집시법의 탈형사화 (Decriminalization of Assembly and Demonstration Act of Korea)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 연세대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 20권 / 2호 / 1 ~ 28페이지
· 저자명 : 심희기

초록

이 글에서 탐구하고자 하는 것은 모종의 절묘한 절차를 고안하여 과잉진압의사례와 과격폭력시위의 사례를 동시에 획기적으로 감소시키고 집회와 시위를빌미로 시위자에게 형사처벌의 칼날을 들이대는 사태를 최소화시킬 수 있는 법기술이 있을 수 있는가 하는 고도의 형사정책적 질문이다.
이런 문제의식에서 필자는 Ⅱ에서 ‘평화적인 집회ㆍ시위의 사례를 늘리면서동시에 불법ㆍ폭력 집회ㆍ시위를 획기적으로 줄일 수 있는 모범적 사례’로 1조법을 발굴하여 소개하였다. Ⅲ에서는 최근의 집시법 일부ㆍ전부개정법률안에대한 개략적 검토를 하였다. 2008년부터 2009년 사이에 국회 행정안전위원회에제출된 집시법 일부ㆍ전부개정법률안(이하 ‘개정안’으로 약칭함) 중 3개의 개정안들은 집시법의 ‘탈형사화’를 지향하고 있는 반면에 7개의 개정안들은 집시법의 ‘형사화 심화’를 지향하고 있다. Ⅳ, Ⅴ에서는 ‘탈형사화’를 지향하고 있는 개정안들과 ‘형사화 심화’를 지향하고 있는 개정안들의 문제의식과 그 내용을 검토하였다. 결론(Ⅵ)에서 필자는 1조법의 벤치마킹(한국적 변용) 가능성을 검토한다.
요컨대 2010년대의 한국의 법원은 ‘1조법의 황금분할구상’을 채택하여도 좋을만큼의 성숙한 법해석을 하고 있으며 한국의 시민들도 평화적이고 적법한 시위의 의사와 능력을 보여주고 있으므로 1조법의 벤치마킹(한국적 변용)을 적극적으로 검토할 필요가 있다.

영어초록

Under ‘the Assembly and Demonstration Act of Korea’(ADAK), to demonstrate,parade, or make a speech in public, individuals and organizations must obtain a permit from government officials well in advance. In fact, even where permits are not required assemblies may be dispersed for actual and anticipated obstructions of traffic, including pedestrian traffic. Most deplorable thing in Korea is the fact that ADAK can be characterized as over criminalization.
This essay quests about whether there could be means to secure the right to assembly and demonstrate at the same time to secure public order and national security. Given the persistence and seeming intractability of police misconduct, Korean people are entitled to be skeptical of all models to control it. The simple truth is that no one approach is sufficient, and all have advantages and disadvantages.
However, the 2003 investigation of the Metropolitan Police Department by the Judiciary Committee of the City Council of the District of Columbia,and the report and legislation that resulted from it, illustrated that it can be possible.
From this perspective, I introduced the investigation in Part Ⅱ. The investigation focused on how the police handled (or mishandled) anti-globalization demonstrations held in Washington, D.C. from 2000-2003, and how that inquiry led, ultimately, to the drafting of model legislation, “The First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004” which became law in 2005. It exposed bad practices and shortcomings and restored a proper balance between law enforcement and liberty. Overall, the effort was a remarkable affirmation that good police practices and freedom of expression are not antithetical.
In part Ⅲ, I critically examine various parliamentary reform bills and discuss the possibility whether Koreans can benchmark “The First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004”. Various parliamentary reform bills were strengthening criminalization or Decriminalization.
In part Ⅳ, I conclude that benchmarking of “The First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004” could be possible from the perspective of recent highly developed democratic and constitutional consciousness of Korean people.
The nineteenth-century right of western hemisphere was one of assembly without needing to ask permission and of going forth without restriction unless and until one breached the one condition of access, namely that one be peaceable. Today, by contrast, western citizens have a right to assemble on the streets, so long as they obtain permission from officials (if that is required), abide by the terms of the permit issued, and are peaceable. Moreover, the definition of peaceable has been narrowed: An assembly may be dispersed for actually or potentially obstructing traffic (including pedestrian traffic), even where no permit is required.
Essentially, this Article argues that the right of assembly should not be collapsed into the right of free expression. It should not be forgotten that when Madison first proposed the bill of rights amendments in 1789 in America, he separated the collective rights of assembly and petition from those of speech and press. The right of assembly protects collective action-political and social. It protects the people and their aspirations for collective public deliberation on issues of public importance. It protects “the right of the people” to have “a public demonstration or parade to influence public opinion and impress their strength upon the public mind,and to march upon the public streets of the cities.”

참고자료

· 없음