Adultery and the Constitution: A Review on the Recent Decision of the Korean Constitutional Court on ‘Criminal Adultery’
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korean Constitutional Court (KCC) recently ruled in 27-1(A) KCCR 20, 2009Hun- Ba17· 205 (Consolidated), February 26, 2016 (hereinafter the “2015 Decision”), that Article 241 of the Criminal Act related to adultery is unconstitutional due to its abuse of sexual autonomy and the freedom and privacy of personal life. It was a change of stance from the previous constitutional interpretations upheld in over four judicial rulings. In Korea, the legislature and executive are often criticized for their lack of contribution to decriminalization. They are in fact responsible for an increase in the criminal law. Therefore, the significance of this recent additional ‘decriminalizing’ decision by the Constitutional Court must be highlighted, providing a crucial step towards decriminalization. This 2015 Decision on unconstitutionality reflects the trend of the rest of the world where many countries are banning the criminal regulation of adultery and the fact that some doubts are cast on whether the regulation is helpful for maintaining household integrity and marriage purity. The decision also reflects the criticism that the criminal law intervenes in the privacy of the individual and represents an abuse of the state’s punishment power. It also reflects a weakening of the justification in the recent era for protecting women as a socially vulnerable class. There are still various opinions regarding the appropriateness of abolishing the criminal regulation of adultery, but the most important fact is that it has been abolished in Korea by this landmark decision of the KCC.
Abstract
The Korean Constitutional Court (KCC) recently ruled in 27-1(A) KCCR 20, 2009Hun- Ba17· 205 (Consolidated), February 26, 2016 (hereinafter the “2015 Decision”), that Article 241 of the Criminal Act related to adultery is unconstitutional due to its abuse of sexual autonomy and the freedom and privacy of personal life. It was a change of stance from the previous constitutional interpretations upheld in over four judicial rulings. In Korea, the legislature and executive are often criticized for their lack of contribution to decriminalization. They are in fact responsible for an increase in the criminal law. Therefore, the significance of this recent additional ‘decriminalizing’ decision by the Constitutional Court must be highlighted, providing a crucial step towards decriminalization. This 2015 Decision on unconstitutionality reflects the trend of the rest of the world where many countries are banning the criminal regulation of adultery and the fact that some doubts are cast on whether the regulation is helpful for maintaining household integrity and marriage purity. The decision also reflects the criticism that the criminal law intervenes in the privacy of the individual and represents an abuse of the state’s punishment power. It also reflects a weakening of the justification in the recent era for protecting women as a socially vulnerable class. There are still various opinions regarding the appropriateness of abolishing the criminal regulation of adultery, but the most important fact is that it has been abolished in Korea by this landmark decision of the KCC.
참고문헌 (54)
- "Black’s Law Dictionary 62" (2014)
- , 1991, ~
- Kuk Cho, "The Crime of Adultery in Korea: Inadequate Means for Maintaining Morality and Protecting Women", J. Korean L, 2, pp.84~86 (2002)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "89Hun-Ma82, Sep. 10, 1990", ~ (1990)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "90Hun-Ga70, Mar. 11, 1993", ~ (1993)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "2000Hun-Ba60, Oct. 25, 2001", ~ (2001)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 30, 2008", ~ (2008)
- D. J. Frank, "Worldwide trends in the criminal regulation of sex, 1945 to 2005", American Sociological Review, 75(6), pp.867~893 (2010)
