구 군형법 제92조에 대한 헌법적 평가 -헌법재판소 2011. 3. 31. 선고, 2008헌가21 결정의 평석을 중심으로-
Constitutional Evaluation on the Article 92 of the Former Military Criminal Law - Focused on the Annotation of the Constitutional Court Decision 2011. 03. 01. Sentence, 2008Hun-Ga21 -
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A protection of legislation’s purpose of‘Protection of armed forces family life and establishment of armed forces law and order’on the Article 92 of the former military criminal law is fair. And, the method of discharge treatment or disciplinary action and so on cannot effective regulate sexual molestation in the armed forces. Moreover, this same rule is prescribes suspended sentence. Therefore, this same rule is not violated a principle of balancing test. But, this same rule is prescribed for the same penalty without regard to compulsion-related degree for a sexual molestation among soldiers. And, this same rule is prescribed with the subject and the object of a criminal act ambiguously. Moreover, we don't know an applied place of this same rule. Therefore, this same rule is violated a void for vagueness doctrine. Moreover, this same rule is violated a rights to equality. Because this same rule punishes a detective only for a sexual molestation among man soldiers by ‘sex of the cock’ which is an illustrative legislation rule in this same rule. And, because this same rule prescribes levies for the same penalty without levying for a penalty by degree of a sexual molestation among soldiers. On the other hand, the article 5 of 92 in military criminal law revised on November 02, 2009 has still problems violated a void for vagueness doctrine and right to equality like article 92 of the former military criminal law and this rule has still problems violated a principle of balancing test. Because this rule levies for a penalty equal to or less than two year, and there is not suspended sentence. Therefore, the article 5 of 92 in military criminal law must delete ‘sex of a cock’ in future. And, this same rule must prescribe application object definitely. Moreover, it is desirable to revise this same rule for a penalty equal to or less than one year so that suspended sentence is enabled.
Abstract
A protection of legislation’s purpose of‘Protection of armed forces family life and establishment of armed forces law and order’on the Article 92 of the former military criminal law is fair. And, the method of discharge treatment or disciplinary action and so on cannot effective regulate sexual molestation in the armed forces. Moreover, this same rule is prescribes suspended sentence. Therefore, this same rule is not violated a principle of balancing test. But, this same rule is prescribed for the same penalty without regard to compulsion-related degree for a sexual molestation among soldiers. And, this same rule is prescribed with the subject and the object of a criminal act ambiguously. Moreover, we don't know an applied place of this same rule. Therefore, this same rule is violated a void for vagueness doctrine. Moreover, this same rule is violated a rights to equality. Because this same rule punishes a detective only for a sexual molestation among man soldiers by ‘sex of the cock’ which is an illustrative legislation rule in this same rule. And, because this same rule prescribes levies for the same penalty without levying for a penalty by degree of a sexual molestation among soldiers. On the other hand, the article 5 of 92 in military criminal law revised on November 02, 2009 has still problems violated a void for vagueness doctrine and right to equality like article 92 of the former military criminal law and this rule has still problems violated a principle of balancing test. Because this rule levies for a penalty equal to or less than two year, and there is not suspended sentence. Therefore, the article 5 of 92 in military criminal law must delete ‘sex of a cock’ in future. And, this same rule must prescribe application object definitely. Moreover, it is desirable to revise this same rule for a penalty equal to or less than one year so that suspended sentence is enabled.
