집시법상 해산명령에 관한 연구 - 판례 분석을 중심으로 -
A Study on ‘the Order of Disperse' by the Law on Assembly and Demonstration - Focusing on legal precedent cases -
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
By the Law on Assembly and Demonstration, police can order demonstrators of several types of illegal assembly․demonstration to disperse, such as unregistered, prohibition-noticed assembly and those being held in prohibited time and place. However, conditions and limitations about order of disperse by police need to be dealt with more precisely in accordance with the judgements by the supreme court that even unregistered or prohibition-noticed assembly and demonstrations should be dispersed under the conditions of generating substantial risk to benefits of people or public safety. This study aims to suggest conditions and limitations about 'disperse order' by reviewing legal characteristics of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration and the supreme court judgements. ‘Disperse order’in Administrative law is 'Police Forcing Order'. Most of the Police Order by police are Forbidding Orders because police order, in general, is brought to prevent a danger of damaging public safety and to eliminate damages that are already occurred. ‘Disperse order’as a Police Forcing Order, by the Law on Assembly and Demonstration imposes duties to leave from a designated place. Accordingly, police law enforcement need the definite legal ground and interpretation. Legal precedents hold opinions that conditions where assembly is unreported or prohibition notice is given are not enough to impose disperse order. By the same token, disperse orders should be brought under the condition of the presence of direct and obvious danger to benefits of people or public safety. In this context, the interpretation of‘danger’is very important. When applying to assembly and demonstration cases, the level of danger can be interpreted 'potential' as is the case with sedition, rather than 'realistic' danger. Therefore, disperse order can be imposed if there is a possibility of direct and obvious danger. Again, the presence of potential danger is enough requirements. This means that disperse order can be imposed where collective assault, a menace, property damage and, arson are occurred or the organizer declare the end of the assembly or when there is a possible danger of disorder by violating a traffic order maintenance stipulation.
Abstract
By the Law on Assembly and Demonstration, police can order demonstrators of several types of illegal assembly․demonstration to disperse, such as unregistered, prohibition-noticed assembly and those being held in prohibited time and place. However, conditions and limitations about order of disperse by police need to be dealt with more precisely in accordance with the judgements by the supreme court that even unregistered or prohibition-noticed assembly and demonstrations should be dispersed under the conditions of generating substantial risk to benefits of people or public safety. This study aims to suggest conditions and limitations about 'disperse order' by reviewing legal characteristics of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration and the supreme court judgements. ‘Disperse order’in Administrative law is 'Police Forcing Order'. Most of the Police Order by police are Forbidding Orders because police order, in general, is brought to prevent a danger of damaging public safety and to eliminate damages that are already occurred. ‘Disperse order’as a Police Forcing Order, by the Law on Assembly and Demonstration imposes duties to leave from a designated place. Accordingly, police law enforcement need the definite legal ground and interpretation. Legal precedents hold opinions that conditions where assembly is unreported or prohibition notice is given are not enough to impose disperse order. By the same token, disperse orders should be brought under the condition of the presence of direct and obvious danger to benefits of people or public safety. In this context, the interpretation of‘danger’is very important. When applying to assembly and demonstration cases, the level of danger can be interpreted 'potential' as is the case with sedition, rather than 'realistic' danger. Therefore, disperse order can be imposed if there is a possibility of direct and obvious danger. Again, the presence of potential danger is enough requirements. This means that disperse order can be imposed where collective assault, a menace, property damage and, arson are occurred or the organizer declare the end of the assembly or when there is a possible danger of disorder by violating a traffic order maintenance stipulation.
