학술논문
住居의 自由에 관한 小考
이용수 81
- 영문명
- A Study on Freedom of Place of Residence
- 발행기관
- 세계헌법학회 한국학회
- 저자명
- 이성환(Sung Whan Lee)
- 간행물 정보
- 『세계헌법연구』世界憲法硏究 第13卷 第1號, 1~20쪽, 전체 20쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.06.01
5,200원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The Article 16 of Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that all citizens shall be free from intrusion into their place of residence, and that in case of search or seizure in a residence, a warrant issued by a judge upon request of a prosecutor shall be presented.
This freedom is generally regarded as a kind of privacy. However, it is stipulated a different article(aticle 17). While freedom of place of residence is related to just physical intrusion into place of residence, privacy is devoted to keep all types of private peace. It can not include a right to ask government shall provide a citizen with a residence.
This freedom is guranteed to protect peace of private place of residence. Residence in the article 16 means all kinds of private place of residing, permanently or temperarily, including a house or dwelling. It is debatable whether it includes shop, office or factory. As these places also need to keep peace, they should be included. Foreigners as well as Koreans can enjoy this freedom, and a legal entity such as a company should also be a subject of it. In case of a leased house its actual residing person, its tenant, insists on this freedom against its owner.
Nobody shall not intrude into their place of residence without consent of a residing person in place of residence. Implicit consent is sufficient. If anyone entered place of residence of another person without consent, it should be criminally punished under the article 319 of Criminal Code.
If a policeman want to search or to seizure in a residence, a warrant issued by a judge upon request of a prosecutor shall be presented. Judges have to review request carefully under due process of law. A general warrant is not allowed to prevent a policeman from abusing it. It is doubtable that a warrant is necessary for a general public official to enter place of residence to do his governmental work. If it is not related to criminal purpose and situation is urgent, I think a warrant is not needed because origin of warrant system is related historically to criminal investigation and this kind of entrance aims to take care of a person residing in his residence. Constitutional Court also admitted that a warrant is not necessary to enforce urgently some work on public purpose.
This freedom may also be restricted by Act only when necessary for national security, the maintenance of law and order or for public welfare. Even when such restriction is imposed, no essential aspect of the freedom or right shall be violated. Many acts including the Fire Fighting Act, the Infectious Diseases Act, and the Labor Standard Act actually restrict freedom of place of residence. However, the principle of proportion shall be strictly applied when the freedom is restricted.
This freedom is generally regarded as a kind of privacy. However, it is stipulated a different article(aticle 17). While freedom of place of residence is related to just physical intrusion into place of residence, privacy is devoted to keep all types of private peace. It can not include a right to ask government shall provide a citizen with a residence.
This freedom is guranteed to protect peace of private place of residence. Residence in the article 16 means all kinds of private place of residing, permanently or temperarily, including a house or dwelling. It is debatable whether it includes shop, office or factory. As these places also need to keep peace, they should be included. Foreigners as well as Koreans can enjoy this freedom, and a legal entity such as a company should also be a subject of it. In case of a leased house its actual residing person, its tenant, insists on this freedom against its owner.
Nobody shall not intrude into their place of residence without consent of a residing person in place of residence. Implicit consent is sufficient. If anyone entered place of residence of another person without consent, it should be criminally punished under the article 319 of Criminal Code.
If a policeman want to search or to seizure in a residence, a warrant issued by a judge upon request of a prosecutor shall be presented. Judges have to review request carefully under due process of law. A general warrant is not allowed to prevent a policeman from abusing it. It is doubtable that a warrant is necessary for a general public official to enter place of residence to do his governmental work. If it is not related to criminal purpose and situation is urgent, I think a warrant is not needed because origin of warrant system is related historically to criminal investigation and this kind of entrance aims to take care of a person residing in his residence. Constitutional Court also admitted that a warrant is not necessary to enforce urgently some work on public purpose.
This freedom may also be restricted by Act only when necessary for national security, the maintenance of law and order or for public welfare. Even when such restriction is imposed, no essential aspect of the freedom or right shall be violated. Many acts including the Fire Fighting Act, the Infectious Diseases Act, and the Labor Standard Act actually restrict freedom of place of residence. However, the principle of proportion shall be strictly applied when the freedom is restricted.
목차
1. 住居의 自由의 意義
2. 住居의 自由의 沿革
3. 住居의 自由와 다른 基本權과의 關係
4. 住居의 自由의 法的 性格
5. 住居의 自由의 主體
6. 住居의 自由의 內容
7. 住居의 自由의 效力
8. 住居에 대한 押收나 搜索과 令狀主義
9. 住居의 自由에 대한 制限과 限界
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
2. 住居의 自由의 沿革
3. 住居의 自由와 다른 基本權과의 關係
4. 住居의 自由의 法的 性格
5. 住居의 自由의 主體
6. 住居의 自由의 內容
7. 住居의 自由의 效力
8. 住居에 대한 押收나 搜索과 令狀主義
9. 住居의 自由에 대한 制限과 限界
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- EU의 사례에 비추어 본 한국내 외국인 노동자의 이동에 관한 법제도적 문제
- 世界憲法硏究 刊行規定 외
- 프랑스의 감사원제도에 대한 연구
- 공직선거법상 인터넷 관련 규제에 대한 헌법적 검토
- 헌법재판소에 대한 국민의 민주적 통제
- 미국 헌법상의 국제적 합의의 종류
- 줄기세포 연구에 대한 헌법학적 논의의 문제점
- Critics on the Exclusion of the Ordinary Courts’ Judgments from the Constitutional Complaint in Korean Constitutional Review
- 방송통신융합에 따른 헌법문제의 고찰
- 유럽헌법의 규범체계
- 조작간첩사건과 법원의 판결에 대한 국가배상청구 가능성
- 議院內閣制에서의 象徵的 國家元首에 관한 一考察 - 韓國第2共和國憲法과 獨逸基本法上 大統領을 中心으로
- 국민주권론의 비판적 재구성 - 대표제와 직접민주주의의 관계를 중심으로
- 住居의 自由에 관한 小考
- 헌법재판과 가처분 제도
- 유럽인권협약의 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장 속에서의 계승과 발전
- 프랑스 지방분권법제에 관한 연구
- 미국헌법상 기본적 권리(fundamental rights)론의 전개와 평가
- L’ontologie de la dignité humaine et de la souveraineté du peuple dans l’éducation à la Constitution
- 發刊辭
- 社會的 基本權의 法的 性質 - 人間다운 生活을 할 權利를 中心으로
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!