형법 제20조 사회상규의 적용범위: 정치영역에서의 한계사례를 중심으로 (The Application of Social Rule in Article 20 of the Criminal Law – focused on Boundary Cases in the Political Sphere)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국비교형사법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비교형사법연구 / 17권 / 1호 / 131 ~ 158페이지
· 저자명 : 최민영

초록

본 논문에서는 사회상규 개념의 불명확성에도 불구하고, 사회상규 규정을 형법에서 존치되어야 할 규범으로 보았다. 사회상규 규정이 초래하는 여러 가지 역기능만큼, 순기능 또한 무시할 수 없기 때문이다. 더욱이 복수의 문화개념이 등장하는 현 시점에서 사회상규는 우리의 문화적 가치와 규범을 보호하기 위한 새로운 위법성조각사유로서 그 역할을 할 수 있다고 본다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 사회상규 규정을 적용하는 데에는 신중할 필요가 있다. 따라서 사회상규는 구성요건 해당성 단계에서 판단해야 할 사회적 상당성과는 구별되어야 하고, 다른 개별적인 위법성조각사유들을 적용한 이후에 보충적으로만 적용하고, 위법성을 인정하기보다는 위법성을 조각하는 범위로만 한정하여 인용되어야 한다. 이러한 관점에서 사회상규 규정의 적용 여부 자체가 문제되는 경계사례로서 대표적인 시민운동 판결들을 살펴보았다. 일반적으로 시민운동 관련 판결들은 법익침해의 정도가 비교적 크고, 관련자들 간의 대립을 전제로 하는 정치적 행위에 속하기 때문에 법문화 규범으로서 사회상규 규정을 적용할 수 있는지 여부가 문제될 수 있는 사안들이다. 하지만, 자유민주주의의 가치를 승인하는 헌법상의 기본권들이 사회상규 규정을 통해 유입될 수 있는 점, 변화하는 시대상황에서 구체적인 타당성을 지닌 법문화적 가치가 사회상규 규정을 통해 승인될 수 있다는 점 등을 고려하면, 시민운동 관련 사례들도 “사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위”로 보아 그 위법성이 배제될 수 있다.

영어초록

In spite of the ambiguity of the concept of ‘social rule’, the provision of social rule under Korean Criminal Law is regarded as a norm to be upheld in the paper. This is because the benefits of the provision of social rule cannot be overlooked although it has drawbacks as well. In addition, social rule can play a role in protecting cultural norms and values as a justification in the current society where pluralistic cultural values emerge. We, however, should have a thorough consideration when applying the provisions to specific cases for the following reasons: social rule needs to be distinguished from social reasonability which should be considered at the stage of addressing Tatbestand; it should be applied only to complement other individual justifications which should be first applied, and; its application should be limited to excluding the illegality of an act rather than acknowledging the illegality.
From this perspective, the judgments of the representative cases of civil movement which are highly controversial over the applicability of the provisions of social rule are discussed here in the paper. Generally, the court judgments of civil movement cases are controversial, because the degree of infringement of the cases on legally protected benefits is relatively serious and civil movement itself is a political act based on conflicting interests between different parties involved, thus raising an issue of the applicability of the provisions of social rule as a legal-cultural norm. However, the illegality of the cases regarding civil movement can be excluded for the reason that it is “an act which does not violate social rule”, in consideration of the fact that the fundamental constitutional rights which acknowledge the liberal democratic value can be ingrained by the provisions of social rule, and that legal-cultural values with a specific relevance to the changing social context can also be acknowledged by the social rule provisions.
There are, of course, some cases which are not appropriate to be subject to the exclusion of the illegality of their act: anti-campaign against a candidate for an election, consumers’ boycott campaign against a product, and candlelight protest in which individual or collective violence is exhibited, and; civil movement which has no purpose for the benefits of the public but simply for a group’s interests. However, even if the illegality of the aforementioned acts is recognised, provisions under the criminal law other than those of social rule should be applied to these cases.
When applying the provision of social rule to a specific case, we need a thorough consideration. The provisions should be applied only to exclude the illegality of an act rather than to acknowledge the illegality conclusively. If the provision of social rule is applied in this way, the provisions of the fundamental constitutional rights can be strictly and precisely considered and it can also perform a role to draw a legislative decision on a controversial issue during the process of interpretations on criminal norms. As the cases of candlelight protest show, the provision of social rule has just established but it can still function as preventing the provisions under the criminal law from prejudging a collective act which can be possibly established as a part of civil culture in a democratic country.

참고자료

· 없음