참고문헌 (42)
- 경찰청, "집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 운용 매뉴얼", ~ (2005)
- 김남진, "행정법" (2012), 법문사
- 김남현, "경찰행정법" (2005), 경찰대학
- 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ" (2009), 박영사
- 김동희, "행정법Ⅱ" (2009), 박영사
- 김성천, "형법각론" (2012), 도서출판 소진
- 김일수, "형법각론(제7판)" (2009), 박영사
- 김형훈, "경찰관직무집행법" (2012), 경찰대학
- 문경환, "경찰정보학" (2011), 박영사
- 손재영, "경찰법 - 경찰법의 기본체계와 이론적 기초 -" (2012), 박영사
- 서정범, "행정법총론" (2012), 세창출판사
- 김연태, "경찰법연구(제2판)" (2012), 세창출판사
- 손동권, "형법각론 제3개정판" (2010), 율곡출판사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2010), 박영사
- 이희훈, "집회의 자유와 집시법" (2009), 경인문화사
- 황교안, "집회,시위법 해설" (2009), 박영사
- 홍정선, "경찰행정법제2판" (2010), 박영사
- 김상겸, "미국의 미국헌법상집회의 자유에 관한연구", 미국헌법연구, 15(1), pp.75~96 (2004), 미국헌법학회
- 김종철, "집회의 자유와 입법자 및 경찰권", 헌법학연구, 15(3), pp.33~73 (2009), 한국헌법학회
- 김철준, "집회 및 시위에 관한 법제연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2005
- 구형근, "집시법상 집회와 시위에 관한 법적 고찰 - 제한조치와 한계를 중심으로 -", 토지공법연구, 48, pp.317~340 (2010), 한국토지공법학회
- 박현정, "헌법상 집회의 자유 인정범위와 한계에 관한 연구 : 시위문화 개선의 필요성을 중심으로", 석사, 법학, pp.2009
- 이희훈, "구 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률상 집회의 개념과 사전신고 및 미신고 집회시 형벌 규정에 대한 헌법적 평가 -헌법재판소 2009. 5. 28, 2007헌바22결정에 대한 비판을 중심으로-", 중앙법학, 11(3), pp.81~105 (2009), 중앙법학회
- 설계경, "集會 및 示威와 警察權 發動에 관한 小考", 법학논총, 18(1), pp.259~289 (2011), 법학연구원
- 신영호, "집시법 제5조 제1항 제2호 위반죄와 소요죄 - 연혁과 법체계, 보호법익, 위험과 위험범, 죄수 등의 비교분석을 통해 본 형법학적 해석론 -", 경찰학연구, 9(1), pp.131~161 (2009), 경찰대학
- 윤성철, "集會·示威에 대한 刑事法的 硏究", 박사, 법학과, pp.2012
- 이기춘, "적법한 집회․시위에 대한 경찰의 개입가능성 고찰 - 독일의 판례 및 이론의 도입가능성 검토를 중심으로 -", 공법학연구, 10(1), pp.391~421 (2009), 한국비교공법학회
- 이희훈, "集會의 槪念에 대한 憲法的 考察", 헌법학연구, 12(5), pp.147~187 (2006), 한국헌법학회
- 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
- 집회시위에 대한 경찰개입의 한계에 관한 연구, "전광석", 치안연구소, ~ (2004)
- 정부용, "집회의 자유를 제한하는 경찰권 발동에 관한 연구: '집회 및 시위에 관한 법률'의 문제점과 개선방안을 중심으로", 석사, 법학, pp.2003
- 韓 秀 雄, "集會의 自由와 ‘集會 및 示威에 관한 法律’ - 集會禁止場所規定에 대한 위헌성 판단을 겸하여 -", 저스티스, (77), pp.5~33 (2004), 한국법학원
- Drews,Wacke, "Gefahrenabwehr, 9.Aufl" (1986)
- F. L. Knemeyer, "Polizei – und Ordnungsrecht, 9.Aufl" (2002)
- Gary Lawson, "Federal Administrative Law, 3.ed" (2004)
- Gőtz, "Allgemeines Polizei – und Ordnungsrecht, 13.Aufl" (2001)
- Gusy, "Polizeirecht, 4.Aufl" (2000)
- J. English,, "Police Law, 9.ed" (2005)
- Lisken, Denninger, "Handbuch des Polizeirechts, 3.Aufl" (2001)
- P. P. Craig, "Administtrative, 5.ed" (2003)
- Schenke, "Polizei – und Ordnungsrecht" (2002)