憲法訴願審判에 있어서 補充性의 原則

朴鐘普 한국공법학회 1996 公法硏究 Vol.24 No.3

북한헌법(北韓憲法)의 리해(理解): 그 모방성(模倣性)과 독자성(獨自性)

朴鐘普 한남대학교 사회과학연구소 1991 사회과학연구 Vol.1 No.-

사회 변화와 헌법재판소의 역할

박종보 한국법학원 2010 저스티스 Vol.- No.121

헌법재판소는 헌법의 해석을 통하여 사회변화에 관여한다. 사회변화에 관한 이슈를 선점하고 이를 주도하는 것은 입법부이지만, 헌법재판소는 법률의 위헌 여부를 심사함으로써 소극적으로 사회변화에 관여한다. 이 글에서는 선거운동 규제에 관한 법률에 대한 헌법재판소의 판례를 대상으로 삼아 헌법재판소와 입법부의 상호작용을 관찰하였다. 헌법재판소가 선거운동기간의 제한은 합헌이라는 확고한 태도를 견지하는 가운데 현역 국회의원 후보자의 의정활동보고 허용에 관해서는 헌법재판관들의 반대의견이 활발하게 개진되었다. 결국 이 문제는 예비후보자제도를 도입함으로서 입법적으로 해결되었다. 선거운동주체의 제한에 대해서 헌법재판소는 처음부터 전향적인 자세를 보이면서 포괄적 금지를 위헌으로 선언하고 일부 주체에 대한 예외적 금지의 합헌성만을 인정하였다. 나아가 헌법재판소는 국민건강보험공단 직원의 선거운동이나 공무원의 선거운동 기획을 금지하던 태도를 바꾸어 이를 허용함으로써 사회변화에 부응하여 자유의 확대에 기여하였다. 재판이 정치과정을 완전히 대체할 수는 없지만, 법령을 무효화함으로써 기존 법질서의 문제점을 소극적으로 교정하는 것만으로도 헌법재판소는 사회변화에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 그러한 관점에서 휴대전화 문자메시지나 UCC를 이용한 선거운동금지를 합헌으로 본 헌법재판소의 태도는 선거운동방법에 관련해서 사회변화에 지나치게 소극적으로 대응한 것이라고 비판할 여지가 있다. 한편, 헌법재판소가 법정의견으로는 합헌결정을 내리면서도 반대의견을 통하여 기존 법질서의 문제점을 지적하고, 이러한 문제점이 정치적 의사결정 과정을 통하여 교정될 수도 있다. 예비후보자제도를 도입하거나 휴대전화 문자메시지를 이용한 선거운동울 허용하는 공직선거법 개정이 그 예가 될 것이다. 그런데 헌법재판관들의 의견이 지나치게 여러 갈래로 나뉘어 표시되는 것은 자제해야 한다. 이렇게 되면 각 의견의 논리적 타당성과 무관하게 국민 여론 형성과 정치적 의사결정 과정에 긍정적으로 기여하지 못한다. 최대한 의견 차이가 줄어들 때까지 평의를 반복하고 유사한 의견을 통합하는 자제력과 지도력을 발휘해야 한다.

학술포럼 : 統合放送法(案)上放送委員會의 法的地位와 權限

박종보,이상수,한철 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 1998 과학기술법연구 Vol.4 No.1

