Decision of the Korean Constitutional Court of Nonconformity of Statute with the Constitution and the Subsequent National Assembly Legislative Process in Korea’s Constitutional Democracy

( Woo-young Rhee ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2021 Journal of Korean Law Vol.20 No.1

The decision of nonconformity of the statute with the Constitution is a type of decision rendered by the Korean Constitutional Court, notwithstanding the silence of the Constitutional Court Act of Korea pertaining to such type of decision or the ground therefor. The Constitutional Court, by way of nonconformity decision, holds that the statutory provision at issue is not in conformity with the Constitution, without directly holding that the statutory provision is outright unconstitutional to become null and void upon issuance of the decision, out of deference to the lawmaking authority of National Assembly and, in certain situations, for the stability of law in its application. The holding of nonconformity decision of the Korean Constitutional Court varies in that the Constitutional Court either simply declares the nonconformity of the statutory provision with the Constitution, or renders the statutory provision at issue to be tentatively applicable through a designated date then lose effect, or yet stays the application of the statutory provision through a designated date with the possibility of its losing effect on a specific date should National Assembly fail to revise the statute by the time limit. The Korean Constitutional Court’s nonconformity decision likewise urges National Assembly to revise the relevant statute in accordance with its holding and the stated grounds therefor often with designated time limit, shifting the burden to timely remove the declared unconstitutionality of the statute onto National Assembly. Whether and to which extent such recommendation or urging by the Constitutional Court to revise the statute binds National Assembly has yet to be determined and established, with such ensuing normative and institutional issues as the nonconformity decision’s binding effect and retroactivity. A particularly complex challenge is observed in the case of National Assembly’s failure to meet the designated time limit, although National Assembly has revised the relevant statutes in over 95% of such instances through the end of the session of the 20^th National Assembly (2016-2020). The Korean Constitutional Court tends to render nonconformity decision primarily for the violation of constitutional principle of equality and for the failure to satisfy the individual constitutional provision’s mandate or delegation to enact a statute, when the Constitutional Court deems that nonconformity decision is appropriate considering the totality of the relevant circumstances from the balancing point of view that the immediate nullification and removal of the statutory provision might cause “legal vacuum” leading to instability and undue confusion among relevant parties and the public, or that a decision of simple unconstitutionality might not appropriately or effectively remedy the unconstitutionality due to the unclear distinction between constitutionality and unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court in nonconformity decision defers to National Assembly’s lawmaking authority for further legislative alternatives in removing the unconstitutionality. The normative legislative function assumed by the Constitutional Court in its adjudication over the constitutionality of statute requests in turn that the Constitutional Court and its adjudication secure democratic legitimacy as well as constitutional legitimacy in its organization, function, procedure and substantive outcome. The Constitutional Court and National Assembly implement the Constitution of Korea as such in Korea’s constitutional democracy by assuming respective functions in larger legislative process providing for and regulating the rights and obligations of the constituents. As such, nonconformity decision concerns the issue of and for the separation of powers in Korea’s Constitution and constitutional democracy. In this vein, suggestions can be made both on normative and institutional planes to substantiate the “constitutional dialogues” or interactions between Korea’s constitutional institutions for more substantiated and coordinated implementation of the Constitution along this process. Certain core relevant concepts and procedures such as the binding effect of nonconformity decision, the retroactive effect of nonconformity decision, the effect of the statute held to be not in conformity with the Constitution should National Assembly fail to meet the time limit for legislative revision as designated by the Constitutional Court in nonconformity decision, and fine-tuning of the ensuing National Assembly legislative process for statutory revision recommended by the Constitutional Court’s nonconformity decision to introduce, for example, a separate calendar with automatically and regularly held expedited proceedings should be analyzed and integrated into the process of institutional interactions in a concerted way, for the implementation of the Constitution of Korea ultimately for more substantiated protection of constitutional rights.

헌법불합치결정에 따른 입법개선의무의 이행현황 분석과 비판

이인호(In Ho Lee),오수정(Su Jeong Oh) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.1

A decision of constitutional nonconformity is a kind of unconstitutional decision that the Constitutional Court rules. This decision is called "Unvereinbarerklalung" in Germany. This decision means the Constitutional Court acknowledges a law`s unconstitutionality but merely requests the National Assembly to revise it by a certain period while having the law remain effective until that time. As mentioned above, this decision requests the National Assembly to revise it by a certain period. So legal amendment is very important in order that this decision keeps its effectiveness. But the type of decision of constitutional nonconformity is various -by application of the provision and establishment of the legal deadline. A decision of nonconformity devides into prohibiting a provision of constitutional nonconformity and applicating the provision. So a analysis of legal amendment by a decision of constitutional nonconformity depends on the type of decision of constitutional nonconformity. In order to survey whether legal amendment reflect a decision of Constitutional Court, this analysis considers whether the legal amendment follows the established legal deadline, reflects the decision of Constitutional Court and prescribes a retroactive provision.

