2022년 헌법 주요 판례 평석

• 영문명: Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
• 발행기관: 경희법학연구소
• 저자명: 강태수
• 간행물 정보: 『경희법학』제58권 제2호, 3~42쪽, 전체 40쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 민법
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2023.06.30

국문 초록

헌법재표바는 2022년에만 총 2,829건을 접수하였다. 본고는 헌법재표남가 2022년에 내린 결정 기운데 위헌결정(헌법불합치결정 등 변형결정 포함) 또는 위헌확인결정을 중심으로 주요 결정을 검토하며 대법원 전원합의체 판례 가운데 헌법과 관련된 중요 판례도 간략하게 분석한다. 헌법재표안는 이미 1997년에 재판소원을 금지하고 있는 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항이 원칙적으로 헌법에 위반되지 아니하지만, “법원이 헌법재판소가 위헌으로 결정한 법률을 적용함으로써 국민의 기본권을 침해한 경우에도, 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항이 법원의 재판에 대한 헌법소원이 허용되지 않는 것으로 해석한다면 그러한 한도내에서 헌법에 위반된다”고 결정하였고 이런 견해를 다시 확인하였다. 1997년 처음 재판취소결정을 내린 후, 2022. 6. 30. 헌법재판소는 두 번 째로 법원의 재판을 취소하는 결정을 내렸다. 한정위헌결정의 기속력을 둘러싼 법원과 헌재 사이의 갈등이 근본적으로 해결되기 위해서는 입법을 통해 변형결정의 구속력을 명시적으로 인정해야 할 필요가 있다. 2022년 헌법재판소의 결정 가운데 가장 많은 위헌결정이 내려진 법률이 정치적 표현의 자유를 과도하게 제한하고 있는 공직선거법이다. 헌법재판소는 ‘개별적으로 대면하여 말로 지지를 호소하는 선거운동’의 금지, 시설물설치 금지, 집회개최 금지 및 문서·도화게시 등 금지 등은 과도하게 정치적 표현의 자유를 침해하였다는 이유로 위헌 내지 헌법불합치 결정을 내렸다. 대법원은 때때로 헌법재판소보다 더 기본권 친화적인 판결을 내리기도 하였다. 가령 대법원은 선례를 변경하여 1975년 긴급조치 9호에 따라 구속된 피해자들에 대해 국가의 배상책임이 인정된다고 판단했다. 또한 대법원은, 선례와 헌법재표바 결정과 달리, ‘일방의 의사에 반해 성적 자기결정권을 침해하거나, 군기를 직접적·구체적으로 침해하는 다른 사정이 있는 경우’에만 동성 군인 간 성관계를 처벌할 수 있다고 판시했다.

영문 초록

The Constitutional Court received a total of 2,829 cases in 2022 alone. Among the decisions made by the Constitutional Court in 2022, this paper reviews major decisions centered on unconstitutionality (including decisions on modification, such as decisions on inconsistency) or decisions confirming the constitutionality, but also briefly introduces important precedents related to the constitution among Supreme Court precedents. The Constitutional Court already decided in 1997 that Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, which prohibits a constitutional complaint against trial, does not violate the Constitution in principle. However, the Constitutional Court held that “Even when the court violates the people's fundamental rights by applying a law that the Constitutional Court has determined to be unconstitutional, if Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act is interpreted as not allowing a constitutional complaint against trial, it is unconstitutional to that extent” and has continued to maintain this decision. Although Article 68 Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, which had already prohibited the constitutional complaint in 1997, does not violate the Constitution in principle, the Constitutional Court said, “If the court decides that the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional, it loses its effect in whole or in part, or is unconstitutional. If it is interpreted as not allowing a constitutional complaint against a court decision even if the basic rights of the people are violated by applying the law confirmed as has been maintained. In the above case, the Constitutional Court revoked the Supreme Court decision that applied the 'statutory provision that had already partially lost its effect by declaring the limited unconstitutional decision', and cited the original administrative disposition request for constitutional complaint as an exception. After making the first decision to cancel the trial in 1997, on 30. 6. 2022. the Constitutional Court made a second decision to cancel the trial. In order to fundamentally resolve the conflict between the court and the Constitutional Court over the binding force of the limited unconstitutional decision, it is necessary to explicitly recognize the binding force of the modified decision through legislation. Among the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2022, the law with the most unconstitutional decisions is the Public Official Election Act, which excessively restricts freedom of political expression. The Constitutional Court ruled that the prohibition of 'election campaigns in which individual face-to-face and verbal appeals for support', the prohibition of installation of facilities, the prohibition of holding assemblies and the prohibition of posting documents and drawings were unconstitutional or constitutional inconsistent on the grounds that they excessively violated the freedom of political expression. The Supreme Court sometimes made decisions that were more friendly to basic rights than the Constitutional Court. For example, the Supreme Court changed the precedent and determined that the state's responsibility for compensation was recognized for victims arrested under Emergency Measures No. 9 in 1975. In addition, unlike the precedents and decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual intercourse between soldiers of the same sex can be punished only when “there is another circumstance that violates the right to sexual self-determination against the will of one party or directly and specifically violates military discipline”

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론

Ⅱ. 국가기관론

Ⅲ. 기본권론

Ⅳ. 결 론

키워드

헌법재판소 위헌결정 위헌확인결정 헌법불합치결정 공직선거법 Constitutional Court Unconstitutionality decision Unconstitutionality confirmation decision constitutional inconsistency decision public official election law