국가배상법 제2조의 성립요건에 비추어 본 대법원 판결의 타당성 -대법원 1991.7.9.선고 91다5570 판례 평석을 중심으로-

이희훈 ( Hie Houn Lee ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2009 一鑑法學 Vol.16 No.-

This judgement especially regards the term officials on the Clause 2 of the State Tort Liability Act not as the narrower concept which implies ones who are officials in the National Officials Act or the Local Officials Act, but as the wider concept which implies ones who actually are entrusted and execute official duties. It is reasonable that for that reason it decides that officials imply tonggang (subdivision of a city`s district). And this judgement especially applied the clause 2 of the state tort liability act to the defendant Jongrogu and decided that it has the damage liability, It is because the judicial decision judged that there was a considerable causati on between the loss of security interest of the plaintiff Donga milling Co, and the professional negligence of the its offices, Lee Hyangsook and Lee Yongsun. In my estimation, this judgement is reasonable.

미국의 존엄사법과 영국의 조력자살법안에 대한 비교법적 고찰

이희훈(Lee, Hie-Houn) 한국토지공법학회 2015 土地公法硏究 Vol.68 No.-

현재까지 우리나라에는 환자의 연명의료결정을 인정하는 입법이 없는바, 향후 우리나라는 다음과 같은 내용의 연명의료결정 입법을 신설하는 것이 바람직하다. 먼저 미국의 존엄사법과 영국 상원에서 통과된 조력자살법과 같이 담당의사 1명과 다른 병원의 의사 1명으로부터 6개월 정도 안에 환자가 사망할 수 있는 불치병에 걸려 있다는 진단을 받고, 의사결정을 할 수 있는 18세 이상의 환자가 자율적으로 연명의료를 결정할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 다음으로 주치의는 환자가 구두로 연명의료결정을 할 경우에는 적어도 14-15일 이상을 기다려 주면서, 그 기간 동안 환자에게 심리적 상담을 해 주거나 환자에게 연명의료결정을 대신하는 여러 대체 수단에 대한 정보를 충분히 제공해 준 후에 환자에게 다시 연명의료결정에 대한 생각을 확인해야 할 것이다. 그리고 아무런 연고자가 없는 말기의 불치병 환자가 적어도 2명의 증인이 지켜보는 가운데 자율적으로 연명의료결정에 대한 서면을 작성할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 또한 환자가 언제든지 자유롭게 연명의료결정의 서면을 새로 작성하거나 철회하거나 폐기할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이며, 환자가 연명의료결정을 하는 대신에 어떤 보험계약을 새롭게 체결하도록 강요하거나 환자가 연명의료걸정을 하지 않았다는 이유로 생명보험과 건강보험 등에 어떤 손해를 가하지 못하도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 의사가 자신의 양심에 의해 환자의 연명의료결정에 대해 거부할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 향후 우리나라에서 불치병의 말기 환자에 대한 연명의료결정이 오남용 되지 않도록 하여 환자의 생명권이 경시되지 않고 더욱 보호되길 바라며, 이와 함께 우리나라에서 환자의 자기결정권과 프라이버시권에 의한 연명의료결정이 존중되길 바란다. So far our country has no legislation to recognize medical decision for suspension of life for the patient. Our country will have to establish the following contents of legislation of the new medical decision for suspension of life for the patient in the future. First, the death with dignity act of the U.S. and assisted dying bill passed by the Senate of the england, in order to allow for legislation of the new medical decision for suspension of life for the patient at least a patient get a diagnosis from one physician in charge and a doctor of another hospital that terminally ill to die within six months, patients over the age of 18 who can make decisions autonomously as should be able to medical decision for suspension of life for the patient. Next, the physician in charge of the patient will need to wait at least 14-15 more days after the medical decision for suspension of life of the patient. And during that time, the physician in charge of the patient provide information about the different ways to replace the medical decision for suspension of life for the patient or patient enough to psychological counseling, the patient should reaffirm the idea of a medical decision for suspension of life. And it should in order to allow for a medical decision for suspension of life of terminally ill patients without relatives or friends of patients around the at least two witnesses to watch in writing for the netting medical decisions autonomously. In addition, patients should be able to create a new writing for a medical decision for suspension of life or withdrawn, or disposal at any time. And patients should not be forced to enter into a new contract with any insurance instead of the medical decision for suspension of life. And patients should not give damage to life insurance or health insurance and so on without a medical decision for suspension of life. And the physician in charge should be able to refuse a patient's medical decision for suspension of life by their own conscience. Our country must be protected the right to life of the patient by reducing the abuse of a patient's medical decision for suspension of life in the future. And I hope respected a patient's medical decision for suspension of life by self-determination and privacy of patients in our country in the future.