명령․규칙에 대한 헌법불합치결정

허완중 헌법재판소 2013 헌법논총 Vol.24 No.-

The Constitutional Court of Korea(hereafter the ‘Court’) has rendered two decisions, ruling that administrative decrees at issue were incompatible with the Constitution. The Decision of Nonconformity to the Constitution(hereafter the ‘Decision’) originally reviews the constitutionality of statutes. Administrative decrees and regulations, however, are distinguished from statutes in various respects. The reason why the Court renders the Decision is to exclude application of Article 47.2 of the Constitutional Court Act, part of which stipulates when the law becomes no longer effective and to impose the duty to improve the legislation on the lawmakers. The Court hands down the Decision to avoid rendering unconstitutional statutes immediately ineffective(become retroactively ineffective as an exception) and not to change the legal system on its own but to leave it up to the legislators. There exists a qualitative disparity between the rule-making power of rule-makers of administrative decrees․regulations and that of the legislature. Accordingly, deference to the rule-making power of administrative decrees․regulations-makers is not much required. Further, the Decision is not necessary to impose the duty to improve administrative decrees․regulations as rule-makers of administrative decrees․regulations are also the executors of the same. Nonetheless, a dual standard of unconstitutionality review has little to do with permissibility of the Decision in relation to administrative decrees and regulations. During the time from when a decision finds the challenged administrative decrees and regulations unconstitutional until the same decrees and regulations are improved, there is also little possibility for such decision to give rise to legal conditions that would be impermissible. A decision of unconstitutionality against administrative decrees and regulations rarely causes legal gaps or confusion as well. Therefore, these grounds are not sufficient to justify the Decision on administrative decrees and regulations. In short, the Court should render the Decision in relation to administrative decrees and regulations only when it can successfully prove the necessity of such Decision. 헌법재판소는 두 사건에서 명령에 대해서 헌법불합치결정을 내렸다. 본래 헌법불합치결정은 법률을 대상으로 한 것이다. 그런데 명령․규칙은 법률과 여러 가지 면에서 다른 법규범이다. 헌법재판소가 헌법불합치결정을 내리는 이유는 헌법 제47조 제2항 중 효력상실시점에 관한 부분 적용을 배제하고 입법자에게 법률개선의무를 부과하기 위한 것이다. 즉 헌법재판소가 위헌법률의 즉시 효력 상실(예외적으로 위헌법률 효력의 소급 상실)을 회피하고, 헌법재판소 스스로 법질서를 바꾸지 않고 입법자의 적극적 형성행위에 맡기기 위해서 헌법불합치결정을 내린다. 그런데 명령․규칙 입법자의 입법형성권은 국회의 입법형성권과는 질적 차이가 있다. 따라서 명령․규칙 입법자의 입법형성권을 존중할 필요성은 크지 않다. 그리고 명령․규칙의 입법자는 동시에 명령․규칙의 집행자라서 명령․규칙을 개선할 의무를 부과하기 위해서 헌법불합치결정을 내릴 필요도 없다. 하지만 위헌심사권의 2원화는 명령․규칙에 대한 헌법불합치결정 허용 여부와 무관하다. 또한, 명령․규칙과 관련하여 단순위헌결정을 선고한 때부터 명령․규칙을 개선할 때까지 단순위헌결정이 수인하기 어려운 법상태를 일으킬 가능성은 희박하다. 그리고 명령․규칙에 대한 단순위헌결정이 법적 공백이나 혼란을 일으킬 가능성도 거의 없다. 따라서 명령․규칙에 관련하여 헌법불합치결정을 정당화하는 사유를 충족하기는 어렵다. 요컨대 헌법재판소가 명령․규칙에 대해서 헌법불합치결정을 내리는 것은 그 필요성을 특별히 논증하는 데 성공한 때에만 가능할 것이다.

