임용권 행사와 직권남용권리행사방해죄 ― 대법원 2019도17879 판결을 중심으로― = Exercise of Authority for Appointment and Abuse of Authority - Focusing on Ruling in Supreme Court 2019do17879 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently, abuse of authority has attracted strong social attention.
Discussions and arguments about this offence are becoming more active as they are involved in various political events. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to explores abuse of authority from a new perspective, focusing on the exercising authority for appointment by head of local government.
A case law determined that the abuse of authority is established when "a public official who has a general job duty abuses one's authority.' A general job duty is a fairly abstract concept, and the Supreme Court has not provided clear guidelines on its interpretation. This ambiguity brought the risk of being subject to arbitrary judgment in the application of the offense of abuse of authority. And based on the logic of “No authority, no abuse,” the case law determined that the illegal and unjust acts of public officer without authority did not constitute abuse of authority. The logic of case law has a problem that the exercise of the authority of a person without authority is not punishable even though it is a more serious crime than the exercise of the authority of a person with authority. The redefinition of the abuse is needed.
Meanwhile, the case law interprets the exercise of authority targeting private individuals has a greater chance of establishing an offense of abuse of authority than in the case of those targeting public officials.
In the case of the Supreme Court 2019do17879, the subject of this study, the head of the local government ordered a working staff to "recommend" a specific person for promotion, and the personnel committee made a decision following the recommendation. This is because the independence of the Personnel Committee is structurally vulnerable.
The specific expression by the head of the local government puts a considerable pressure on the members of the Personnel Committee and disables the committee practically.
In this case, the Supreme Court accepts the existing interpretation for offense of authority of abuse. In addition, the Supreme Court says authority of head of local government is very wide. So the Supreme Court rejected the establishment of abuse of authority. This ruling, however, failed in reflecting the reality and more forward-looking ruling in the future is expected.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2013

2 신동운, "형법각론" 법문사 2018

3 이창섭, "직권남용죄의 성립요건에 대한 고찰" 법학연구소 15 (15): 231-257, 2021

4 오병두, "직권남용죄의 성립요건에 관한 검토" 한국형사법학회 32 (32): 139-178, 2020

5 최병천, "직권남용권리행사방해죄-공무원의 직권남용을 중심으로" 한국경찰법학회 17 (17): 23-50, 2019

6 조기영, "직권남용과 블랙리스트" 한국비교형사법학회 20 (20): 27-60, 2018

7 신은영, "일본의 공무원직권남용죄에 관한 검토" 한국비교형사법학회 23 (23): 47-76, 2021

8 김성돈, "법이해, 법발견방법 그리고 직권남용죄" 한국형사법학회 33 (33): 107-171, 2021

9 장진환, "독일형법의 직권남용 규정에 대한 연구" 한국비교형사법학회 23 (23): 1-46, 2021

10 이종수, "공무원의 부당한 직무수행과 직권남용죄의 관계 - 직권남용죄의 보호법익과 ʻ적극행정 면책이론ʼ의 도입 논의를 중심으로 -" 법조협회 70 (70): 212-254, 2021

11 한석훈, "공무상비밀누설, 직권남용 및 ʻ부정한 청탁ʼ의 개념- 대법원 2019. 8. 29. 선고 2018도13792 판결 등 -" 법조협회 70 (70): 501-543, 2021

12 "https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20220127196900004"

13 "https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/988107.html"

14 "http://news.bbsi.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3041233"

15 행정안전부, "2021년도 지방공무원 인사실무"

16 대검찰청, "2020 밤죄백서" 2021