사생활의 비밀과 자유의 보호영역에 관한 연구 - 헌재결, 2003.10.30, 2002헌마518, 도로교통법 제118조 위헌확인사건을 중심으로 - = A Study on the Zone of Protecting the Freedom of Privacy - Focusing on Mandatory Seatbelt Requirement (15-2(B) KCCR 185, 2002Hun-Ma518, Octorber 30, 2003) -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is to the Zone of Protecting the Freedom of Privacy in Article 17 “The privacy of no citizen shall be infringed.” of Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Reserch method is the analysis of Constitutional Court of Korean's decision on privacy invasion by mandatory seatbelt requirement in 2003. The background of case is the provision 48 of the Road Traffic Act obligates drivers of vehicles to wear seatbelts while driving and the provision 118 of the Road Traffic Act provides for a notification procedure for the payment of administrative fine for violations above provision 48. The
complainant was cited by a police officer and notified to pay administrative fine in the amount of 30,000 won while driving without wearing a seatbelt. The complaint thereupon filed a constitutional complaint in this case on the ground that the provision 48 and 118 of the Road Traffic Act infringe upon the general freedom to act, the freedom of privacy, and the freedom of conscience of the complainant.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the provisions at issue in this case are not unconstitutional. (1) General freedom to act includes the freedom to conduct all actions and inactions and does not merely protect conduct that has value. Therefore, in the scope of its protection, a right to live in a rather dangerous way is also included, and the right not to wear seatbelts falls within the scope of protection of general freedom to act that sterms from the right to pursue happiness guraranteed in Article 10 of the Constitution. Mandating a seatbelt requirement is to protect the mutual interests of the social community by preventing and removing the danger and the hidrance to the life and bodily safety of citizens that may be caused by traffic accidents, by reducing the social cost incurred by the traffic accident and by maintaining traffic orders. Then, the provisions at issue in this case do not excessively infringe upon the compalinant's general freedom to act in violation of the principle of proportionality. (2) The road utilized for general traffic falls into the realm where the national and local governments are responsible for management threof, and such realm is interrelated to the legal interests of numerous other drivers and pederstrians or the community interests. Thus, the act of driving a vehicle thereon is no longer a conduct that occurs in a personal and intimate arena. Therefore, as the question of wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving is no longer a question belong to the zone of privacy, the provisoin at issue in this case do not infringe upon and the freedom of proiavcy of the complainant. (3) Conscience that is protected by the Constituion is a strong and sincere voice of one's mind without acting according to which one's existential value of personality would collapse and is not a vague and absract concept. Therefore, wearing a seatbelt in order to avoid a sanction while driving does not belong to the area protected by the freedom of conscience
This paper concentrates on the provision 48 and 118 of the Road Traffic Act infringe upon the freedom of privacy. As the standard of judgement on the Zone of Protecting the Freedom of Privacy, First, a conduct that occurs in a personal and intimate arena. Second, the basic conditions for privacy concerning overall personality and survival of such individual. Third, to the core area for self-determination or the essence of personality. Therefore, as the question of wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving is no longer a question belonging to the zone of privacy, the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act at issue in this case do not infringe upon and the freedom of privacy of the complainant.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is to the Zone of Protecting the Freedom of Privacy in Article 17 “The privacy of no citizen shall be infringed.” of Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Reserch method is the analysis of Constitutional Court of Korean's decision on privacy invasion by mandatory seatbelt requirement in 2003. The background of case is the provision 48 of the Road Traffic Act obligates drivers of vehicles to wear seatbelts while driving and the provision 118 of the Road Traffic Act provides for a notification procedure for the payment of administrative fine for violations above provision 48. The
complainant was cited by a police officer and notified to pay administrative fine in the amount of 30,000 won while driving without wearing a seatbelt. The complaint thereupon filed a constitutional complaint in this case on the ground that the provision 48 and 118 of the Road Traffic Act infringe upon the general freedom to act, the freedom of privacy, and the freedom of conscience of the complainant.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the provisions at issue in this case are not unconstitutional. (1) General freedom to act includes the freedom to conduct all actions and inactions and does not merely protect conduct that has value. Therefore, in the scope of its protection, a right to live in a rather dangerous way is also included, and the right not to wear seatbelts falls within the scope of protection of general freedom to act that sterms from the right to pursue happiness guraranteed in Article 10 of the Constitution. Mandating a seatbelt requirement is to protect the mutual interests of the social community by preventing and removing the danger and the hidrance to the life and bodily safety of citizens that may be caused by traffic accidents, by reducing the social cost incurred by the traffic accident and by maintaining traffic orders. Then, the provisions at issue in this case do not excessively infringe upon the compalinant's general freedom to act in violation of the principle of proportionality. (2) The road utilized for general traffic falls into the realm where the national and local governments are responsible for management threof, and such realm is interrelated to the legal interests of numerous other drivers and pederstrians or the community interests. Thus, the act of driving a vehicle thereon is no longer a conduct that occurs in a personal and intimate arena. Therefore, as the question of wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving is no longer a question belong to the zone of privacy, the provisoin at issue in this case do not infringe upon and the freedom of proiavcy of the complainant. (3) Conscience that is protected by the Constituion is a strong and sincere voice of one's mind without acting according to which one's existential value of personality would collapse and is not a vague and absract concept. Therefore, wearing a seatbelt in order to avoid a sanction while driving does not belong to the area protected by the freedom of conscience
This paper concentrates on the provision 48 and 118 of the Road Traffic Act infringe upon the freedom of privacy. As the standard of judgement on the Zone of Protecting the Freedom of Privacy, First, a conduct that occurs in a personal and intimate arena. Second, the basic conditions for privacy concerning overall personality and survival of such individual. Third, to the core area for self-determination or the essence of personality. Therefore, as the question of wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving is no longer a question belonging to the zone of privacy, the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act at issue in this case do not infringe upon and the freedom of privacy of the complainant.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2007