헌법재판소의 변형결정에 대한 비판적 검토

신평(Shin Pyung) 한국헌법학회 2008 憲法學硏究 Vol.14 No.1

  Article 45 of the Constitutional Court Act under the name of "Decision of Unconstitutionality" stipulates "The Constitutional Court shall decide only whether or not the requested statute or any provision of the statute is un-constitutional: Provided, That if it is deemed that the whole provisions of the statute are unable to enforce due to a decision of unconstitutionality of the requested provision, a decision of unconstitutionality may be made on the whole statute." We could say that it provided only two forms of decisions, constitutional or unconstitutional as measures of the norms control.<BR>  But the fact the dichotomized forms of decision might be not sufficient to deal with all the various problems soon became realized. So from the early time on, the Constitution Court introduced "modified forms of decisions" such as those of "limited constitutionality" "limited unconstitutionality", and "nonconformity to the Constitution".<BR>  The decision of limited constitutionality means that of the object of constitutional review of statutes, some part of it the Constitutional Court thinks is constitutional would be declared as constitutional. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court could declare some part of the object of constitutional review of statutes is unconstitutional. It regards two forms of decisions are basically the same in the meaning that two are all "partly un-constitutional decision in quality". And the decision of nonconformity to the Constitution is declared when a relevant object is contrary to Constitution but in consideration of some aspects which Constitutional Court thinks are related to the essential part of stability of legal system, it needs to make the object have a formal effect as a law up to some future point.<BR>  But we could say that the attitude of the Constitutional Court toward decisions of limited constitutionality and limited unconstitutionality has the possibility of intrusion of the right of general courts on the interpretation of statutes, which is overall thought to be the right of general courts.<BR>  Reviewing several problems over decisions of limited constitutionality and limited unconstitutionality, I suggested in conclusion that in the decision of limited constitutionality except the part declared as constitutional it means unconstitutional but to the contrary to it, in the decision of limited unconstitutionality except the part declared as unconstitutional it means the Constitutional Court reserve the attitude of if it is constitutional or unconstitutional. And I contended that the Constitutional Court must not use the form of decision of limited constitutionality as much as possible, which is inevitably to include indefinite concept producing many problems.<BR>  In the decision of nonconformity to Constitution we could find the easiness of Constitutional Court"s dependence on it. Under strict conditions made by a notion that it must be a very rare exception, it"s declaration should be limited as much as possible, especially in the case of "continuous application" of when a law is declared as contrary to Constitution but in the fear of a blank the declaration causes inevitably is given the room of application.<BR>  Anyway we have to find elaborate standards for modified forms of decisions, by which Korean Constitutional Court could harden the reputation as a guardian of the Constitution.

형벌조항에 대한 헌법불합치결정

김시철 사법발전재단 2009 사법 Vol.1 No.8

This paper primarily examines and analyzes the Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7111a delivered on January 15, 2009 where the Court dealt with the issue of whether a legislative act or its provision thereof related to criminal penalty should be invalidated retroactively, especially when the Constitutional Court declares that such act or its provision fails to conform with the Constitution--i.e., the Constitutional Court's “nonconformity with the Constitution” decision. Under the current principle of law, a criminal statute, once decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, should not applied retroactively and such decision of unconstitutionality requires prior convictions of the courts based on such statute to be readjudicated. The judgment of non-conformity of statute to the Constitution rendered by the Constitutional Court implicates that such statute violates the Constitution. Thus, in a criminal case where such “non-conformity with the Constitution” decision has absolute retroactive effect, the court should not apply that statute, which decided as not conforming to the Constitution, to penalize criminal defendants. Also, the retroactive application of newly revised act, which the Constitutional Court decided as “nonconforming act to the Constitution”, to the conduct committed before such newly revised act comes into effect is against the principle of nonretroactivity since the people should be free from retroactive criminal law according to Section 1, Article 12 and Section 1, Article 13 of the Constitution. Therefore, ex post facto application of laws to defendants in criminal cases is against the principle of nonretroactivity when the Constitutional Court has held the statute as nonconformity with the Constitution. In the case for review in this paper, the trial court ruled the defendant as not guilty by reasoning that the criminal laws should lose its effect retroactively when the Constitutional Court decided such laws as nonconforming to the Constitution. The appellate court and the Supreme Court also sustained the decision of the lower court, reasoning that the amendment of criminal statutes cannot be applied retroactively to determine the defendant's conviction. In particular, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between criminal statutes and other types of statutes in relation to the retroactive effect of nonconformity with the Constitution decisions. The opinion of the Court states strong persuasive grounds for its decision, and in light of a comparative law viewpoint to this matter, this decision also maintains a highly logical and justified stance. 이 논문은 헌법재판소가 형벌조항에 대하여 헌법불합치결정을 선고한 경우, 그 형벌조항이 소급적으로 실효되는지 여부에 대하여 검토한 것이다. 현행 법제도에 의하면, 형벌조항에 대한 위헌결정은 그 법률의 효력을 소급적으로 상실시키는 것이고, 이러한 위헌결정은 이미 확정된 유죄판결에 관하여도 전면적인 재심사유가 된다. 그리고 어떤 법률조항이 헌법에 합치되지 않는다는 헌법재판소의 결정은 그 법률이 헌법에 위반된다는 것을 의미한다. 따라서 위와 같이 위헌결정의 전면적인 소급효가 미치는 형사사건에서 법원은 이미 헌법불합치결정을 받은 법률규정을 더 이상 피고인에 대한 형벌조항으로 적용할 수 없고, 헌법불합치결정으로 인하여 사후적으로 개정된 개선입법을 그 시행 이전에 종료한 행위에 대한 처벌근거법률로서 소급적용하는 것은 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제13조 제1항에 규정된 형벌불소급의 원칙에 위배되는 것이다. 이 사건 연구대상판결의 당해 형사사건을 심리하였던 제1심법원은 이 사건 헌법불합치결정에 의하여 이 사건 법률조항의 형벌조항으로서의 효력이 소급적으로 소멸하였음을 전제로 하여 피고인에게 무죄판결을 선고하였고, 원심법원과 대법원은 사후적으로 입법화된 개선입법을 그 시행 이전에 종료한 행위에 대한 처벌근거법률로서 소급적용할 수 없다는 등의 이유로 제1심판결을 그대로 유지하였다. 특히 대법원은 형벌조항에 대한 헌법불합치결정의 효력과 다른 법률규정에 대한 헌법불합치결정의 효력은 구별된다는 점을 분명히 하였다. 이 사건 연구대상판결의 법리는 상당한 설득력이 있고, 비교법적인 검토 등에 비추어 보더라도 그 법리적 타당성을 인정할 수 있다.

