
administrative penal law and penal law. As a consequence of this different nature, so
the prevailing opinion claims, the principles of penal law, e.g. the principle of guilt, can
be modified for the use in administrative penal law. In my opinion this assumption is
misplaced, as the Penal Code as well as the non- codified penal law contain the same
legal consequences. The only difference is the allocation. It is misplaced, because it bases
on a misunderstanding of Goldschmidt's theory on administrative penal law: the
identification of administrative penal law (secondary penal law) with administrative
penal law in its former sense is wrong. "Administrative penal law" in its former sense
only includes the regulations to protect administrative actions of the state against
interference. Although secondary penal law often describes acts which are mere
infringements against formal regulations, this is not the underlying reason for the threat
with punishment. In most cases, where the offender seems to have committed a mere
formal offense a danger or even damage for others or the society is included. These
regulations also are to protect legal objects, mainly through prevention. As a mere
violation of formal regulations does not automatically mean an offence against a formal
regulation, administrative penal law is ruled by the principle of guilt.

- Dalam literatur mengenai APL di Jepang dan Korea, Sanksi Administratif dianggap
sebagai paksaan administratif yang menjadi reaksi terhadap adanya pelanggaran
administrasi yang menonjol dan menganggu kegiatan administrative negara.

- Dalam literatur Jepang, Sanksi Administrasi dapat dibagi menjadi Sanksi Pidana
Administrasi – Gyouseibatsu - dan Sanksi Administrasi terhadap pelanggaran
ketertiban umum – Gyouseichitsujo.

- Sanksi Pidana Administrasi ialah Quasi-Sanksi dimana Sanksi Administrasi terhadap

pelanggaran ketertiban umum ialah sanksi administrasi yang sesungguhnya.

- Banyak opini mengatakan bahwa prinsip yang mengatur APL seharusnya meminjam
dari prinsip hukum pidana yang dimodifikasi sedemikian rupa. Namun menurut
penulis hal ini ialah salah karena menurut Goldschmidt APL (Secondary Penal Law)
bukan sama dengan APL pada pengertian yang dulu. Pengertian APL yang dulu ialah
peraturan-peraturan yang berfungsi untuk melindungi tindakan administrasi negara
dari gangguan. Sedangkan secondary penal law digambarkan sebagai aturan yang
memuat tentang hukum pelanggaran.
 - Aturan-aturan tersebut pada dasarnya dibuat untuk menjaga objek-objek hukum
negara melalui pencegahan.

- Karena pelanggaran terhadap regulasi formal belum tentu berarti kejahatan terhadap
regulasi formal, maka APL diatur menggunakan prinsip kesalahan.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 272

In Germany, administrative penal law in the first definition used to be composed of

Strafverfugung, Strafbescheid and the Ordnungsstrafe.

In the case of Strafverfugungen, the federal laws allowed the regulations on police
sanctions in the different Lander (individual states) to remain in force. It did however
restrict the authority of the police to impose sanctions to infringements, laid down the
maximum penalty (fourteen days of prison or a fine) and regulated the procedure for
the application for a judicial decision of a court. The power of sentence of the police
competed with the superior right of the public prosecutor to prosecute. After
application for a judicial decision, except for indictment and the order opening trial,
regular criminal proceedings took place.

In addition to the Strafverfugung, issued by the police, other administrative authorities

could issue Strajbescheide for offenses against tax regulations. However, these
Stra,fbescheide were restricted to imposing fines; in case of objection by the person
concerned, proper criminal proceedings took place.

Nevertheless, the German legislator had supplied cases of Ordnungsstrafe (genuine

administrative penalties) which, in contrast to the regulations on Strafverfugungen and
StraJbescheide did not function as a procedural means for opening proper criminal
proceedings, but allowed the administration to impose independent sanctions with an
characteristic protest procedure outside the courts of general jurisdiction. For example
in the Borsengesetz (Stock Exchange Act) of May 8, 1908,52 the power of sentence,
regulated in detail b y a canon of professional ethics, was exercised in specific
proceedings by a specific stock exchange commission.53 Similarly, according to Artt. 34
and 35 Reichspostgesetz (Post Office Act) of October 28, 1871,54 the Oberpostdi-
rektionen (Regional administrations for postal affairs), and, according to Art. 101
Seemanns0 (Seaman's Law) of December 27, 187255 the Seemannsamter (office
implementing the provisions for the Seaman's Law), were allowed to impose genuine
penalties. According to the Reichsversicherungsordnung (regulations concerning the
Social Security System in Germany) of December 13, 1919" the authorities concerned
were granted an own power of sentence. However, in this case there was an attempt to
distinguish between criminal penalty and administrative penalty. Still, the
administrative penalty was considered to be a genuine criminal penalty. During the
Republik of Weimar there was a growing tendency to grant administrative authorities
the right to impose sanctions. The national-socialist state took over the administrative
penalty and developed it further, especially in the field of economic offenses.