集會時 場所의 使用과 制限에 대한 硏究 - 公物을 中心으로 : 集會時 場所의 使用과 制限에 대한 硏究

이희훈(Lee Hie Houn) 한국토지공법학회 2006 土地公法硏究 Vol.34 No.-

Since the freedom of assembly is exercised when a group of people gather together at a place to show their opposition to something or their support for something, it necessarily has need of a place where people come together in a group. On the other hand, for the public weal and the public order, it also has to be restricted to some degree by the law on assembly and demonstration and so on. From this respect, the use and restriction of a place need some careful consideration in case an assembly is held at a public property. The police chief of a police region can prohibit an assembly held at a major road of a major city defined by the Presidential decree under Article 12 of the law on assembly and demonstration, because the assembly naturally brings traffic congestion. It would be more reasonable, however, to permit an assembly by making people change the time of an assembly or use only a half of a one-way lane. And according to the Article 40, Clause 1 of Law on Road besides a prior notice of the de facto Law on Assembly and Demonstration, as for the use of the place where an assembly is to be held, he or she does not need to get permission for occupancy from Road Management Agency in case that an assembly need to install some objects on the road. However, if an assembly is to be held installing a structure in the plaza of the Seoul Metropolis and the city"s Park, it is required to get the permission for occupancy of the mayor of the Seoul Metropolis and the mayor and so on of managing the relevant city"s park, unless Article 5, Clause1, Number 2 of Law on Assembly and Demonstration is applied. Meanwhile, in this case the effect of permission for occupancy shall be applied to whether an object is installed or not. And when an assembly is held at a place where cultural property is located or near to the property and may cause excessive noise, the assembly is required to get a permission from Cultural Heritage Administration head to protect cultural treasure from possible damage according to the Article 20, Number 4 of the Cultural Properties Protection Law and the Article 15 of enforcement ordinance of the Cultural Properties Protection. And Article 11, number 1,2,3,4 of the law on assembly and demonstration ought not to prohibit every assembly around unless a participant in the assembly interrupt function and role or activity of each a state organ in principle.

共同住宅의 再建築上 賣渡請求權에 대한 硏究 - 合憲性과 關聯 法規定의 解釋을 中心으로 : 共同住宅의 再建築上 賣渡請求權에 대한 硏究

이희훈(Lee Hie Houn) 한국토지공법학회 2007 土地公法硏究 Vol.35 No.-

The purpose of a claim for sale with reference to reconstruction is to promote the public welfare. Does a claim for sale infringe on a sectional owner"s basic right who is against the reconstruction of an apartment house? In the light of ?bermaßverbot, the claim is constitutional because it does not limit too much his or her basic right such as the right to pursue happiness, the freedom of residence, the right of property and so on. And regarding a claim for sale, relating laws include Article 39 of City and residing environment maintenance law and Article 48 of Law on possession and management of a gathering building. It is desirable to interpret these laws as following: prior to exertion of a claim for sale, notice should be given. The subject of the notice is those who push forward the reconstruction, the other party of a sectional owner who was against organization of reconstruction association and his or her successor. Also the notice should be given without hesitance once the association is organized and there are no restrictions as to its number of times. It may be done in writing or conveyance by public announcement. A sectional owner who was given the notice should answer within two months whether or not to participate. Extension of the period of two months is permissible, but shortening is not. If a sectional owner who was given the notice does not answer within two months, it is interpreted that he or she means not to participate. Those who have a claim for sale are a participator of reconstruction and an appointed purchaser. Their the other parties are a sectional owner, his or her successor and a joint owner and so on. The claim should be exercised to the other party"s a sectional ownership and the use of a lot collectively. There are no restrictions as to how to exercise a claim for sale, and the exertion should be done to all the objectors within two months from the deadline of answer. Otherwise the claim extinction. On the other hand according to Clause 4, Article 48 of Law on possession and management of a gathering building, they have no rule concerning details of market price. Therefore the price is set by mutual agreement of party concerned, and when that is not possible it has to be set based on valuation of sectional ownership and the use of a lot at the time of exertion of the claim. Also under the requirement according to Clause 5 and 6, Article 48 of Law on possession and management of a gathering building, the court of justice prescribes that proper period with reference to delivery and a claim of repurchase have to be given to some few of those are against the reconstruction. A person who has a claim for sale with reference to reconstruction has to exercise the claim according to requisites and process of the law mentioned above.

