최근에 제정된『秩序違反行爲規制法』으로 인한 社會的 波長 = Social Repercussions Arising from the Enactment of the Law on the Public Order Violations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently the government promulgated Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order on December 21, 2007, in order to execute efficiently delinquent fine. It announced that an amount in arrear shows a tendency to increase in every district because there are many cases that fine related to vehicles such as traffic and parking violation and for waste dumping is unpaid. Like this, the major cause of increase of an amount in arrear is that any additional dues or any disadvantages are not imposed on defaulters. After June 22, 2008, by the present Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, delinquent fine for negligence for violations of public order payers will be disadvantaged. For example additional dues are imposed up to 77% of the unpaid fine for negligence. And their property can be attached by the delinquency disposition.
However in reference to imposing a fine for negligence for administrative offenses against public order, similar regulations related to criminal tatbestand, illegality, tatbestand about criminal responsibility and joint principal offender and so on were legislated. It carries an important meaning to provide criminal crime tatbestand in the law of a fine for negligence which is a punishment for administrative offenses against public order that makes the necessary conditions for a fine for negligence precise. But administrative offenses against public order have been legislated taking criminal crime tatbestand. This seems to regard a fine for negligence as a punishment and the boundary between criminal punishment and administrative punishment for offenses against public order may be obscure. To fulfill duties efficiently at law and protect national rights and profits under the purpose clause of Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, articles on conditions for completion of offenses against public order, fine for negligence imposition ․ collection and trial have been provided but I have doubts if it can truly protect national rights and profits.
So in case of payment delinquency of a fine for negligence for administrative offenses against public order, the rapidity and the efficiency are too emphasized in Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order for collecting taxes which is the public purpose, therefore I raised the point at issue that this is an excess restriction as means for national safety device. When a fine for negligence is delinquent habitually and in a large amount, provisions about collection of additional dues, restriction of government-licensed business, offer information of defaulters to an organ of credit information and detention can infringe on property right and civil liberties(right of privacy and freedom of business), accordingly the legislator should continuously observe and revise that law.
In public law, when legislatures make a law, it balances the public interest against the private interest. Also this issue is the principal of the proportion. It is the eternal issue about the law and the justice and the strict responsibility and duty that harass him to solve this problem wisely and without injustice to anyone. So the legislator should be always concerned about the sprit of the law, speculate modestly on human nature and rearm precisely the logic of the law and then he should make a law that can make trouble in the realities of law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently the government promulgated Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order on December 21, 2007, in order to execute efficiently delinquent fine. It announced that an amount in arrear shows a tendency to increase in every district because there are many cases that fine related to vehicles such as traffic and parking violation and for waste dumping is unpaid. Like this, the major cause of increase of an amount in arrear is that any additional dues or any disadvantages are not imposed on defaulters. After June 22, 2008, by the present Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, delinquent fine for negligence for violations of public order payers will be disadvantaged. For example additional dues are imposed up to 77% of the unpaid fine for negligence. And their property can be attached by the delinquency disposition.
However in reference to imposing a fine for negligence for administrative offenses against public order, similar regulations related to criminal tatbestand, illegality, tatbestand about criminal responsibility and joint principal offender and so on were legislated. It carries an important meaning to provide criminal crime tatbestand in the law of a fine for negligence which is a punishment for administrative offenses against public order that makes the necessary conditions for a fine for negligence precise. But administrative offenses against public order have been legislated taking criminal crime tatbestand. This seems to regard a fine for negligence as a punishment and the boundary between criminal punishment and administrative punishment for offenses against public order may be obscure. To fulfill duties efficiently at law and protect national rights and profits under the purpose clause of Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, articles on conditions for completion of offenses against public order, fine for negligence imposition ․ collection and trial have been provided but I have doubts if it can truly protect national rights and profits.
So in case of payment delinquency of a fine for negligence for administrative offenses against public order, the rapidity and the efficiency are too emphasized in Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order for collecting taxes which is the public purpose, therefore I raised the point at issue that this is an excess restriction as means for national safety device. When a fine for negligence is delinquent habitually and in a large amount, provisions about collection of additional dues, restriction of government-licensed business, offer information of defaulters to an organ of credit information and detention can infringe on property right and civil liberties(right of privacy and freedom of business), accordingly the legislator should continuously observe and revise that law.
In public law, when legislatures make a law, it balances the public interest against the private interest. Also this issue is the principal of the proportion. It is the eternal issue about the law and the justice and the strict responsibility and duty that harass him to solve this problem wisely and without injustice to anyone. So the legislator should be always concerned about the sprit of the law, speculate modestly on human nature and rearm precisely the logic of the law and then he should make a law that can make trouble in the realities of law