헌법재판소의 낙태죄 결정에 따른 후속 입법의 문제 : 헌법재판소 2019. 4. 11. 선고 2017헌바127결정을 중심으로

김민우(Kim, Min-Woo) 한국헌법학회 2021 憲法學硏究 Vol.27 No.4

헌법재판소는 2019년 4월 11일 형법상 자기낙태죄(형법 제269조 제1항)와 제270조 제1항 중 ‘의사’에 관한 부분에 대하여 헌법불합치결정을 선고하였다. 2012년에는 낙태죄에 대하여 합헌결정을 하였으나, 이번 결정에서는 7명의 재판관이 낙태죄의 위헌성을 인정하였다는 것은 7년의 시대 변화를 담은 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이로써 우리 형법에 낙태죄를 규정한지 68년만에 임신과 출산, 그리고 임신중단을 둘러싼 법제의 정비를 기대할 수 있게 되었다. 낙태와 관련한 문제는 해묵은 논쟁처럼 여전히 찬성과 반대의 입장이 첨예하게 대립되고 있다. 낙태죄 존치론자들은 ‘태아의 생명권’과 낙태의 합법화로 인해 낙태가 증가할 것이라는 이유로 낙태의 전면적인 금지를 주장하고 있다. 이에 반하여 낙태죄 폐지론자들은 ‘임부의 자기결정권’을 침해한다는 이유로 형법상 낙태죄 폐지를 강력히 주장하고 있다. 이처럼 해묵은 논쟁 속에서 헌법재판소는 헌법불합치결정을 선택하여 입법부의 개선입법의무를 부여하였다. 그동안 낙태죄는 시대의 변화에 적응하지 못한채 실효성을 상실하여 형법상 자기낙태죄 조항과 의사낙태죄 조항에 대하여 헌법불합치결정을 받았지만, 개선입법 시한이 1년이 지나가는 2021년 12월까지도 입법에 따른 공백 상태는 계속되고 있으며, 의료현장에서의 혼란은 여전히 계속되고 있다. 태아의 생명을 제한하는 낙태행위는 형벌로 금지하되, 결정가능기간과 사회적･경제적 사유를 인정하는 등 입법의 공백에 따른 혼란을 최소화하기 위해서라도 시급히 법안을 마련하여야 한다. 이 논문은 헌법재판소의 사건 개요와 결정요지는 다른 논문에서 충분히 다루었기 때문에, 그 부분에 대한 구체적인 내용은 생략한다. 다만 낙태죄를 둘러싼 헌법적 쟁점을 중심으로 태아의 생명권과 임부의 자기결정권을 논의한 다음, 외국의 입법례와 헌법재판소 결정을 참고하여 후속입법의 방안을 모색하는데 중점을 두었다. On April 11, 2019, the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional nonconformity decision on the part of self-abortion (Article 269 (1) of the Criminal Act) and Article 270 (1) under the Criminal Act. In 2012, a constitutional decision was made on abortion, but in this decision, the fact that seven judges recognized the unconstitutionality of abortion can be seen as a change in the era of seven years. As a result, it has been 68 years since the crime of abortion was stipulated in the Korean Criminal Code, and it is now possible to expect a reform of the legal system surrounding pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion. On the issue of abortion, like the old debate, the pros and the opposing positions are still sharply opposed. Abortionists are insisting on a full ban on abortion on the grounds that abortion will increase due to the “right to life of the fetus” and the legalization of abortion. On the other hand, abortion abolitionists strongly insist on the abolition of abortion under the criminal law on the grounds that it violates the “right to self-determination of pregnant women.” In this old debate, the Constitutional Court chose a constitutional nonconformity decision and gave the legislature a legislative obligation to improve. Until now, abortion has lost its effectiveness without adapting to the changes of the times and has been decided to disagree with the constitution on self-abortion and doctor abortion provisions under the Criminal Act, but the gap in legislation continues until December 2021. Abortion that limits the life of the fetus is prohibited as a punishment, but legislation must be urgently prepared to minimize confusion caused by the legislative gap, such as recognizing the decisionable period and social and economic reasons. In this paper, the outline of the case and the conclusions of the Constitutional Court have been sufficiently covered in other papers, so the specific details of that part will be omitted. However, focusing on the constitutional issues surrounding abortion, the focus was on discussing the right to life of the fetus and the right to self-determination of pregnant women, and then seeking follow-up legislation by referring to foreign legislation and Constitutional Court decisions.

