Article 18 of the Constitution provides for the people’s right to hold public office, which is intended to guarantee that the people may serve in certain offices to perform public functions.　Therefore, the State should establish relevant systems to regulate such affairs.　The State shall punish a public functionary for his or her illegal or delinquent behavior.　Nevertheless, in order to avoid the extended uncertainty as to whether a public functionary involved in illegality or delinquency will be subject to discipline, the power to discipline should no longer be exercised if not exercised within a due period of time so that the rights and interests of the public functionary concerned and the stability of legal order may be preserved.　Based on the aforesaid intent, Article 25 (iii) of the Public Functionaries Discipline Act provides that the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries shall resolve to dismiss a discipline case if more than ten (10) years have passed from the day when the illegal or delinquent act came to an end to the day when the case was handed over to the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries.　A corrective measure that is taken by the governmental agency in which a public functionary serves to remove him or her from office according to Article 12-I (ii) of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act, as amended and promulgated on December 28, 1990, is, in essence, a disciplinary measure.　The said measure, which has imposed restrictions on a person’s right to hold public office, is contrary to the aforesaid intent for failure to specify the statute of limitations for exercising the power to correct.　In order to carry out the constitutional guarantee of the rights and interests of a public functionary, the applicable provisions of the Public Functionaries Discipline Act shall apply by analogy to the statute of limitations for exercising the power to correct a public functionary.　As an additional note, the Public Functionaries Discipline Act has prescribed a uniform ten (10)-year statute of limitations for the exercise of the power to discipline, failing to formulate reasonable provisions by differentiating the varieties of illegal or delinquent acts of a public functionary, as well as the types of disciplinary measures.　Thus the said provision is not exactly in line with the principle of proportionality.　The agencies concerned should conduct a comprehensive review and revision of the requirements for the discipline of a public functionary, as well as the statute of limitations for exercising the power to discipline.　It should be noted that the same review and revision ought to also extend to the applicable provisions of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act in respect of corrective measures.

　　　 Article 18 of the Constitution provides for the people’s right to hold public office, which is intended to guarantee that the people may serve in certain offices to perform public functions.　Therefore, the State should establish relevant systems to regulate such affairs.　The State shall punish a public functionary for his or her illegal or delinquent behavior.　Nevertheless, in order to avoid the extended uncertainty as to whether a public functionary involved in illegality or delinquency will be subject to discipline, which may indeed have an adverse impact on the stability of legal order and make it difficult to achieve fair results, the power to discipline should no longer be exercised if not exercised within a due period of time so that the rights and interests of the public functionary concerned and the stability of legal order may be preserved.　Where a public functionary who violated the provision of Article 14-I (ii) (7) of the Enforcement Rules of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act as prescribed and published on January 14, 1987, in respect of serious fomentation of dissension or breach of discipline may be removed from his or her office after two major demerits are recorded at a time, a corrective measure taken by the governmental agency where such functionary served to remove him or her from office according to Article 12-I (ii) of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act, as amended and promulgated on December 28, 1990, is, in essence, a disciplinary measure. (See J.Y. Interpretation No. 491)　The said Act has failed to specify the statute of limitations for the exercise of the power to correct a public functionary whose illegal or delinquent act that would subject him or her to removal may still be used retroactively by the agency in which he or she served as the basis for merit evaluation even if a certain period of time has passed from the day when the illegal or delinquent act came to an end.　The said measure is contrary to the aforesaid intent for failure to specify the statute of limitations for exercising the power to correct.　In order to carry out the constitutional guarantee of the rights and interests of a public functionary, the applicable provisions of the Public Functionaries Discipline Act shall apply by analogy to the statute of limitations for exercising the power to correct a public functionary.　As an additional note, the Public Functionaries Discipline Act has prescribed a uniform ten (10)-year statute of limitations for the exercise of the power to discipline a public functionary who has committed an illegal or delinquent act, irrespective of the various degrees of disciplinary measures, i.e., admonition, recording of demerits, salary cut, demotion, suspension and removal.　The said provision is not exactly in line with the principle of proportionality because of failure to formulate reasonable provisions by differentiating the varieties of illegal or delinquent acts of a public functionary, as well as the types of disciplinary measures.　The agencies concerned should conduct a comprehensive review and revision of the requirements for the discipline of a public functionary, as well as the statute of limitations for the exercise of the power to discipline.　It should be noted that the same review and revision ought also to extend to the applicable provisions of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act in respect of corrective measures.　Additionally, as described above, the corrective measure taken to remove a public functionary under the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act is, in essence, a disciplinary measure.　Therefore, it ought to be noted that this Interpretation has first presented its argumentation on the issues concerning the Public Functionaries Discipline Act before treating the issues regarding the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act.