Legislative Direction and Regulation according to the Decision to be Nonconforming to the Constitution of the Crimes of Abortion
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: On April 11, 2019 (2017Hun-Ba127 decision), the Constitutional Court ruled that the “self-abortion” and “Abortion by Doctor” in the Criminal Act were nonconforming to the Constitution because they limit women’s right to self-determination. Abortion is one of the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution, the right to self-determination derived from the dignity and value of human beings. On the other hand, the state also has an obligation to protect the life of the fetus. The purpose of this study is to examine foreign legislative cases related to abortion in order to harmoniously resolve the basic rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus in order to meet the request of the Constitutional Court, and to suggest a legislative direction to remove the unconstitutionality of the criminal abortion crime. In addition, we would like to examine the Maternal and Child Health Act for coherence of the legal system. Method: Whether or not to punish abortion is one of the issues that have been controversial in society so far. If the punishment for the crime of abortion is completely banned, the right to life of the fetus may be neglected. To this end, first, I would like to review the contents of the Constitutional Court's decision on the punishment for the crime of abortion. Second, the current state of punishment for abortion is reviewed by reviewing foreign comparative laws on the crime of abortion. Third, the legal, medical, moral, and religious perspectives on punishment for abortion are reviewed. Fourth, based on the discussion so far, I would like to suggest the direction of legislation for the punishment of abortion crimes. Results: The punishment for abortion should not be viewed as a choice between a woman's right to self-determination and the fetus's right to life. Revision of the law should be made in the direction of recognizing and protecting the two legal interests. Article 15 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Maternal and Child Health Act stipulates that abortion is permitted within 24 weeks. However, it is reasonable to refer to the government's legislation and decide whether to allow it based on the 22 weeks of pregnancy, which is the period when the fetus can survive independently, or based on the 3·3·3 principle or reasons for adaptation. In addition, economic and social factors and the period of deliberation should be considered. Conclusion: Punishment for abortion is structured in a way that women's right to self-determination and the basic right of the fetus to life are in conflict. In order to resolve these conflicts harmoniously and constitutionally, political, economic, social and cultural integration must be achieved by stipulating in detail the permissible scope of abortion, when it is permitted, the procedure and method of permissible abortion.
Abstract
Purpose: On April 11, 2019 (2017Hun-Ba127 decision), the Constitutional Court ruled that the “self-abortion” and “Abortion by Doctor” in the Criminal Act were nonconforming to the Constitution because they limit women’s right to self-determination. Abortion is one of the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution, the right to self-determination derived from the dignity and value of human beings. On the other hand, the state also has an obligation to protect the life of the fetus. The purpose of this study is to examine foreign legislative cases related to abortion in order to harmoniously resolve the basic rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus in order to meet the request of the Constitutional Court, and to suggest a legislative direction to remove the unconstitutionality of the criminal abortion crime. In addition, we would like to examine the Maternal and Child Health Act for coherence of the legal system. Method: Whether or not to punish abortion is one of the issues that have been controversial in society so far. If the punishment for the crime of abortion is completely banned, the right to life of the fetus may be neglected. To this end, first, I would like to review the contents of the Constitutional Court's decision on the punishment for the crime of abortion. Second, the current state of punishment for abortion is reviewed by reviewing foreign comparative laws on the crime of abortion. Third, the legal, medical, moral, and religious perspectives on punishment for abortion are reviewed. Fourth, based on the discussion so far, I would like to suggest the direction of legislation for the punishment of abortion crimes. Results: The punishment for abortion should not be viewed as a choice between a woman's right to self-determination and the fetus's right to life. Revision of the law should be made in the direction of recognizing and protecting the two legal interests. Article 15 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Maternal and Child Health Act stipulates that abortion is permitted within 24 weeks. However, it is reasonable to refer to the government's legislation and decide whether to allow it based on the 22 weeks of pregnancy, which is the period when the fetus can survive independently, or based on the 3·3·3 principle or reasons for adaptation. In addition, economic and social factors and the period of deliberation should be considered. Conclusion: Punishment for abortion is structured in a way that women's right to self-determination and the basic right of the fetus to life are in conflict. In order to resolve these conflicts harmoniously and constitutionally, political, economic, social and cultural integration must be achieved by stipulating in detail the permissible scope of abortion, when it is permitted, the procedure and method of permissible abortion.