주민등록법상 주민등록번호 제도의 헌법적 문제점과 개선방안

이희훈(Lee, Hie-Houn) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論文集 Vol.40 No.3

The current resident registration number exposes various types of personal information of the holders through the number itself and in principle the problem that cannot change a resident registration number in the residents registration act. In this respect it violates the principle of proportion and infringes on the right to self-determination of private information. And, a administration legislation about a matter of resident registration number from the viewpoint of the resident registration law violates the doctrine of parliamentary saving. Therefore, hereafter korea s resident registration number shall be changed random serial numbers as the U.S., Germany, japan and a bill number 1753 in the residents registration act revision bill of Sun-Mi, Jin lawmaker. Also the resident registration number system allow an individual to change his/her all resident registration number as desired. Moreover, when the person who is going to change a resident registration number in Resident Registration Act does not bear a burden of proof for the change for a principle.

헌법재판소의 간통죄 위헌 결정에 대한 평석

이희훈(Lee, Hie-Houn) 한국토지공법학회 2015 土地公法硏究 Vol.71 No.-

우리나라 헌법재판소는 형법상 간통죄 처벌규정에 대해 2015년에 2009헌바17ㆍ205 등 결정에서 1953년에 처음으로 규정된 이후 62년 만에 위헌으로 결정하였다. 이렇게 형법상 간통죄 규정에 대해 2015년에 헌법재판소가 위헌이라고 판시한 것은 다음과 같은 사유로 타당하다. 첫째, 간통은 사생활에 속하는 것으로 간통에 대한 해결 문제는 사생활의 자유의 본질상 부부의 자율적인 의사에 맡겨두는 것이 타당하므로, 형법상 간통죄 규정은 사생활의 자유를 지나치게 제한하여 위헌이다. 둘째, 우리나라 국민의 압도적인 다수는 배우자의 간통행위가 우리 사회를 깰 만큼의 큰 해악으로 보지 않고 있고, 간통에 대한 형사처벌이 실증적으로 일반 예방 및 특별 예방적 효과가 거의 없어 간통을 형법으로 규제할 필요가 없다. 셋째, 간통에 대해 형사처벌을 하게 되면 오히려 부부사이를 악화시켜 혼인 및 가족관계를 일찍 종결케 하고, 부모나 부부 중 어느 일방을 전과자로 만들어 새로운 혼인 및 가족을 구성하는데 힘들게 하며, 간통죄로 고소하기 위해서는 이혼을 전제로 해야 하므로, 이는 오히려 이혼을 통해 기존 혼인과 가족을 해체시키게 되어 헌법상 혼인 및 가족제도를 보호하지 못하게 되어 위헌이다. 넷째, 간통을 행한 배우자에게 민법상 재산분할청구이나 손해배상청구 내지 위자료 청구의 금액을 보다 높게 인정하여 금전적으로 간통에 대해 피해를 보상해 주도록 하거나 자녀에 대한 면접교섭권 등의 제한이나 배제하는 방법에 의해 부부간의 성적 성실의무를 보호해 줄 수 있는데, 형법상 간통죄로 처벌하도록 규정한 것은 비례의 원칙에 위반되어 개인의 성적 자기결정권을 침해하여 위헌이다. 다만 경미한 간통행위에 대해서 선고유예까지 선고할 수 있었고, 만약 간통에 대한 벌금형의 액수가 적을 때에는 일반 예방이나 특별 예방적 효과가 거의 없을 것이며, 그 벌금형의 액수가 과다할 때에는 간통행위를 행한 배우자의 상대 배우자에게 뜻하지 않게 큰 재산상의 피해를 줄 수 있는 등의 사유로 형법상 간통죄 규정에서 징역형으로만 규정한 것은 타당하다. The constitutional court of our country decided to be unconstitutional for a criminal conversation punishment rule in the criminal law by 2009HunBa17ㆍ205 etc decision in 2015 after an interval of 62 since it was prescribed for the first time on September 18, 1953. It is proper in the following reason that constitutional court decided to be unconstitutional in a criminal conversation punishment rule in the criminal law in 2015. The first, adultery belongs to privacy. Therefore, it is proper to solve an adultery problem for autonomous intention of a couple in essence of the privacy right. Accordingly, a criminal conversation punishment rule in the criminal law limits freedom of the private life so as to be over and is unconstitutional. The second, a lot of overpowering of the people of our country do not think with big evil only breaking it by adultery of a spouse in our society. And detective punishment for adultery demonstrates it, and there is little a general prevention effect and a special prevention effect. Therefore, it is not necessary to regulate adultery in the criminal law. The third, It does between couples badly if it comes to punish it for adultery and end family relation early. And It makes all one to an ex-convict among a parent and couples and let serious do it is a new soul and though a spouse constitute a family. And a divorce must be able to leave a premise if It is going to charge the companion who committed adultery in a criminal conversation, Therefore, It let you dismantle the existing marriage and family through a divorce if it punish adulter. Therefore, it is unconstitutional it is a constitutional soul to punish for adultery and it cannot protect the family system. The fourth, The rules of criminal conversation in relation to right to sexual autonomy must protect the protection benefit of the criminal conversation by a property distribution right of claim, the right to demand compensation for damage and the right to alimony or the limitation or exclusion of visitation right of children in the civil law or a claim for damages by illegal behavior that is not criminal punishment. Therefore, the rules of criminal conversation will be said to be an unconstitutionality rule to infringe a personal right to sexual autonomy in violation of a principle of balancing test. Only it can sentence by adultery of a spouse of law to a system of conditional release for a weak adultery act. When there are a few amounts of money of fine punishment for adultery, there are little general prevention and a general prevention effect and a special prevention effect. And what it prescribed only by penal servitude punishment in a criminal conversation rule in the criminal law in a reason it does not intend, and to be able to give a partner spouse of the spouse who did an adultery act the damage of big property is proper when an amount of money of fine punishment is excessive.