장애인 특별교통수단 입법부작위 헌법소원 사건 평석 - 헌법재판소 2023.5.25. 선고 2019헌마1234 결정을 중심으로 -

홍순건(洪淳健) 서울대 사회보장법연구회 2023 사회보장법연구 Vol.12 No.2

헌법재판소는 2023.5.25. 2019헌마1234 결정에서 장애인 특별교통수단으로 표준휠체어에 관하여만 고정설비 안전기준을 정하고 있고 표준휠체어 이용이 불가능한 장애인은 특별교통수단을 이용할 수 없게 규정하고 있는 「교통약자의 이동편의 증진법 시행규칙」 제6조 제3항 별표 1의2가 표준휠체어를 이용할 수 있는 장애인과 표준휠체어를 이용할 수 없는 장애인을 합리적인 이유 없이 다르게 취급하여 평등권을 침해한다고 보아 위 규정에 대하여 헌법불합치 잠정적용 결정을 하였다. 헌법재판소는 대상결정에서 과거 저상버스 도입의무 사건에서의 결정과 달리 장애인의 이동권을 실질적으로 확대하는 결론을 내린 것인바, 그 결론 자체는 고무적이다. 한편, 대상결정에서 장애인뿐만 아니라 그 가족으로 대상사건의 청구인 자기관련성이 확대되었다고 볼 여지가 있으나, 확장된 자기관련성의 범위가 불분명하게 남았다. 또한, 대상결정은 장애인의 이동권을 직접 언급하지 않고 평등권의 침해라는 우회적인 방향으로 결론에 도달했다. 끝으로, 대상사건은 헌법재판소가 부진정행정입법부작위의 문제로 접근하여 헌법 불합치 결정을 하였던바, 오히려 시혜적 규정인 심판대상조항의 효력을 불안정하게 한 아쉬움이 있다. 대상결정은 기본권의 영역에 들어오지 못 하였던 장애인의 이동권을 묵시적이나마 기본권의 영역으로 포섭한 것으로 해석할 수 있고, 이러한 결정은 다른 국가기관에 장애인의 이동권에 관하여 보다 긍정적인 논의를 촉구할 것이다. The Constitutional Court made a nonconformity decision to the constitution, on the provision in Article 6, Paragraph 3, Attachment 1-2 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Improvement of Mobility for Disabled persons, based on Constitutional Case No. 2019Hunma1234, dated May 25, 2023. This provision, established by the Court, sets safety standards for wheelchair securing facilities in special transportation vehicles for the convenience of mobility-impaired persons, using only standard wheelchairs as the criterion. It restricts disabled persons who cannot use standard wheelchairs from utilizing special transportation vehicles according to the safety standards. The Constitutional Court found that this provision violates the equal rights by treating differently between those disabled persons who can use standard wheelchairs and those who cannot, without rational grounds. This decision, unlike the ruling in the past case mandating low-floor buses, substantially expands the mobility rights of disableds people. The conclusion reached is indeed promising. There is a possibility that the petitioner’s self-relevancy for this case has broadened, considering that they are not a disabled person but a family member. However, the extent of this expansion remains unclear. Additionally, the decision indirectly concludes the violation of the equal right without directly addressing the mobility rights of disabled people. Lastly, this case highlights a missed opportunity where the Constitutional Court approached the issue from the omissions of the administrative legislation, resulting in a nonconformity decision to the constitution. It is regrettable that there is ambiguity regarding the effectiveness of the evaluative provision, which is a judicial subject. However, it can be interpreted that this decision implicitly but effectively incorporated the mobility rights of disabled people into the realm of fundamental rights, even though it did not explicitly enter the domain of fundamental rights. Such a decision will likely urge other government institutions to engage in more positive discussion regarding the mobility rights of disabled people.