2 이준일, "헌법학강의" 홍문사 2007

3 홍성방, "헌법학" 현암사

4 장영수, "헌법학" 홍문사 2007

5 성낙인, "헌법학" 법문사 2008

6 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2008

7 이인호, "한국 정보법의 발전동향 ― 정보공개법과 개인정보보호법을 중심으로 ―" 한국공법학회 35 (35): 177-211, 2007

8 손희권, "중ㆍ고등학생 두발 규제의 헌법적 검토" 한국교육행정학회 23 (23): 233-254, 2005

9 변재옥, "정보화사회의 프라이버시와 표현의 자유" 커뮤니케이션북스 1999

10 서계원, "정보프라이버시와 개인정보의 보호 - 개인정보보호기본법안을 중심으로" 국제헌법학회 한국학회 11 (11): 2005

11 심우민, "정보사회 법적규제의 진화" 한국학술정보(주) 2008

12 David Lyon, "전자감시사회(The Electronic Eye), 하이테크정보"

13 Daniel J. Solove, "인터넷세상과 평판의 미래, 비즈니스맵"

14 김명식, "성적 자기결정권의 헌법적 근거에 대한 재고찰" 법학연구소 15 (15): 21-44, 2003

15 강태수, "성범죄자의 신상공개제도에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 한국비교공법학회 7 (7): 131-162, 2006

16 박익환, "사이버공간에서의 프라이버시권의 보호" 국제헌법학회 한국학회 11 (11): 2005

17 성선제, "사이버공간과 사생활 보호" 정보통신정책연구원 2004

18 한상희, "사생활의 권리 : 생활정치를 위한 비판적 수사-낙태사건을 중심으로" 한국공법학회 26 (26): 1998

19 박경신, "명예, 초상, 프라이버시 그리고 표현의 자유에 관한 비교법적 분석-한국, 미국, 독일, 프랑스" 박영사 2004

20 진경준, "금융 프라이버시권에 관한 연구- 자금세탁방지제도를 중심으로" 서울대학교 2004

21 황인호, "개인정보보호제도의 규제에 관한 연구" 건국대학교 2001

22 권건보, "개인정보보호와 자기정보통제권" 경인문화사 2005

23 김일환, "性的 自己決定權의 憲法上 導出根據에 관한 批判的 檢討" 한국헌법학회 12 (12): 107-140, 2006

24 권헌영, "個人情報權의 憲法的 受容- 헌법재판소 결정 분석을 중심으로 -" 한국토지공법학회 35 : 315-333, 2007

25 박문석, "“인터넷에서의 길거리사진서비스와 사생활침해의 문제”, 유럽헌법연구(제3호)"

26 Richard C., "Turkington?Anita L. Allen, Privacy Law: cases and materials, West Group"

27 Amitai Etzioni, "The Limits of Privacy" Basic Books 1999

28 S. Shapiro, "Places and Spaces: The Historical Interaction of Technology, Home, and Privacy" The Information Society 1998

29 Ken Gormley, ""One Hundred Years of Privacy", 1992 Wis.L.Rev, 1335, 1992"