법률에 의해 구체화되는 기본권의 심사기준과 심사강도－ 헌법 제25조의 공무담임권을 중심으로- (Standards and Intensity of Constitutional Review over Restrictions of Constitutional Rights Which Can Be Concertized through Legislation － in the Case of the Rights to Take Office of Constitutional La)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 전북대학교 부설법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 43권 / 127 ~ 159페이지
· 저자명 : 손상식

초록

자백배제법칙의 이론적 근거를 위법배제에서 찾는 다수의 학자들은 자백배제법칙과 위법수집증거배제법칙이 통합되었다는 입장에서 자백배제법칙은 위법수집증거배제법칙의 ‘특칙’ 또는 ‘강화된 실정법’ 규정이므로 진술거부권을 고지하지 않고 얻어낸 자백은 형사소송법 제309조에 의해서 증거능력이 배제된다고 설명한다. 이들은 “진술거부권의 고지라는 형식적 기준에 의해서 진술의 임의성이 영향을 받는 것이 아님”을 인정하면서도, 그 결과물이 ‘자백’인 이상 제309조의 “임의로 진술한 것이 아니라고 의심할 만한 이유가 있는 때”에 해당한다고 해석한다. 이러한 해석은 판례에 의해서만 제한적으로 인정되던 위법수집증거배제법칙의 한계를 제309조의 명문규정을 통해 타개하려는 현실적인 목표를 지니고 있었다.
그러나 입법 시기, 입법자의 의도, 미국 연방대법원이 주도한 형사절차 혁명과의 시차, 우리 대법원의 판례 발전 과정, 제308조의 2에 의한 위법수집증거배제법칙의 명문화 등을 생각할 때, 형사소송법 제309조를 굳이 “널리 자백 취득의 과정에 있어서 적법절차에 위반하여 획득한 증거를 금지하는 실천적인 증거법상의 원칙”으로 무리하게 범위를 넓혀 해석할 이유는 없다. 위법배제설이 제309조의 “임의로 진술한 것이 아니라고 의심할 만한 이유가 있는 때”가 위법하게 획득한 모든 자백에 적용된다고 해석한 것은 근본적으로 위법수집증거배제법칙의 불확실성을 제거하기 위함이었다. 하지만 2007년에 위법수집증거배제법칙이 형사소송법에 명문화됨으로써 이와 같은 불확실성은 제거되었다. 위법하게 획득된 자백이라고 해서 획일적으로 증거능력이 배제되는 것도 아니어서 절차적 위법이 임의성보다 반드시 더 명백하고 객관적인 기준이라고 볼 수도 없다. 따라서 임의성은 존재하나 진술거부권이 고지되지 않은 상태에서 얻어낸 자백은 제309조 ‘강제 등에 의한 자백의 배제법칙’이 아니라 제308조의 2 위법수집증거배제법칙에 의해 증거능력이 배제된다고 해석하는 것이 타당하다.

영어초록

The standards of review must be chosen after identifying issues and characters related to contents of specific constitutional rights. Especially, one needs to articulate the characters of constitutional rights; whether a certain right can be involved in a negative and defensive function (protective rights) to protect the holders against the state interferences or to allow holders to ask for substantive benefits (rights to social benefits).
As such, if the relevant rights are categorized as protective rights, the judicial review must apply the principle of prohibition of over-restriction; otherwise, it must apply the principle of prohibition of under-protection. And the reviews of equal rights must be involved in the principle of prohibition of arbitrary exercise or the principle of proportionality. In this context, the characters of right to take the office can be analysed in the following way. The rights to be elected and the rights to assume the office are categorized as the equal rights, and the rights not to be discharged without justified reasons and the rights are considered to be within the category of the protective rights. Therefore, the standards of review must be in accordance with the principle of proportionality or the principle of prohibition of overrestriction. But, it is not reasonable that only those principles can be applicable to this case. Since the restriction of constitutional rights should not empty their contents, concrete principles drawn on objective value orders, for example, the rights to be elected on equal and general footings and the principle of merit system can be understood as the important standards of the constitutional review.
Gradualization in intensity of constitutional review matters in the phase of review over a resonable relation between end and means and necessity of right restriction. But, the constitutional court considers the review of a reasonable relation between end and means as a principle of ‘void for vagueness’, so that the gradualization in the intensity of constitutional review is more important in the course of reviewing the necessity of right restriction. The court must consider whether plausible alternatives are available in reviewing the necessity of right restriction; in this case, the intensity of review depends on at what level and on what grounds those alternatives are articulated in the course of reviewing whether there is less restrictive measures to achieve the purpose of legislation.
The rights to become a candidate and the rights to be elected on equal footings and the rights to take office equally do not allow the legislature to have broad delegation due to special features such as the framework of reservation of laws and realization of the public interests in the sense that those are aimed for equal protection. In this case, the normativity control can be made not only in the context of quantity in a strict sense but also in the sense of quality. In addition, the review can be stricter because the rights for the public officials not to be discharged without justified reasons are more important than the rights for the public officials not to be suspended without justified reasons. However, in the case of the rights for the public officials not to be deprived of their status, highly intensitive controls are required because the loss of status is involved in serious encroachments of legal interests. On the other hand, in the case of the rights for the public officials not to be discharged without justified reasons, more generous controls in the perspective of persuasiveness of right restrictions are required. But, although the intensity of review can be gradualized according to contents of subjective rights in specific cases, such gradualized standards can be applied flexibly according to the degree of regulation effects.

참고자료

· 없음