Police Assigned to Special Guard Act was legislated in 1962 to solve issues regarding the protection of various staple industrial installations, and in 2001, the Security Services Industry Act was revised to establish an effective security system for important national facilities. Thereby the Special Guards System was instituted. The current law has two parts, with the Police Assigned to Special Guard System and Special Guards System, and many scholars have actively discussed the appropriateness of the integration of both systems to solve problems caused by a bimodal system. However, in spite of these discussions taking place in the academic world, the idea of unification lost its power when the guarantee of status regulation was established for the police assigned to special guard. Strictly speaking, police assigned to special guard is a self-guard, and a special guard is a contractual guard. So, both of them have pros and cons. Thus, it would be desirable to give a legal, constitutional guarantee for both systems by strengthening each of them and making up for the weakness of each of them rather than trying to unify police assigned to special guard and special guard. To begin this process, we need to revise unreasonable legal provisions of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act as below. First, since the actual responsibilities of special guards and police assigned to special guard duty are the same, we need to make the facilities which they use equal. Second, legal provisions need to be revised so that a special guard may perform the duties of a police officer, according to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, within the facility that needs to be secured in order to prevent any vacancy in the guarding of an important national facility. Third, disqualifications for the special guards need to be revised to be the same as the disqualifications for the police assigned to special guard duty. Fourth, it is reasonable to unify the training institution for special guards and for police assigned to special guard duty, and it should be the training institution for police. On-the-job education for a security guard needs to be altered to more than 4 hours every month just like the one for police assigned to special guard duty. Fifth, for a special guard, it is not right to limit the conditions in their using weapons to 'use of weapon or explosives' only. If one possesses 'dangerous objects such as weapon, deadly weapon, and so on' and resists, a special guard should be able to use their weapon against that person. Thus, this legal provision should be revised. Sixth, penalty, range of fines, and so on for police assigned to special guard duty need to be revised to be the same as the ones for a special guard. If we revise these legal provisions, we can correct the unreasonable parts of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act without unifying them. Through these revisions, special guards and police assigned to special guard duty may develop the civilian guard industry wholesomely under the law, and the civilians would have a wider range of options to choose from to receive high quality security service.