수형자의 선거권 제한(공직선거법 제18조 제1항 제2호)의 합헌성 여부에 대한 검토 (Review under constitutionality of restriction under voting right of prisoner)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 고려대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 고려법학 / 54호 / 65 ~ 85페이지
· 저자명 : 장영수

초록

The petitioner of constitutional complaint at the case 2007Hun-Ma1462 who was prosecuted because he declared “conscientious objection to the military service” as a responisible person enrolling millitary service, was sent to Young-Deung-Po jail in November, 23, 2006 after being sentenced to one and a half year imprisonment by Seoul Western District Court due to the crimes against military service law.
The petitioner who tried to exercise his ballot at the 17th presidential election in Dec. 19, 2007, was not able to do so because he was conformed to the person who is under execution of sentence above confinement at the basic date of election day according to the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act. So, the petitioner claimed the Constitutional Complaint in Dec. 27, 2007, asserting that the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act is unconstitutional because it infringes the right to vote (Article 24 of Constitution), the right to pursue the happiness(Article 10 of Constitution) and the right of eqaulity(Article 11 of Constitution).
The main topics of this case is whether this clause (Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act) is constitutional or not and the Constitutional Court has already decided that it is constitutional through the decision of 2002 Hun-Ma 411 in March, 25, 2004. However the Constitutional Court acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the Public Officials Election Act restricting the suffrage of Koreans abroad. Through this case we can see more strict standard than the past. So it is the main topic of this case whether the precedent can be reversed.
Although the petitioner claimed that the clause infringed the right to vote (Article 24 of Constitution), the right to pursue the happiness (Article 10 of Constitution) and the right of eqaulity(Article 11 of Constitution), we can hardly see the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act as unconstitutional because the meaning and limit of the voting right and the possibilities of restricting the fundamental rights of the convicted according to one's legal position, especially one's voting right.
It is true that the suffrage of prisoners is restricted by the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act, however it does not break the justifiable boundaries of restriction because it is based on the justifiable purpose of legislation and the proportionality rule(Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip) is abided by. The same goes for the restriction of the right to pursue the happiness(Article 10 of Constitution), and the claims that it infringes the right of equality cannot get persuasion powers because the discrimination between prisoner and (general) people is rational.
If we go back to the fundamental problem and regard the matter of restricting the voting right of prisoners as cannot be dealt with the legislator, this conclusion may be hard to agree with. However, we cannot say that it goes out of the boundaries of legislators' authority (legislative power) at this point in time, judging it comprehensively according to the previous review of legal theory and the investigation of foreign legislation from the viewpoint of comparative law.

영어초록

The petitioner of constitutional complaint at the case 2007Hun-Ma1462 who was prosecuted because he declared “conscientious objection to the military service” as a responisible person enrolling millitary service, was sent to Young-Deung-Po jail in November, 23, 2006 after being sentenced to one and a half year imprisonment by Seoul Western District Court due to the crimes against military service law.
The petitioner who tried to exercise his ballot at the 17th presidential election in Dec. 19, 2007, was not able to do so because he was conformed to the person who is under execution of sentence above confinement at the basic date of election day according to the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act. So, the petitioner claimed the Constitutional Complaint in Dec. 27, 2007, asserting that the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act is unconstitutional because it infringes the right to vote (Article 24 of Constitution), the right to pursue the happiness(Article 10 of Constitution) and the right of eqaulity(Article 11 of Constitution).
The main topics of this case is whether this clause (Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act) is constitutional or not and the Constitutional Court has already decided that it is constitutional through the decision of 2002 Hun-Ma 411 in March, 25, 2004. However the Constitutional Court acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the Public Officials Election Act restricting the suffrage of Koreans abroad. Through this case we can see more strict standard than the past. So it is the main topic of this case whether the precedent can be reversed.
Although the petitioner claimed that the clause infringed the right to vote (Article 24 of Constitution), the right to pursue the happiness (Article 10 of Constitution) and the right of eqaulity(Article 11 of Constitution), we can hardly see the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act as unconstitutional because the meaning and limit of the voting right and the possibilities of restricting the fundamental rights of the convicted according to one's legal position, especially one's voting right.
It is true that the suffrage of prisoners is restricted by the Section 1(2), Article 18 of Public Officials Election Act, however it does not break the justifiable boundaries of restriction because it is based on the justifiable purpose of legislation and the proportionality rule(Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip) is abided by. The same goes for the restriction of the right to pursue the happiness(Article 10 of Constitution), and the claims that it infringes the right of equality cannot get persuasion powers because the discrimination between prisoner and (general) people is rational.
If we go back to the fundamental problem and regard the matter of restricting the voting right of prisoners as cannot be dealt with the legislator, this conclusion may be hard to agree with. However, we cannot say that it goes out of the boundaries of legislators' authority (legislative power) at this point in time, judging it comprehensively according to the previous review of legal theory and the investigation of foreign legislation from the viewpoint of comparative law.

참고자료

· 없음