현행 재외선거제도에 관한 비판적 고찰

김주영 한국공법학회 2011 공법연구 Vol.40 No.2

For the voting right is one of the most fundamental and essential right for the realization of Popular Sovereignty, the restriction of the voting right must be minimized. But overseas Koreans haven’t exercised their voting right only because they have lived abroad. After the decision of Constitutional Court declaring the article 37.1 and article 38.1 in 『(Old) Public Official Election Act』 as unconforming to the Constitution on the grounds of infringement of voting right, equality, and the Principle of Popular Suffrage in 2007, the system for voting from abroad is introduced by the revision of 『Public Official Election Act』 in 2009. But the system for voting from abroad cannot be designed and performed easily for its complexity and problematic feature. Except for the critic on that point, there are still some problems of constitutional-unconformity in the present system for voting from abroad. As is well-known, any decision of Constitutional Court that statutes are unconstitutional shall bind the ordinary courts, other state agencies and local governments by the clauses 47.1 and 75.6 in 『Constitutional Court Act』 and many people agree that this binding force can cover not only the main text but also the major reasoning of the decision. From this point of view, unfortunately I cannot think that the estimate of the present system for voting from abroad can be affirmative. The introduction of the system for voting from abroad may be the natural result of the decision of Constitutional Court declaring the unconforming to the Constitution in 2007, but I have to say that the details of the present system cannot meet the demands of the reasoning of that decision in many aspects. In my opinion, there is the necessity for introduction of the voting by mail for correction of the present system. And, taking the Republican Perspectives into consideration, we may have to consider the introduction of the system for voting from abroad again from the beginning. 선거권은 국민주권의 원리를 실현하기 위한 가장 기본적이고 필수적인 권리로써 다른 기본권에 대하여 우월한 지위를 가지기에 선거권의 제한은 어디까지나 최소한에 그쳐야 함에도 불구하고, 300여만 명에 이르는 재외국민은 그동안 참정권을 충분히 누리지 못했는데, 헌법재판소가 2007년 재외국민의 선거권 및 평등권 침해, 보통선거 원칙의 위반을 이유로 『공직선거법』 제37조 제1항과 동법 제38조 제1항에 대해 헌법불합치 결정을 내림에 따라 2009년 『공직선거법』이 개정됨으로써 이제 재외국민도 참정권 행사가 가능하게 되었다. 그렇지만, 재외선거제도는 제도 자체가 매우 복잡할 뿐만 아니라 수많은 어려운 문제들을 내포하고 있기 때문에 그 구현에 있어서 적지 않은 어려움이 존재하기 마련인데, 이러한 문제점들에 기반을 둔 비판은 차치하고라도, 현행 재외선거제도는 헌법적합성의 관점에서도 아쉬운 부분이 없지 않다고 하겠다. 주지하다시피 헌법재판소법 제47조 제1항과 제75조 제6항에 의하여 헌법재판소의 위헌결정은 법원 기타 국가기관 및 지방자치단체를 기속하는데, 이러한 기속력은 헌법재판소 결정의 주문 이외에도 주요 이유에까지 미친다고 보는 것이 현재의 다수설이다. 이처럼 헌법재판소 결정의 주요 이유의 기속력을 인정하는 관점에서 현행 재외선거제도의 헌법재판소 결정에의 합치여부를 판단해 본다면 과연 긍정적인 평가를 내릴 수 있을지는 적지 않은 의문이 든다. 즉 2007년 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치 결정에 따라 재외선거를 실시하게 된 것에는 별다른 문제가 없겠지만, 그 구체적인 구현방식에 있어서 헌법재판소가 설시한 중요한 이유들을 제대로 반영하고 있는 지까지 검토해 본다면 상당한 정도로 부족함이 느껴지는 것이 사실이기 때문이다. 이러한 재외선거제도의 문제점의 보완책으로는 무엇보다 우편투표제도의 도입이 필수적이라 할 것이지만, 특히 공화주의적 관점까지 고려해 본다면, 재외선거제도의 도입 자체를 원점에서부터 재고할 필요성도 없지 않다 할 것이다.