참고문헌 (30)
- Gunwoong Yeom, "Policy Response to the CRISIS of New Drugs Crime", International Journal of Crisis & Safety, 6(4), pp.74~82 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
- Jintae Han, "The Current Situation and Countermeasures of Cyber Crime Under the Korean PENDEMIC: Focused on the Northern Gyeonggi Province Investigation", International Journal of Human & Disaster, 6(4), pp.69~81 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
- 박광현, "Legal Countermeasures against HATE Speech", Regulations, 6(2), pp.16~25 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
- Kim Hak-bum, "A Study on CRIME Prevention and Policing in KOREA’s Urban Regeneration", Regulations, 3(2), pp.6~12 (2018), J-INSTITUTE
- Park Woong-shin, "Changes in Law and its Limits in RISK SOCIETY", Robotics & AI Ethics, 4(1), pp.13~19 (2019), J-INSTITUTE
- 이인영, "미국에서의 낙태 규범과 범죄와의 상관관계 분석 연구에 대한 고찰", 형사법연구, 24(4), pp.279~303 (2012), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 이희훈, "영국⋅미국⋅독일⋅프랑스의 낙태 규제 입법과 판례에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 일감법학, (27), pp.704~737 (2014), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 이기원, "낙태죄의 허용사유에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 법학논총, 19(3), pp.401~426 (2012), 법학연구원
- Farber DA, "Beyond the Roe Debate: Judicial Experience with the 1980’s Reasonableness Test", Virginia Law Review, 76(3), pp.519~538 (1990)
- 임정호, "미국의 낙태죄 관련 주요판결의 모자보건법에 대한 시사점", 법학연구, 22(4), pp.29~53 (2012), 법학연구원
- Schneider EA, "Workability of the Undue Burden Test", Temple Law Review, 66, pp.n1003~ (1993)
- 정진주, "유럽 각국의 낙태 접근과 여성건강 ─ 한국 낙태논쟁에 대한 함의 ─", 페미니즘연구, 10(1), pp.123~158 (2010), 한국여성연구소
- Great Britain: Parliament. Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. Twelfth Report of Session, , ~ (2007)
- McGuinness S, "A History of Abortion in England", Law Journal, 30(3), pp.n396~ (2010)
- 이호용, "낳지 않을 자유와 자기결정", 세계헌법연구, 16(3), pp.209~240 (2010), 세계헌법학회한국학회
- 오미영, "낙태에 관한 유럽인권재판소의 입장- 대한민국에서의 논의에의 시사점 -", 성균관법학, 26(4), pp.205~239 (2014), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 지규철, "미국과 독일의 낙태판결에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 공법학연구, 9(1), pp.84~109 (2008), 한국비교공법학회[DOI]
- 김학태, "독일과 한국에서의 낙태의 규범적 평가에 관한 비교법적 고찰", EU연구, (26), pp.301~325 (2010), EU연구소[DOI]
- 이사 도모코, "일본의 재생산권 과제와 전망: 인공임신중절에 관한 정책과 법에 관한 보고", 젠더와 문화, 2(2), pp.131~162 (2009), 여성학연구소[DOI]
- 성중탁, "낙태문제 해결을 위한 대안의 제시", 인권과 정의, (441), pp.6~24 (2014), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 김광재, "낙태죄 헌법불합치결정 및 입법개선방향에 대한 고찰 – 헌재 2019. 4. 11. 선고 2017헌바127 결정과 관련하여 -", 인권과 정의, (487), pp.43~75 (2020), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 고봉진, "‘2019년 헌법재판소 낙태죄 결정’ 분석과 ‘낙태죄 형법조항’ 개정방향 제안", 생명윤리정책연구, 13(2), pp.119~139 (2020), 생명의료법연구소[DOI]
- 황만성, "낙태죄 헌법불합치결정에 따른 개선입법에 관한 고찰", 의생명과학과법, 22, pp.309~341 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김용효, "낙태죄의 존폐에 대한 고찰", 한양법학, (33), pp.187~216 (2011), 한양법학회
- 박남미, "낙태죄의 허용 한계 사유와 허용 한계 시기에 대한 고찰", 동아법학, (78), pp.27~57 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Nam B, "A Review on Constitutional Discordance Adjudication of the Constitutional Court to Total Ban on Abortion", Law and Policy Studies, 19(3), pp.125~153 (2019)
- 이석배, "‘낙태죄’ 헌법재판소 헌법불합치 결정의 취지와 법률개정 방향- 헌법재판소 2019. 4. 11. 선고 2017헌바127 전원재판부 결정에 따라 -", 의료법학, 20(2), pp.3~39 (2019), 대한의료법학회[DOI]
- 강지현, "형법 제269조 제1항 헌법불합치 결정에 따른 낙태죄의 법제정비 방안", 법학연구, 61(1), pp.39~62 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Jung H, "Legislative Theory Related to the Crime of Abortion", Criminal Law Studies, 22, pp.701~704 (2004)
- Cesare B, "Dei Delitti e Delle Pene" (2019), Primiceri