참고문헌 (37)
- 고등군사법원, "군형법해설서", 고등군사법원, ~ (2005)
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2010), 성균관대 출판부
- 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법각론" (2004), 박영사
- 김종원, "형법각론(상)" (1971), 법문사
- 민중서림, "엣센스 국어사전" (2006), 민중서림
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2010), 홍문사
- 손동권, "형법각론 제3개정판" (2010), 율곡출판사
- 오영근, "형법각론" (2009), 박영사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2010), 박영사
- 이형국, "형법각론" (2007), 법문사
- 임 웅, "형법각론" (2011), 법문사
- 정영석, "형법각론" (1983), 법문사
- 한인섭, "성적 소수자의 인권" (2002), 사람생각
- 강진철, "동성애", 고황법학, (3) (2001), 고황법학교수회
- 김주환, "일반적 평등원칙의 심사 기준과 방법의 합리화 방안", 공법학연구, 9(3), pp.201~226 (2008), 한국비교공법학회
- 노기호, "군형법 제92조 “추행죄”의 위헌성 고찰 ― 육군 제22사단 보통군사법원 2008.8.6. 위헌제청결정사건(2008고10)을 중심으로 ―", 헌법학연구, 15(2), pp.263~300 (2009), 한국헌법학회
- 문준영, "미군정 법령체제와 국방경비법", 민주법학, (34), pp.97~136 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 박영주, "동성애에 대한 법적 태도", 부산법조, (21) (2004), 부산지방변호사회
- 송문호, "군형법과 ‘제복을 입은 시민’", 형사법연구, 21(4), pp.375~396 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 오병두, "군형법의 문제점과 개정방향", 형사정책, 20(1), pp.9~32 (2008), 한국형사정책학회
- 이경환, "군대 내 동성애 행위 처벌에 대하여", 공익과 인권, 5(1) (2008), 서울대학교 BK21 법학연구단 공익인권법연구센터
- 이준일, "헌법재판소가 이해하는 명확성원칙의 비판적 재구성", 헌법학연구, 7(1) (2001), 한국헌법학회
- 이준일, "헌법재판의 법적 성격 - 헌법재판소의 논증도구인 비례성원칙과 평등원칙을 예로 -", 헌법학연구, 12(2), pp.313~346 (2006), 한국헌법학회
- 이희훈, "공직선거법 제93조 제1항의 헌법재판소 2009. 7. 30, 2007헌마718 결정에 대한 평석 - UCC의 배포금지에 대한 비판을 중심으로 -", 언론과 법, 8(2), pp.373~399 (2009), (사)한국언론법학회
- 이희훈, "집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제5조 제1항에 대한 연구 - 헌재 2010. 04. 29, 2008헌바118결정에 대한 평석을 겸하여 -", 헌법학연구, 16(3), pp.539~571 (2010), 한국헌법학회
- 이희훈, "일반 교통방해죄와 외교기관 인근 집회·시위 금지에 대한 헌법적 평가 ― 헌법재판소 2010. 03. 25. 선고, 2009헌가2 결정과 헌법재판소 2010. 10. 28. 선고, 2010헌마111 결정에 대한 비판을 중심으로 ―", 공법연구, 39(3), pp.265~292 (2011), 한국공법학회
- 전현희, "동성애의 법적 고찰", 시민과 변호사, (83) (2000), 서울지방변호사회
- 조 윤, "군형법 개정론", 사법논집, 2 (1972), 법원행정처
- 조인형, "군형법상 추행죄의 문제점 및 개선방안", 공군법률논집, 13(1) (2009), 공군본부 법무실
- 지성수, "위임입법에 있어서의 명확성 원칙", 헌법논총, 15 (2004), 헌법 재판소
- 최경옥, "미군정하의 국방경비법의 유래와 변천― 朝鮮(國防)警備法朝鮮海岸警備法(1946년) 자료 발굴에 즈음하여―", 공법연구, 35(2), pp.267~306 (2006), 한국공법학회
- 최재석, "군내 동성애자(Homosexuals)문제에 대한 법률적 고찰－미군의 Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell 정책을 중심으로－", 법률정보판례 연구, 1(1) (1999), 법우사
- 홍완식, "헌법재판소의 결정을 통해 본 입법의 원칙", 헌법학연구, 15(4), pp.487~520 (2009), 한국헌법학회
- 황치연, "과잉금지원칙의 내용", 공법연구, 24(3) (1996), 한국공법학회
- Jeremy J. Gray, "The Military’s Ban on Consensual Sodomy in a Post-Lawrence World", Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 21 (2006)
- 김옥이 의원실, "여군 인력 확대와 여대생 ROTC 도입에 관한 정책토론 회－저도 ROTC 출신 여군장교가 되고 싶어요－", 국회의원 김옥이 정책토론회 자료집, 국회의원회관 제3간담회실, ~ (2009)
- "오바마, 동성애자 군복무 금지 폐지법안 서명" (2010)[URL]