간통죄의 존폐론에 관한 헌법적 고찰 = Constitutional Study on the Debate of Maintenance or Abolition of Adultery

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Constitutional Court has ruled four times that punishment for adultery is constitutional. From first to third ruling, the Constitutional Court took Article 10 of constitutional law as constitutional base of sexual self-determination, but at the forth ruling, its constitutional base was both Articles 10 and 17 of constitutional law. However, Article 17 of constitutional law seems to be appropriate for the constitutional base of sexual self-determination. It is because sexual behavior and rights to determine his or her sex partner must be protected by the code of freedom and privacy of personal life. When the Constitutional Court carries out constitutional review by taking all the legal effects into account, a common base for adultery is sexual self-determination. In other words, the Constitutional Court has ruled as well: (1) the first clause of Article 36 of constitutional law is a constitutional guarantee as a constitutional principle as well as civil liberty-oriented basic human rights; (2) the first clause of Article 11 of constitutional law presupposes sexual self-determination via its content of equality; and the principle of excess prohibition in the second clause of Article 37 of constitutional law which includes the principle of proportionality between obligation and penalty is about the limit of basic human right restriction for sexual self-determination. Therefore, constitutional review of adultery is to rule whether the restriction of sexual self-determination is legitimate constitutionally or not. As the standard of constitutional review for adultery, the Constitutional Court applied the principle of excess prohibition in the second clause of Article 37 of constitutional law, and decided it is difficult to admit the excess prohibition of individual`s sexual self-determination via its viewpoint of constitutionality. Regarding the common good achieved, the Constitutional Court decided that it is possible to admit its crucial common good as well as balance of legal interests, in that it protects good sexual morality and guarantees marriage and family systems. However, since the regal reality on sexual self-determination has changed, national interference in individual`s sexual behavior and sexual duty of good faith can be infringement of freedom and privacy of personal life. Next, some argues that punishment for adultery must be maintained for the benefit and protection of adultery, and punishment for adultery can protect women, but punishment for adultery must be abolished by following reasons: First, punishment for adultery does not protect marital relationship and monogamy, namely the benefit and protection of the law, only irreparably damages marital relationship in the course of criminal penalty for adultery and causes pains to all the family members, thus dismantling family and leaving an inerasable scar on them. Second, punishment for adultery is severer for women than for men. Men who are relatively stronger economically can have the ability to pay enough alimony and therefore be exempted from punishment for adultery, but women who are economically weaker cannot but be punished. In addition, women can suffer from both penalty and social criticism. As a result, it is doubt whether punishment for adultery is for women or not. Third, the reality that statutory punishment is limited in a prison sentence makes difficult to operate the law appropriately, restricts judge`s discretionary power for the determination of punishment, and allows the government to forcibly execute individual`s sexual duty of good faith, even using penalty. This cannot but be excessive national interference in individual`s marital life. Domestic perception of sex and love for the present is that the government must not interfere in individual`s sexual life through laws, and an important constitutional right is not the unconditional maintenance of family but individual`s sexual self-determination. Above all, the self-regulation of marriag

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조국, "형사법의 성편향" 박영사 2004

2 박찬걸, "형법총론 쟁점연구1" 한국학술정보 2012

3 김성천, "형법각론" 소진 2012

4 한수웅, "헌법학" 법문사 2011

5 이경열, "피고인과의 재혼과 간통고소의 효력" 법학연구소 22 (22): 267-294, 2010

6 이용식, "판례를 통해서 본 성(性)에 대한 법인식의 변화 - 혼인빙자간음죄·강간죄·간통죄를 중심으로 -" 한국형사법학회 21 (21): 295-314, 2009

7 권형준, "자기결정권에 관한 헌법재판소의 판례분석" 17 : 2000

8 김주현, "자기결정권과 그 제한" 7 : 1996

9 이준일, "인권법 : 사회적 이슈와 인권" 홍문사 2012

10 정현백, "여성사 다시쓰기" 당대 2007

11 이효원, "성적 자기결정권에 대한 헌법재판소의 결정 분석" 대검찰청 (34) : 322-350, 2012

12 김경제, "간통처벌규정에 대한 합헌결정이 가지는 헌법적 문제점" 한국헌법학회 15 (15): 121-152, 2009

13 조현욱, "간통죄폐지에 관한 소고" 한남대학교 사회과학연구소 17 : 2008

14 원혜욱, "간통죄의 입법적 검토" 2 (2): 2010

15 허일태, "간통죄의 위헌성" 한국법학원 (104) : 118-135, 2008

16 정계선, "간통죄와 혼인빙자간음죄 관련 헌법소원사건 등에 대한 헌법재판소의 입장 –판례를 중심으로" 2010

17 이희훈, "간통죄와 강간죄에 대한 헌법적 고찰 - 성적 자기결정권의 침해를 중심으로 -" 중앙법학회 13 (13): 55-88, 2011

18 최봉철, "간통죄에 대한 헌법재판소 결정의 다수의견에 대한 검토" 법학연구소 8 (8): 95-117, 2007

19 고시면, "간통죄(형법 제241조)의 위헌여부에 관한 2008년 제4차 헌재의 합헌결정 [간통죄Ⅳ]"

20 박찬걸, "간통죄 폐지의 정당성에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 45 (45): 41-69, 2010

21 정춘숙, "간통죄 폐지와 섹슈얼리티" 2010

22 양현아, "가지않는 길 법여성학을 향하여" 공익과 인권 2004

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