성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제42조 제1항위헌확인- 헌재2016. 3. 31. 2015헌마688 결정에 관한 평석 -

Abstract

The Constitutional Court is taking the stance that 「Sex Offender Registration Syste m」 is not unconstitutional. Both proponents and opponents of the Consitutional Court believe 「Sex Offender Registration System」 have a deterrent effect. And also it could contribute to a better efficiency and immediacy of investigation if sex offender repeat sexual crime again. Therefore Pros and Cons of the Consitutional Court recognized the legitimacy of legislative purpose of 「Sex Offender Registration System. And both of court opinions and dissenting opinion acknowledge suitability of method that state institution preserve and management personal information that obtained. Eventually, both sides approved constitutionality of 「Sex Offender Registration System」 is one of many systems which improve efficiency and immediacy when second conviction happen. But, there are divided opinions whether applying 「Sex Offender Registration System」 uniformly in all cases of obscenity using new medium or limit the subject of registration for obscenity using communication media upon consideration of the type of behavior, risk of recidivism, necessity of registration of personal information and so on. In the aspect of protection of personal information regarding contents and protection of personal information submitted according to law related to sexual crime, it seems that both proponents and opponents of the consitutional court did not do enough research on types and characteristics of personal information is the subject of self-determination of personal information in the constitution with taking plenty of time to go over this problem be prior to reviewing with crime regarding the registration system of personal information. Next, the Constitutional Court judge not only compulsion of registration of each individual information but also management of registration of personal information is one of the restriction of self-determination of personal information. But, it is not easy to understand that the Constitutional Court judge coaction of alteration of the restriction of personal information is not the matter of self-determination of personal information but only the matter of restriction of right to pursue happiness. And then, in my opinion, opponents of the consitutional court that concede provision of personal information for the registration and utilization of “prevention” and “investigation” and other purpose to third party can be a problem in the terms of the protection of self-determination of personal information.