- Constitution of the Republic of Korea, "Article 11 Section 1", ~
- Constitution of the Republic of Korea, "Article 10 (first sentence)", ~
- Kuk Cho, "The Crime of Adultery in Korea: Inadequate Means for Maintaining Morality and Protecting Women", J. Korean L, 2, pp.83~84 (2002)
- A. Black, "When a Revealed Affair Is a Crime, but a Hidden One Is a Romance: An Overview of Adultery Law in the Republic of Korea", Int’l Surv. Fam. L., pp.275~ (2014)
- J. Corrin, "It Takes Two to Tango, But Three to Commit Adultery: A Survey of the Law on Adultery in Post-Colonial South Pacific States", Int’l. J. of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(2), pp.187~219 (2012)
- Anthony r. Bessette, "Regulating and punishing adultery in Korea and East Asia", pp.2009
- "Sabeobhaengjeong", 2016, ~
- 이희훈, "헌법재판소의 간통죄 위헌 결정에 대한 평석", 토지공법연구, 71, pp.417~444 (2015), 한국토지공법학회
- 김종현, "간통죄 위헌결정에 대한 연구: 집단적 법감정의 변화에 대한 헌법재판소의 설시를 중심으로", 법과사회, (50), pp.123~156 (2015), 법과사회이론학회
- 김래영, "간통죄 위헌결정(헌재 2015. 2. 26. 2009헌바17 등)의 효력 - 기속력과 소급효를 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 39(3), pp.495~515 (2015), 법학연구소
- 양현아, "포스트 간통죄 폐지: 드러난 성적 자유주의 담론과 묻혀진 피해 배우자의 손해", 서울대학교 법학, 56(3), pp.31~78 (2015), 법학연구소
- Supreme Court of Korea, "79Do1848, Apr. 8, 1980", ~ (1980)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "82Do826, Jun. 22, 1982", ~ (1982)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "83Do41, Dec. 13, 1983", ~ (1983)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "68Do859, Feb. 25,1972", ~ (1972)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "77Do2791, Oct. 11, 1977", ~ (1977)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "71Do2259, Jan. 31, 1972", ~ (1972)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "90Do1188, Mar. 22, 1991", ~ (1991)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "2006Do1759, May. 11, 2006", ~ (2006)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "97Do2245, Nov. 11, 1997", ~ (1997)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "90Do1188, Mar. 22, 1991", ~ (1991)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "99Do2149, Aug. 24, 1999", ~ (1999)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "2000Do868, Jul. 7, 2000", ~ (2000)
- "Dangerous lawyers domination: Reform the Constitutional Court of Korea!" (2015)[URL]
- 김종철, "헌법재판소 구성방법의 개혁론", 헌법학연구, 11(2), pp.9~48 (2005), 한국헌법학회
- "Case on Prohibition of Nighttime Access to Online Games by Juveniles" (2014)[URL]
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "89Hun-Ma82, Sep. 10, 1990", ~ (1990)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "99Hun-Ba40, Oct. 31, 2002", ~ (2002)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "2008Hun-Ba58, Nov. 26, 2009", ~ (2009)
- Decision of the German Constitutional Court, "BVerfGE 3, 383 at 399", ~ (1954)
- Bernhard Schlink, "Proportionality in Constitutional Law: Why everywhere but here", Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L., 22, pp.291~ (2011)
- Dieter Grimm, "Proportionality in Canadian and German constitutional jurisprudence", U. of Toronto L. J., 57(2), pp.383~384 (2007)
- 황치연, "Critics on the Constitutional complaint against the ordinary court's Judgments in Terms of Balancing and proportionality Test in korean constitutional Review", 미국헌법연구, 18(2), pp.9~9 (2007), 미국헌법학회
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "2009Hun-Ba 17, 205 (consolidated), Feb.,26, 2016", ~ (2016)
- Constitutional Court of Korea, "2008 Hun-Ba58·2009Hun-Ba191, Nov. 26, 2009", ~ (2009)
- "Article 37 Section 2", ~
- "2001", 422
- Supreme Court of Korea, "77Do2701, Oct. 11, 1977", ~ (1977)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "95Do2819, Feb. 25, 1997", ~ (1997)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "71Do2259, Jan. 31, 1972", ~ (1972)
- Supreme Court of Korea, "2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014", ~ (2014)
- (2015)[URL]
- "2015 Adultery Report" (2015)[URL]
- Supreme Court of Korea, "2013Meu568, Sep. 15, 2015", ~ (2015)
- 옥도진, "違憲決定 후 姦通에 대한 民事 責任", 인권과 정의, (450), pp.6~19 (2015), 대한변호사협회