- APL dalam definisi pertama di Jerman, terbagi menjadi 3

- Strafverfugung – Dikeluarkan oleh polisi. Acara pidana.

- Strafbescheide – mengenai pelanggaran aturan pajak. Terbatas pada pemberian denda

saja. Proses acara pidana, jika ada penolakan atau keberatan dari pelanggar.

- Ordnungstrafe (Genuine Administrative Penalties – Sanksi Administrasi yang Asli) –

Tidak ada acara sehingga pengenaan sanksi diberikan secara langsung oleh UU yang
tertkait.

That it is the administrative authority which, in a first step, imposes the sanction, was a
consequence of theoretical postulates based on the earlier doctrines on administrative
penal law. However, the existing constitutional order makes the existence of an
characteristic power of punishment of the administration, in spite of the old doctrine,
impossible. The existing law of infringements therefore fulfils the purpose of the older
doctrine of administrative penal law.

Considering the German example, the imposition of punishments through police

authorities in Korea (Bomchikgum) and Japan (Hansokukin) should be abolished
because of the separation of powers.
 - OWIG di Jerman ialah bentuk nyata adanya APL dalam definisi lama.
- Jika merunut kepada Jerman, maka kuasa polisi untuk menghukum harusnya
ditiadakan atas dasar prinsip pemisahan kekuasaan.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 274

In Korea and Japan the application of penal law is ruled by regulations, based on the
principle of rule and exception. By the regulations of the General Part of the Penal
Code, applicable to the entire existing and coming law, with the except for those, where
they are excluded by special regulations (Art. 8 and 13 of the Korean Penal Code and
Art. 8 and 38 of the Japanese Penal Code) the non-codified law also has a relation to the
Penal Code. However, administrative penal law has provides for exceptions to the
General Part of the Penal Code. Because in Japan and Korea no fundamental
distinction is made between the special laws on criminal matters (Keijitokubetsuho) and
the Penal Code, the special laws on criminal matters do not contain any special
regulations. Nevertheless, special regulations on the presumption of causation and the
criminal liability of legal persons have only recently been added Thus, a change
concerning the established views on the classification of special regulations and the
elements of an offence into the Penal Code also emerges in environmental penal law.
But still, a change on the special regulations of administrative penal law will be
necessary in the next future, as legislation as well as judicial power have been uncertain
and therefore legal science has wavered. The apparently clear general clause with the
principle of rule and exception could not fulfil the expectations on the unification of
penal law completely and many uncertainties have remained. This is especially the case
with the Korean law on fiscal offenses, which is still regarded as having a special status.
Often it is doubtful whether a special regulation of the special act exists, that has
priority to the Penal Code. This is the case with special acts which have been put into
force before as well as after the Penal Code became effective. The arguments for this are
the following.

- Korea dan Jepang menerapkan hukum pidana dalam prinsip rule and exception.
Sedangkan APL ialah bagian dari exceptions/pengecualian dari Aturan Umum di
KUHP mereka.
 - Hal ini terjadi karena Jepang tidak punya perbedaan yang mendasar antara UU Pidana
khusus dan KUHP pad umumnya.
- Di masa mendatang, APL akan diperbaharui sejalan dengan berkembangnya ilmu
hukum.

The older administrative penal law is still based on administrative coercion, especially
on the idea of administrative offenses as "formal offenses." It contains some features
that make a subordination under the Penal Code questionable or even impossible (an
example is the parallel punishment of the joint and several liable owner of a company as
well as the legal person). From this point of view, a part of the legal literature
characterizes regulations on parallel punishment as detention without or with presumed
guilt. In practice, the competent authorities-also the administrative ones in charge of the
prosecution-stayed closely attached to the customary way of thinking, without critically
analyzing it. In addition, a uncritical tradition in legislation tended to more or less
taking over old solutions for new acts and thus created the impression of 'it has to be
like that.'