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정성근, "형법총론" 삼지원 2001

2 박정훈, "협의의 행정벌과 광의의 행정법-행정상 제재수단과 법치주의적 안전장치" 서울대학교 법학연구소 41 (41): 290-293, 2001

3 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 박영사 2008

4 조태제, "행정집행제도의 문제점과 그 개선방안" 법조협회 (577) : 117-121, 2004

5 조태제, "행정질서벌제도의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국토지공법학회 24 : 545-546, 2004

6 류지태, "행정질서벌의 체계" 법조협회 (555) : 50-77, 2002

7 류지태, "행정질서벌의 체계" 고시계사 (549) : 64-82, 2002

8 오준근, "행정조사의 공법이론적 재검토" 한국공법학회 31 (31): 529-548, 2003

9 김영조, "행정조사기본법의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국비교공법학회 8 (8): 89-117, 2007

10 홍정선, "행정법원론(상)" 박영사 2008

11 박정훈, "행정법과 법철학-현대행정법에 있어 순수법학의 의미-" 행정법이론실무학회 (7) : 216-, 2001

12 정하중, "행정법" 법문사 2006

13 허 영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2008

14 박균성, "프랑스 행정법상 공익개념" 서울대학교 법학연구소 47 (47): 27-51, 2006

15 이준일, "평등원칙" 한암법학회 8 : 3-16, 1998

16 한수웅, "평등권의 구조와 심사구조" 헌법재판소 9 : 48-, 1998

17 안경환, "평등권 50년- 자유에서 평등의 논쟁으로" 한국헌법학회 4 (4): 44-56, 1998

18 박진완, "평등과 다원성" 헌국헌법학회 6 (6): 182-, 2000

19 박정훈, "판례의 법원성 in 法實踐의 諸問題東泉金仁燮辯護士華甲紀念" 박영사 1-26, 1996

20 김중권, "참여정부에서의 법치주의의 발전- 행정법적 평가와 전망 -" 한국공법학회 35 (35): 347-350, 2007

21 조병선, "질서위반행위규제법에 관한 연구" 청주대학교 법학연구소 28 : 39-53, 2007

22 김중권, "조치적 명령 내지 개별사건규율적 명령에 대한 권리보호에 관한 소고" 법조협회 51 : 90-130, 2002

23 김일환, "정보자기결정권의 헌법상 근거와 보호에 관한 연구" 한국공법학회 29 (29): 100-102, 2001

24 이인호, "정보사회와 개인정보자기결정권" 중앙법학회 41-100, 1999

25 김주환, "입법자의 평등에의 구속과 통제" 헌법재판소 11 : 431-450, 2000

26 김철용, "위임입법의 한계에 관한 硏究" 헌법재판소 8 : 21-, 1996

27 계희열, "우리 헌법상의 평등권" 고려대학교 33 : 1-33,

28 이정원, "외국 카지노에서의 도박행위의 위법성" 한국비교형 사법학회 8 (8): 431-450, 2006

29 김성돈, "속인주의와 형법 제3조의 재음미" 성균관대학교 법학연구소 347-369, 2005

30 안경환, "소수자를 위한 법리" 법과사회이론학회 2 : 114-115, 1990

31 이준일, "소수자(minority)와 평등원칙" 한국헌법학회 8 (8): 219-243, 2002

32 박영도, "부령의 법적 성격에 대한 헌법적 검토" 법제처 65-70, 1998

33 박종국, "부당결부금지의 원칙에 관한 연구" 한국공법학회 25 (25): 248-267, 1997

34 안경환, "법치주의와 소수자보호" 법과사회이론학회 12 : 6-, 1995

35 오세혁, "법철학사" 세창출판사 2004

36 최종고, "법철학" 박영사 2002

37 김도균, "법원리로서의 공익" 서울대학교 법학연구소 47 (47): 155-215, 2006

38 이인호, "디지털시대의 정보법질서와 정보기본권" 중앙대학교 법학연구소 26 (26): 199-257, 2002

39 최정일, "독일에서의 행정규칙의 법적 성질 및 교력 - 특히 규범구체화행정규칙을 중심으로" 서울대학교 1995

40 김성돈, "도로교통법상의 ”범칙금“과 명칭사기" 한국비교형사법학회 (1) : 297-, 1999

