특이 민원(악성민원)의 위법행위와 공무방해행위 개념에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 행정안전부 「민원인의 위법행위 대응지침」을 중심으로 - = A Critical Review of the Concepts of “Illegal Acts” and “Obstruction of Public Duties” in Abusive Complaints(Malicious Complaints): Focusing on the Ministry of the Interior and Safety’s 「Guidelines for Responding to Illegal Acts by Petitioners」

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In May 2024, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) established comprehensive measures to eradicate illegal acts by petitioners and protect civil service officers, based on a pan-governmental task force. In its "Guidelines for Responding to Illegal Acts by Petitioners," MOIS defines "Abusive Complaints" as (1) illegal acts such as verbal or physical assault and (2) complaints accompanied by the obstruction of public duties (e.g., repetitive complaints without justifiable grounds). However, this binary definition presents several conceptual and legal inconsistencies.
First, the "illegal acts" defined by the MOIS guidelines are, in fact, closer to criminal or tortious conduct. The guidelines categorize these as "illegal complaints" (involving violence, stalking, or doxing) and "unreasonable complaints" (involving repetitive or stalling tactics). Since the prescribed response to the former is "police reporting," it is more conceptually precise to limit these acts to "criminal acts" or "tortious conduct" by petitioners.
Second, there is a significant conceptual overlap between "obstruction of public duties" and "illegal acts." Obstruction is defined as "causing disruption or creating a risk of disruption to public affairs." Given that any illegal act by a petitioner inherently poses such a risk, the concept of illegal acts already subsumes obstruction. Current guidelines fail to provide a clear rationale for maintaining this distinction.
Third, the current definition conflates the "cause" of abusive complaints with their "result." In practice, a petitioner's illegal conduct (cause) leads to the obstruction of public duties (result). Categorizing these as two separate types of complaints places the cause and effect on the same level, leading to conceptual confusion.
Precise conceptualization and accurate terminology are essential not only for academic research but also for the amendment of the Administrative Procedures Act and the establishment of systematic anti-abuse measures. By analyzing the various definitions identified by different agencies, this study aims to redefine the concept of "Abusive Complaints" by proposing a more rigorous and structured modification to the current MOIS definition.