세월호 집회시 경찰의 차벽 설치에 대한 위헌성 및 권리구제방안

이희훈(Lee, Hie-Houn) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2015 法學論文集 Vol.39 No.3

I think that it is an event of unconstitutionality authorities the police install bus blockades for Seweolho's families and other participants of the Seweolho assembly having held a peaceful and legal assembly to all limit traffic in Chongwadae outskirts area and Seoul city and so on open space. Therefore, Seweolho's families and other participants of the Seweolho assembly state constitution suit of right relief in constitutional court, and protection must receive the infringed a freedom of assembly and so on. And the police must limit a holding place of an assembly of pertinence in a minimum range by police bus blockades an assembly is made violence, and to spoil public tranquility and order so that only space or time to injure are an assembly places of pertinence, and it is not violated a principle of balancing test.

中國 內 脫北者의 法的地位와 人權保護에 대한 硏究

李熙勳(Lee Hie Houn) 한국공법학회 2006 공법연구 Vol.35 No.2

탈북자는 남북의 민족분단이라는 비극적 상황 하에 놓여진 민족분단의 희생자로 우리나라에 들어오기 전 이들은 중국 등을 떠돌며 극심한 인권유린에 시달리고 있다. 따라서 이러한 탈북자의 인권침해에 대한 보호는 우리민족이 함께 고민하고 해결해야 할 민족적 과제다. 탈북자들은 현재 거의 대부분 중국에 체류하고 있는 바, 중국 내 탈북자의 인권보호를 위해 이들의 법적지위에 대해 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 중국 내 탈북자의 국내법적 지위는 헌법 제3조 영토조항과 제헌헌법 제100조 및 국적에 관한 임시조례 제2조에 의해 조선인의 국적을 취득한 것으로 보아 대한민국 국민으로 보는 것이 타당하다. 그러나 중국은 UN에 가입한 북한을 국가로인정하여 왔다. 따라서 국제사회에서 중국 내 탈북자들은 대한민국의 국민임과 동시에 북한의 국민에 해당하므로 이중국적자가 된다. 그러나 중국은 북한과의 전통적인 우호적 외교관계를 이유로 실효적 국적의 원칙과 노테봄 사건의 판결에 의해 중국 내 탈북자를 북한의 국민으로 인정하여 왔다. 따라서 이러한 국제적 현실에 의해 한국은 중국에 대해 중국 내 탈북자를 한국 국민임을 주장하여 이들의 인권을 보호할 수 없는 문제가 있다. 이러한 문제를 입법적으로 해결하기 위해 통독 전 서독의 입법례를 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 즉, 통독 전 서독은 독일 연방기본법 제116조 제1항과 동법 제16조 제1항에 의한 단일국적이론과 문호개방이론 및 박해자와 난민에 관한 연방 법률과 전쟁후유증처리법을 분단 전 독일 혈통을 가진 모든 자와 그 배우자까지 폭넓게 적용하여 이들을 서독 국민으로 보아 이들이 서독으로 들어오는 것을 보호하였다. 대한민국도 향후 헌법에 독일과 같은 명시적 보호규정을 두고, 독일과 같은 특별법을 제정하여 북한 주민과 탈북자들이 대한민국에 들어오는 것을 보호하는 것이 바람직하다. 이러한 점에 비추어 볼 때 현행 북한이탈주민의 보호 및 정착지원에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호에서 탈북자의 범위를 북한에서 벗어난 후 외국의 국적을 취득하지 아니한 자로 한정하는 것은 탈북자의 인권보호의 인적 범위를 부당하게 축소하는 것으로 타당하지 않다. 따라서 동 규정을 향후 독일처럼 그 인정범위를 폭넓게 개정하여 중국 등에서 대한민국에 들어오는 탈북자들의 인권을 보호해야 할 것이다. 그리고 대한민국은 중국이 자국 내 탈북자들을 경제적 난민이나 불법월경자로 보아 북한으로 이들을 강제송환을 하여 북한에서 이들이 사형 등의 처벌을 받지 않도록 노력해야 할 것이다. 따라서 대한민국은 미국 등 다른 국가 및 국제기구와 긴밀하게 협력하여 중국이 중국 내 탈북자들을 협약상의 난민으로 인정하도록 설득한 후, UN회원국으로서 UN헌장 제103조에 의해 1951년 난민협약 제33조 제1항에 의한 강제송환금지의 원칙을 준수할 것을 촉구하여 이들의 인권을 보호해야 할 것이다. North Korean defectors are victims of the division of Korea into north and south, which is thought as a tragic situation. Most of North Korean defectors leave for and stay in China. And they suffer from severe infringement of human rights before entering into South Korea. Korea has to worry and solve the problem of infringement of human rights of North Korean defectors all together as 'one nation'. Nowadays most of North Korean defectors leave for and stay in China. In terms of human rights, their