형벌규정에 대한 헌법재판소 위헌결정의 시적 효력범위에 관한 비판적 검토

김혜경 한국형사법무정책연구원 2022 형사정책연구 Vol.129 No.-

The Constitutional Court took a very passive attitude in the examination of unconstitutionality against criminal law provisions on the grounds that the legislature has a very wide legislative right. Recently, however, he has actively expressed his opinion on the unconstitutionality of the criminal law clause, which was judged to be constitutional in the past, or has made a modified decision on whether the newly raised criminal law clause is unconstitutional. The reason why the Constitutional Court in the past judged only criminal law provisions passively is that the state’s right to punishment is a double infringement of the state’s basic rights and at the same time implies state negligence due to the execution of unconstitutional criminal law provisions. In this paper, we examined the effect of the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional decision on criminal law provisions in particular. In particular, Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act says, “Any state or provision there is a closing to criminal punishment effectively retroactive: Provided, that where a decision of constitutional has priority in what case.” The provision of “date on which the decision was made” is completely different from the provision of other legal provisions in paragraph 2 that are effective in the future. Here, the reasons for the difference in effect of paragraphs 2 and 3 were analyzed, and the specificity of the criminal law regulations and the meaning of the national right to punishment were examined. In addition, the Constitutional Court's decision on unconstitutionality and its effect on the provisions of the Criminal Act were reviewed separately from the case of the constitutional law proposal and the constitutional petition for unconstitutionality examination. In the case of a constitutional unconstitutional law proposal, the law was abolished before the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Constitutional Court’s decision on unconstitutionality, the right to request a retrial and the type of trial in the lower court, and the punishment. In the case of the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional review-type petition, we looked at whether the premise of the trial will be recognized if the law is abolished before the decision is filed, and whether the Constitutional Court decides to cancel the prosecution. Finally, regarding the implications and poetic effect of the penal provisions, the argument was made on the legislative policy restrictions for acquittal and the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, not retroactive but future effects or restrictive effects. 헌법재판소는 입법권자의 광범위한 입법형성권을 이유로 형사처벌 조항에 대한 위헌심사에서 매우 소극적인 태도를 취하다가, 최근에는 합헌이라고 보았던 형법조문에 대하여 위헌판결을 하거나 더 나아가 헌법불합치결정이라는 변형결정을 통해서 보다 적극적으로 형벌조항에 대한 위헌의견을 개진하는 것으로 보인다. 그런데 헌법재판소가 유독 형벌조항의 위헌결정의 효력에 대하여 달리 취급하는 바는, 그것이 국가의 전형적인 이중의 기본권 침해영역임과 동시에 위헌적 형벌조항의 집행으로 인한 국가과오를 그 이면으로 하기 때문이다. 여기에서는 헌법재판소의 결정과 관련하여 특히 형벌규정에 대한 헌법재판소 위헌결정의 효력을, 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항이 비형벌조항과 분리하여 소급효로 규정한 점에 대한 함의를 살펴보았다. 그리고 형법조항에 대한 헌법재판소의 위헌결정 및 그 효력에 관하여 헌가형 위헌법률제청사건과 헌바형 위헌심사형 헌법소원을 분리하여 검토하였다. 헌가형 위헌법률제청의 경우에는 위헌법률제청 후 헌법재판소 결정 이전에 법률이 폐지된 경우와 헌법재판소 결정 이전에 법률이 개정된 경우, 그리고 헌법재판소에서 해당 조항을 위헌결정한 경우 재심청구권 및 원심법원에서의 재판의 종류, 헌법재판소 한정합헌결정 이후 재심청구의 경우 및 해당 형벌조항에 대하여 과거에 합헌결정을 한 이후에 다시 위헌결정을 한 경우 등을 나누어 살펴보았다. 또한 헌바 위헌심사형 헌법소원사건의 경우에도 위헌소원 제기 후 결정전에 법률이 페지된 경우 재판의 전제성이 인정될 것인가의 문제 및 해당 법률의 폐지가 대법원 판례의 견해인 동기설을 취할 경우 폐지된 법률 적용 여부가 달라지므로 이에 대한 헌법재판소의 결정여부도 좌우되는지 여부를 살펴보았고, 헌법재판소의 위헌결정이 있는 경우, 위헌소원 제기 후 검사의 공소취소 등의 사정변경이 있는 경우 재판의 전제성 판단문제, 그리고 위헌소원 제기 후 공소사실의 적용법조가 변경된 경우나 공소장에 예비적 기재 또는 택일적 기재된 적용법조 중 일부가 위헌소원의 심판대상이 된 경우 재판의 전제성 판단 등에 관하여 검토하였다. 그리고 마지막으로 형벌조항의 위헌결정의 함의와 시적 효력과 관련하여, 시적 효력범위의 제한가능성 및 위헌결정의 효력으로서 무죄를 목적으로 하는 재심청구에 대한 입법정책적 제한과 헌법재판소의 해석상의 제한 가능성에 대하여 논지를 전개하였고, 형벌조항이라 하더라도 그 속성에 따라 소급효가 아닌 미래효나 장래효 또는 제한적 효력이 가능한지 여부에 관하여 살펴보았다. 입법자의 광범위한 입법형성권에도 불구하고, 국민의 기본권 침해를 본질로 하는 형벌조항에 대하여 그 위헌 여부가 헌법재판소에 의한 심사의 대상이 될 수 있어야 함은 물론이다. 그리고 실질적 정의관념과 법적 안정성이라는 헌법이념을 어떻게 반영하여 형벌조항에 대한 위헌결정의 효력을 정립할 것인가 역시, 궁극적으로는 국민의 기본권을 보장하고 법적 신뢰를 존중하는 방향으로 결정되어야 할 것이다