- APL lama didasarkan atas dasar paksaan administratif, karena menggunakan dasar
bahwa pelanggaran administratif ialah pelanggaran formal.
- Bahkan memuat beberapa fitur dimana APL pada dasarnya tidak berada di dalam
Hukum Pidana. Sebagai contoh, hukuman parallel pada pemilik perusahaan beserta
badan hukumnya.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 275

An enormous part of the administrative regulations, based on the mentioned general

clauses (Art. 8 and 13 of the Korean Penal Code and Art.8 and 38 of the Japanese Penal
Code), is concerned with attempt, participation, aiding the perpetrator of an offence
after the act, recidivism, limitation of time, maximum penalties and especially on the
liability of legal persons. In a certain respect, there is also a need for an independent
existence of administrative penal law. But it seems there is no inner need for organizing
or maintaining administrative penal law as a special Act. The theories on the special
nature of administrative penal law, which were established decades ago by James
Goldschmidt69 and Minobe Tasukichi'° and which at their time were well founded, are
based on the principle of rule and exception. Special legislation can only be justified, if
this special arrangement has to be maintained out of an inner need and for a long time,
or if there is no possibility to , integrate administrative penal law into general penal law
by new concepts or regulations. If not, the general regulations of the Penal Code can be
and shouldbe applied to all areas of administrative penal law. This theory, that the
general regulations of the Penal Code could be applied to all areas of administrative
penal law, is especially true when asking for the purpose and intention of the sanction.
Even from this point of view, it is difficult to find a difference between general penal law
and administrative penal law. Fukuda Tahira has established an own category of
"administrative offenses" between genuine crimes (criminal offenses) and counterfeit
crimes (infringements)." Fukuda's conclusion is based on an accurate record of the
classical theory on administrative penal law. My opinion that the rules on
administrative penal law that concern the general regulations of the Penal Code should
be revised and unified, is neither unrealistic nor utopian, but entirely realistic. Also in
the case of positive law, e.g. in environmental law, the presumption of guilt should be
abolished; instead the problem of criminal evidence, known worldwide, could be solved
in a better way by a system of offenses regarding perilous conduct. Nevertheless, this
problem remains one of the basic conflicts of a modern industrial society.'

- Opini penulis bahwa penggunaan prinsip-prinsip yang ada pada Hukum Pidana di
dalam Hukum Pidana Administrasi ialah harus diubah.
- Dalam hukum positif menurut penulis system asumsi bersalah harus diganti dengan
membuat system dimana kejahatan diukur dari seberapa berbahayanya tindakan yang
dilakukan.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 276

Administrative penal sanctions which are not applied anymore, probably exist all over
the world. According to W. Burckhardts," a regulation cannot be considered a
regulation in the sense of legal science, if it can be violated without someone stopping or
punishing the violation; the punishment is part of genuine orders and prohibitions.
Burckhardts considers it wrong to say that punishment is a means for protecting orders
and prohibitions. When critically analyzing the extent of administrative penal law, one
has to be aware that the biggest part of administrative penal law takes up existing rules,
created in all fields of public administration in the form of orders and prohibitions to
guarantee the living conditions in society. The range of administrative penal law
therefore depends to a certain extent on the number of regulations in force: the larger
the number of these non-penal regulations, the further administrative penal law has to
reach, if sanctions seem necessary to ensure the orders and prohibitions of these
regulations. With the growing expansion of new regul tions however, the question
whether it is really vital for the state to use its "ultima ratio," penal law, or whether
there are other sufficient and appropriate means for putting through the orders and
prohibitions of the state, becomes crucial.

- Menurut W. Burckhardts, sebuah aturan bukanlah aturan yang bagus jika dapat
dilanggar namun tidak mampu mencegah atau menghukum pelanggarnya.
Menurutnya, salah jika menganggap hukuman ialah cara untuk melindungi perintah
dan larangan.
- Jika dianalisa secara luas, bagian besar dari Hukum Pidana Administrasi sudah ada
pada peraturan yang telah ada di dalam bagian administrasi umum dalam bentuk
perintah dan larangan yang menjamin kehidupan masyarakat.
- Pada dasarnya, timbul sebuah pertanyaan, apakah penggunaan hukum pidana sebagai
ultima ratio ialah benar untuk mempertahankan keutuhan yang ada pada aturan
pemerintah terhadap masyarakat.

Cho Byung Sun, Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan From A
Comparative Point of View, Tilburg Foreign Law Review, Volume 2, h. 277

many Korean and Japanese authors have thoroughly misunderstood this theory. From
this historical root, the modem law of infringements can be considered an characteristic
new branch of penal law. However, detailed explanations of the contents of an act on the
law of infringements lie behind the scope of this work.
- Dari sisi sejarah, hukum pelanggaran yang modern sebenarnya ialah cabang baru dari
hukum pidana, namun penjelasan mengenai konten dari hukum pelanggaran
dijelaskan dalam makalah ini.