legal positions are as follows. According to a territory provision prescribed in Article 3 of the constitution and Article 100 of the Establishment constitution and Article 2 of the temporary ordinance for Korean Nationality, North Korean defectors are eligible to acquire citizenship of a Korean and it is reasonable to consider North Korean defectors as South Korean. However China has approved of North Korea as a country which joined United Nations. Therefore North Korean defectors in China are people with dual nationality belonging both to South Korea and to North Korea. Due to its traditional amicable relations with North Korea, however, China judges the North Korean defectors to be North Koreans according to the principle of effective nationality and the Nottebohm Case. For these international circumstances, South Korea is not able to protect North Korean defectors' human rights by claiming that they are Korean citizens. In order to solve this problem in a legislative way, it is worth to examine legislation examples of West Germany before the reunification of Germany. According to Article 116, clause 1 and Article 16, clause 1 of the federal fundamental law of German, West Germany let the principle of a sole nationality, open door policy, the federal law on persecutors and refugees and the prevention law of aftermath of war applied to everyone of German extraction prior to the division of territory and their spouses. By doing so, West Germany regarded them as its citizens and protected them when they entered the territory of West Germany. Hereafter, therefore, the Korean Government also needs to make explicit constitutional provisions of protection of North Korean defectors and protect them when they enter South Korea as did West Germany with the special law. In this respect, Article 2, Number 1 of the law in force on protection of North Korean defectors and support of settlement is not reasonable in that it sets improper bounds to protection of human rights of North Korean defectors by limiting 'a defector' to a person who does not acquire foreign citizenship after he/she leaves from North Korea. Thus this provision has to be revised like that of Germany so that more North Korean defectors can be protected by being recognized as refugees deserving protection when they enter South Korea from China and so on. Also the Korean Government should not remain idle when China repatriates North Korean defectors in China by force regarding them as economic refugees or people who commit illegal crossing the borders and lets them in danger of capital punishment. Therefore the Korean Government needs to closely cooperate with other nations like U. S. A. and international organizations, persuade China to regard North Korean defectors in China as refugees in an agreement, and, afterwards, call on China to observe the principle of Non-Refoulement prescribed in Article 33, clause 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1951 according to Article 103 of the U.N. charter, as a U.N. member.

