공무원 신분에 따른 기본권 제한의 문제점과 개선방안

Abstract

The laws related to public officials should be amended to provide more specific standards for public officials' political activities. As for the specific legislation, first, in principle, if the time, place, and contents of public officials' duties are not affected, it should not be restricted like the political activities of ordinary citizens. This is because the government's political neutral obligations are viewed as duties, not restrictions. Second, whether the official's expression of expression is a personal expression or a collective expression, a verbal expression or a symbolic expression, an expression in favor of or against government policy, an expression related to political activities, an expression related to the campaign, etc. By dividing, individual and collective political expression needs to be allowed in principle. Third, even in the case of exercising the basic rights of public officials related to political activities, after describing election issues, election campaigns, establishing and joining political parties, paying bills and subsidies, and donation of political funds from unions, etc. In principle, simple participation is allowed, but it would be reasonable to presuppose leave of absence or resignation in order to engage in more active political activities. Also, even before the amendment, the attitude of the court case needs to be changed more proactively. When considering violations of the National Civil Service Act, conventional courts judged on the basis of whether it was a collective action, whether it was for a purpose contrary to the public interest (political neutrality infringement), and whether or not the duty to obligate the duties was limited. Needs to be. In other words, ① the specific act of expression of the public official should be performed in the position of the citizen's individual rather than as part of the work, and ② the expression is public in a broad sense, not merely a personal issue or issue in light of the content, form, or context. First of all, check whether it corresponds to the interests. ③ In the next step, if the content includes public interests, the state should ban the expressive acts and the public officials act and express the public interests. If both of these criteria are met after comparative punishment, freedom of expression of public officials is protected, and if the public interest to prohibit expressive actions is greater, then it is significant to introduce a structure that justifies the restriction of freedom of expression.