41 이우영, "대의민주주의에서 소수자 보호의 헌법적 의의와 구조" 서울대학교 법학연구소 48 (48): 162-190, 2007

42 김재광, "과태료제도의 문제점과 개선방안" 법조협회 (577) : 163-188, 2004

43 최송화, "공익의 법문제화" 서울대학교 법학연구소 47 (47): 10-26, 2006

44 이원우, "경제규제와 공익" 서울대학교 법학연구소 47 (47): 89-120, 2006

45 정태호, "개인정보자결권의 헌법적 근거 및 구조에 대한 고찰" 헌법재판소 14 : 473-, 2003

46 김성돈, "가칭 질서위반법의 체계와 이른바 질서위반행위의 구조" 법조협회 10-12, 2004

47 최승원, "交通行政에 관한 法的 硏究-過怠料制度를 중심으로" 법학연구소 3 (3): 85-103, 1998

48 Unruh, P., "Zur Dogmatik der grundrechtlichen Schutzflichten" 1996

49 Alexy, R., "Theorie der Grundrechte" Suhrkamp 1986

50 Peine, F.-J., "Systemgerechtigkeit-Die Selbstbindung des Gesetzgebers als Ma?tab der Normenkontrolle" Baden-Baden 1985

51 Larenz, K., "Richtiges Recht-Grundzuge einer Rechtsethik(正當한 法의 原理-法倫理要綱)" 박영사 1995

52 Kelsen, H., "Reine Rechts -lehre(순수법학)" 길안사 2000

53 Kaufmann, A., "Rechtsphilosophie(법철학)" 나남출판사 2007

54 Saliger, F., "Radbruchsche Formel und Rechtsstaat(라드브루의 공식과 법치국가)" 길안사 2000

55 Schulze-fielitz, "Neue Kriterien f? die verwaltungsgerichtliche Kontrolldichte bei der Anwendung unbestimmter Rechtsbegriffe,(JZ, 1993), 772ff"

56 Poscher, R., "Grundrechte als Abwehrrechte" T?ingen 2003

57 Huster, S., "Gleichheit und Verh?tnism癌igkeit, JZ, 1994, S. 541ff. (548)"

58 M?tl, M., "Die staatliche Garantie f? die ?fentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung -Sicherheitsgew?rleistung im Verfassungsstaat, im Bundesstaat und in der Europ?schen Union, (T?ingen, 2002)"

59 Michael, L., "Die Argumentationsstrukturen des Grundsatzes der Verh?tnism癌igkeit-Zur Dogmatik des ?er-und Unterma?erbotes und der Gleichheitss?ze, in: (JuS, 2001), S. 148(151f.)"

60 Jakobs, M. C., "Der Grundsatz der Verh?tnism癌igkeit, (K?n, 1985)"

61 Hain, K.-E., "Der Gesetzgeber in der klemme Zwischen ?erma?und Unterma?erbot?, (DVBl, 1993), S. 982ff"

62 Zippelius, R., "Das Wesen des Rechts(법의 본질)" 길안사 1999

63 Dietlein, J., "Das Unterma?erbot, Bestandsaufnahme und Entwicklungschancen einer neuen Rechtsfigur, in: ZG 1995, S. 131(141)"

64 Uerpmann, R., "Das ?fentliche Interesse-Seine Bedeutung als Tatbestandsmerkmal und als dogmatischer Begriff, (T?ingen,1999)"

65 Maurer, H., "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 14. Aufl."

66 Erichsen, H.-U., "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 10. Aufl."