대북전단 살포의 보호와 제한에 대한 합리적 입법방안

李熙勳 ( Lee¸ Hie-houn ) 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.6

대한민국 헌법 제3조의 영토조항에 의한 북한의 불법단체와 반국가단체의 성격 및 헌법 제4조에 의하여 남북한 간의 평화통일은 자유민주적 기본질서에 입각해야 하며, 북한은 독재체제이고 현재 핵무기와 미사일 등을 완전히 포기 또는 제거를 하지 않아서 한반도의 평화를 계속 위협하고 있다. 따라서 대북전단 살포를 통하여 북한 주민들에게 이러한 북한의 여러 폐해나 그 실체나 실상을 알려주어 그들 스스로 자각하여 자유민주적 기본질서에 입각한 통일을 이룰 수 있도록 하기 위하여 대북전단의 살포는 헌법 제21조 제1항에 의해 원칙적으로 보호해 줄 필요성이 있다. 다만 예외적으로 헌법 제37조 제2항에 의하여 우리나라 국민의 생명과 신체 등의 안전과 보호를 위하여 이를 필요 최소한의 범위 내에서 제한할 수 있도록 향후 입법을 개선하는 것이 바람직하다. 이에 최근 국회와 국무회의에서의 의결과 대통령의 재가 후 공포된 남북관계 발전에 관한 법률 중에서 대북전단 살포행위를 일체 금지한 후에 이를 위반시 형사처벌을 부과하는 법 규정은 헌법 제21조 제2항에 서 허가제나 검열제의 금지 규정에 저촉될 수 있는 등의 여러 문제점들이 있다. 따라서 향후에 남북관계 발전에 관한 법률에서 통일부 장관에게 대북전단 살포에 대하여 사전에 신고하는 규정을 신설할 필요가 있고, 동법에서 ‘군사분계선 일대’와 ‘전단 등’ 및 ‘살포 등’에 대하여 명확성의 원칙에 저촉되지 않도록 명확하게 규정할 필요가 있으며, 통일부 장관이 해당 신고 당시의 남북한 간의 정세나 상황에 비추어 ‘국민의 생명이나 신체를 직접적으로 해칠 명백한 우려가 있거나 공공의 안녕질서에 심각한 위험을 발생시킬 명백한 우려가 있는 경우’에 한하여 이러한 신고의 수리를 거부할 수 있는 규정을 신설할 필요가 있고, 만약 이를 위반시에는 300만원 이하의 과태료를 부과하는 내용으로 각각 개선할 필요가 있다. 또한 대북전단을 살포하는 측에게 통일부 장관의 신고 거부에 대해서는 법원에 소송을 통해서 사법적 구제를 받을 수 있도록 해 주어, 헌법상 표현의 자유와 알 권리 등을 보호하는 입법적 개선을 행한다면 현재 우리나라와 미국 등 세계 각국에서 대북전단 살포의 찬반에 대한 첨예한 대립을 최대한 균형적인 시각에서 합리적이고 조화롭게 해결하는 방안이 될 것이다. North Korea’s illegal personality under territorial article of article 3 of the Korean constitution and the peaceful reunification of the two Koreas must be based on the a liberal democratic basic order, and North Korea's autocratic state and the North continues to threaten peace on the Korean peninsula by not giving up or removing its nuclear weapons and missiles. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the anti-North Korea leaflets in principle under the first clause of article 21 of the constitution in order to inform North Koreans of these harm, problem or substance so that they can realize themselves and achieve unification based on a liberal democratic basic order. However, as an exception, it is desirable to improve legislation so that it can be limited to the minimum necessary limit for the safety and protection of the lives and bodies of the Korean people under the second clause of article 37 of the constitution in the future. Thus, the recent revision to the Act on the Development of South and North Korea Relations, approved by the National Assembly and the president, completely bans the distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets and imposes criminal punishment in case of violation of the regulation is a matter of permission or censorship, which is prohibited under the second clause of article 21 of the constitution. Therefore, the Act on the Development of South and North Korea Relations in the Future should establish a regulation on pre report of leaflets to the Minister of Unification. In addition, the this Act should establish clear definition provisions for the concept so that it does not conflict with the principles of clarity on the 'military demarcation line' and 'firing light' and 'dispersion' and so on. The this Act should also establish a regulation under which the unification minister can refuse to accept such a report only if there is a 'clear fear of directly harming the lives or bodies of the people or causing serious danger to the public health order' in light of the situation or circumstances between the two Koreas at the time of the report. And it is desirable to establish a new regulation that imposes a fine of up to 3 million won if it violates the this regulations. If those who want to distribute anti-North Korea leaflets are allowed to receive judicial relief by arguing with the court, they will be able to resolve the sharply divided approval and opposition of the anti-North Korea leaflets in a balanced and harmonious manner.