출퇴근 재해 헌법불합치결정의 소급효 — 대법원 2021. 6. 10. 선고 2016두54114 판결을 중심으로 —

조성혜 한국사회법학회 2021 社會法硏究 Vol.- No.45

대법원은 지난 2021. 6. 10. 구 산업재해보상보험법(이하 “산재보험법”이라 한 다)에 출퇴근 재해가 신설(2017. 10. 24.)되기 전인 2014. 4. 14. 근로자(원고)가 자기 오토바이를 타고 출근하던 중 발생한 사고에 대하여 업무상 재해를 인정하 는 판결을 내렸다. 당시 산재보험법에 의하면 출퇴근 시 발생한 사고가 업무상 재해로 인정되려면 “사업주가 제공한 교통수단이나 그에 준하는 교통수단을 이 용하는 등 사업주의 지배관리하에서 출퇴근 중 발생한 사고”(제37조 제1항 제1 호 다목)여야만 했다. 원고는 회사 내 도로 결함으로 인해 사고가 발생하였다며 산재보험법 제37조 제1항 제1호 나목(시설물 결함에 따른 업무상 사고)에 근거 하여 근로복지공단(피고)에 요양급여신청을 하였으나 2014. 5. 28. 피고로부터 요양불승인처분을 받았다. 제1심인 울산지방법원(2016. 4. 28.)과 제2심인 부산고 등법원(2016. 9. 28.)도 이 사건 사고가 회사 시설물의 결함이나 회사의 지배관 리 하에서 이루어지는 출퇴근 중 발생한 것이라고 보기 어렵다는 이유로 기각 판결을 내렸다. 그러나 대법원은 이 사건이 2016. 9. 29. 헌법재판소의 구 산재보험법 제37조 제1항 제1호 다목(“사업주가 제공한 교통수단이나 그에 준하는 교통수단을 이용 하는 등 사업주의 지배관리하에서 출퇴근 중 발생한 사고”)에 대한 헌법불합치 결정 당시에 구법 조항이 재판의 전제가 되어 법원에 계속 중인 사건에 해당하 므로 헌법불합치결정의 소급효가 미친다는 이유로 이 사건의 업무상 재해를 인 정하였다. 이 논문에서는 우선 이 사건의 제1심과 대법원 판결의 사건개요와 판결요지를 기술함으로써 이 사건의 쟁점이 최초 사업장의 시설물 결함에 의한 업무상 사고 여부였다가 2016. 9. 29 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치결정 이후 출퇴근 재해 여부로 바뀌게 된 과정을 살펴본다. 이어 헌법재판소의 2016. 9. 29. 헌법불합치결정과 2019. 9. 26. 헌법불합치결정의 내용을 분석함으로써 출퇴근 재해의 소급효에 대 한 문제를 제기한다. 이에 대한 논거를 위하여 헌법재판소 위헌결정의 유형 및 효력을 헌법불합치결정의 소급효에 대한 이론을 중심으로 살펴본 후, 이 사건 판결 소급효의 타당성 여부에 대하여 검토한다. The Supreme Court ruled on April 14, 2014, before a commuter accident was newly established under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) on June 10, 2021. According to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act at the time, in order for an accident that occurred while commuting to work to be recognized as a work-related accident, it had to be “an accident that occurred under the control of the employer, such as using transportation provided by the employer or equivalent.” The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (Defendant) based on Article 37(1)1(b) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (accident caused by defects in facilities), but was denied medical care by the Defendant on May 28, 2014. The Ulsan District Court (April 28, 2016) and the Busan High Court (September 28, 2016) also dismissed the accident on the grounds that it was difficult to regard it as a defect in the company’s facilities or during commuting under the company's control. The Supreme Court acknowledged the case as a retroactive effect of the constitutional nonconformity decision on Article 37(1)1(d) of the Constitutional Court's former Industrial Accident Insurance Act on September 29, 2016 (accident that occurred under the control of the employer). In this paper, I first look at the process of describing the case outline and summary of the Supreme Court ruling in this case, and then changing the issue to a commuting accident after the Constitutional Court’s decision on September 29, 2016. Subsequently, by analyzing the contents of the Constitutional Court’s decision on constitutional inconsistency on September 29, 2016 and the decision on constitutional inconsistency on September 26, 2019, the issue of the retroactive effect of commuting accidents is raised. For this argument, the type and effect of the Constitutional Court’s constitutional nonconformity decision are examined, focusing on the theory of the retroactive effect of the constitutional nonconformity decision, and then the validity of the retroactive effect of the judgment in this case is reviewed.