사립학교에서 종교교육의 자유와 학생의 신앙의 자유

박종보 한양대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.24 No.3

Freedom of religion guaranteed by Art. 20 Para. 1 of Korean Constitution comprises three elements: freedom of faith, freedom of confession of faith, and free exercise of religion. The respective elements have both active and passive aspects. The passive freedom of religion guarantees the freedom to refuse religious education, the freedom not to confess one's faith and the freedom not to participate in religious activities that one does not want to. The active freedom to exercise religion covers the freedom of religious education. Meanwhile the principle of educational independency prescribed in Art. 31 Para. 4 also guarantees the establishment of religion-based private schools and the freedom of religious education. The freedom of the religion-based private schools to educate students in religion may collide with the freedom of the students to refuse religious education. If this type of collision of constitutional rights occurred between purely private parties, it could be solved in accordance with the character of the relation between them(eg. admission contract to a school). Middle and high school students in the urban regions in Korea where the "equalization policy" applies, however, cannot voluntarily choose the school to attend, but the school district allocates students without distinction to public and private schools including religion-based schools. Therefore the collision of rights is caused by the government. The Constitutional Court, as well as the Supreme Court, applies either "the doctrine of hierarchy of constitutional rights" or "the docrine of practical harmony" to solve the problem of collision between constitutional rights. The former cannot be applied here, because those rights which collide are the same freedom of religion. The latter requires that a harmonious way be sought to allow both colliding rights to show maximum effectiveness. According to the opinions of both Courts, the point of contact which harmonizes the colliding rights is to be found in the factual context where those rights apply. From my perspective, the point varies with the fact whether the students have the right to choose schools. If the students have such right, the point of contact might be the voluntariness of entrance to the school. In this case, the admission contract comprehends the agreement to comply with the school regulations including religious education, while the general educational law applies. Therefore I believe that religion-based private schools in the "non-equalzed school distrcts" may educate the students in specific religion and require them to participate in compulsory rituals. In the "equalized school district", however, the students' passive religious freedom should be respected more and the private schools enjoy only qualified freedom of religious education. The private schools cannot educate the students for the purpose of training religious persons or of missionary work in the narrow meaning. On the other hand the private schools may educate their students in religion as a course of education for a whole person. But the schools may not impose upon the students compulsory course of specific faith. If the schools are to open a religious subject, they should also open alternative elective courses. The students should never be obliged to participate in religious ceremonies. In the long term the school lottery system should be abolished. In the short term the school district should allow the students to exclude schools established on specific faith or to be transferred to other schools. The more right of choice the students have, the more right of religious education the schools have.

Surface Characterization of Mo - Co / Al₂O₃ Catalysts for Hydrodeoxygenation

박종보,조용필,최정우,이창섭 한국진공학회 1996 한국진공학회 학술발표회초록집 Vol.- No.-

그래핀 양자점을 이용한 신약 연구 및 개발

박종보 한국표면공학회 2023 한국표면공학회 학술발표회 초록집 Vol.2023 No.5

헌법재판의 과거와 현재

박종보 법률방송 2023 법치와 자유 Vol.1 No.6

계엄제도에 관한 비교법적 고찰 - 미국을 중심으로

박종보 한양대학교 법학연구소 2006 법학논총 Vol.23 No.2

A Comparative Study of Martial Law: the American Experience

국회의 대정부 통제권 : 대통령 탄핵을 중심으로

朴鐘普 한국공법학회 2004 公法硏究 Vol.32 No.5

The Korean National Assembly passed an unprecedented motion to impeach President Roh Moo-hyun on March 12, 2004. According to Article 65, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, the president's constitutional powers had been suspended until the Constitutional Court acquitted the president on May 14. This paper was read at the 116th academic meeting of the Korean Public Law Association on April 19 (before the court's decision) to come up with the criteria of the court's review of the presidential impeachment. The impeachment motion was filed mainly for the president's alleged unconstitutional or illegal conducts focusing on the election-rules violation, on the ground that Roh had stated he would do everything that is legal to support the pro-Roh Uri Party for the next general election. President Roh was also charged with the corruption of his closest aides who had accepted illegal donations and with his alleged incompetence and mismanagement focusing on the economic breakdown. Article 65, Paragraph I of the Constitution provides that "In case the President ...... and other public officials designated by Statute have violated the Constitution or other statutes in the performance of official duties, the National Assembly may pass motions for their impeachment." For the impeachment to be upheld, it must meet the following conditions. Above all, the alleged misconduct should be performed by the public official subject to the impeachment. Therefore President Roh is not responsible for the corruption of his aides for the purpose of impeachment. Secondly, the alleged misconduct should be related to the performance of official duties. The concept of "the performance of official duties" is broader than that of "the exercise of official powers" and includes "performance in appearance." It is debatable whether "non-official conduct" is included In the broadest sense, however, it must in any form be related to the performance of official duties. From this point of view, President Roh's non-official speeches in front of his supporters and his replies to questions in press conferences about his prospect and expectation of next general election results, do not fall under Article 65. Thirdly, the alleged misconduct should be unconstitutional or illegal. The impeachment process is limited to responsibility to law. Political misconduct or maladministration are not subject to impeachment. Therefore, the alleged economic breakdown has nothing to do with presidential impeachment. As far as I comprehend the precedents of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, President Roh has not violated election-rules, while the matter is not beyond dispute. Fourthly, the alleged misconduct should be serious breach of law. The purpose of the impeachment process is not to remove public officials, even the president, from office for trivial matters. Furthermore the precise behavior that constitutes impeachable misconduct may vary with the office involved, even though the governing legal standard is the same. For example, violation of "the duty to remain impartial with regard to election campaign"(Section 9 of Public Official Election Act) might not apply with equal force to the president and to a member of the Central Election Management Committee. Even if it is admitted that President Roh has violated the election-rule, the breach is not so serious that he should be removed from office.