집회 및 시위에 관한 법률상 국회 인근 집회 금지 규정에 대한 연구

이희훈(Lee Hie Houn) 유럽헌법학회 2018 유럽헌법연구 Vol.0 No.27

집시법 제11조 제1호에서 국회의 기능 보호와 의원 등의 신변 보호 등을 위하여 국회 인근 집회에 대해 전면적으로 금지하는 규정의 입법의 목적은 국회의 본질이 국민의 의견을 대신해 주는 대의적 국가기관의 기능을 가장 충실히 행해야 한다는 점과 만약 집시법상 동 조항이 없더라도 국회의 기능 보호와 의원 등의 신변 보호 등을 실현해 줄 수 있는 집시법과 형법상의 다른 대체 규정들이 이미 많이 있다는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 정당하지 않다. 이에 향후 국회는 집시법 제11조 제1호의 국회 인근 집회 금지 규정을 조속히 삭제 또는 폐지해야 하는 것이 가장 바람직하다. 설사 집시법 제11조 제1호의 국회 인근 집회의 금지 규정의 입법 목적이 정당하더라도, 국회를 직접 항의의 대상으로 하지 않은 집회, 소규모인 집회, 국회의 업무가 없는 휴일이나 휴회에 개최되는 집회, 행진의 경우에는 국회의 기능 보호와 의원 등의 신변 보호 등을 해칠 위험성이 크지 않다. 이에 향후 국회는 집시법 제11조 제1호에서 국회 인근에서 집회를 예외적으로 개최할 수 있도록 조속히 개정해야 한다. The purpose of the legislation, which Provision of Entire Assembly Prohibitions near the Parliament House in number 1 of article 11 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration for the protection of the functions of the National Assembly and physical safety of the members of the National Assembly and so on, is not to be justified in the fact that substance of the National Assembly should be the most faithful function of the representative state agency that replaces the opinions of the people, and that there are many other alternative Provisions in the Law on Assembly and Demonstration and the Criminal Law that can realize the protection of the functions of the National Assembly and physical safety of the members of the National Assembly and so on. In the future, the National Assembly will have to remove or abolish the Provision of Entire Assembly Prohibitions near the Parliament House in number 1 of article 11 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration. Even if the purpose of the legislation, which Provision of Entire Assembly Prohibitions near the Parliament House of number 1 of article 11 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration is justified, it is little risk of harming the protection of the functions of the National Assembly and physical safety of the members of the National Assembly and so on will be subject to any direct protests, small-scale assembly, assembly held on holidays, recesses, closing of a meeting and marching without the work of the National Assembly. In the future, the National Assembly should revise the number 1 of article 11 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration as soon as possible to hold an exceptional assembly near the Parliament House.