beta
헌재 2015. 8. 18. 선고 2015헌마786 결정문 [진정사건 공람종결 처분취소]

[결정문] [지정재판부]

Cases

2015Hun-Ma786 The revocation of disposition to revoke the public inspection of the petition case

Claimant

○ ○

appellees

Prosecutor of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office

Date of decision

2015.08.18

Text

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the case

After receiving a non-prosecution disposition (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2013 type No. 71970) on August 13, 2013, an appellant filed a complaint for intimidation from Kim Jin who is the complainant, and then filed a complaint for accusation against Kim Jin who is the complainant. Kim Jin was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million on April 16, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2015 type No. 776). Accordingly, the appellant changed the disposition of "no prosecution" against the respondent to the disposition of "no prosecution (a criminal recognition)" or changed the disposition of "no prosecution."

Although the respondent filed a petition to the contrary, on June 29, 2015, the respondent filed a petition for adjudication on constitutional complaint of this case seeking revocation on July 28, 2015.

2. Judgment

A petition itself is not an exercise of legal rights under the provisions of law, but merely an expression of intent that calls for the proper treatment of an investigative agency based on a petition, and thus, the conclusion of a petition does not fall under the exercise of public authority that is subject to a constitutional complaint because it is merely an internal handling method of an investigative agency without binding force and does not affect the petitioner’s exercise of rights (see Constitutional Court Decision 89Hun-Ma277, Dec. 26, 1990; Constitutional Court Decision 94Hun-Ma77, Feb. 27, 1998).

Therefore, the disposition of this case to close the public inspection of this case is merely a conclusion of the appeal case and does not constitute the exercise of public authority.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful, so it is dismissed under Article 72 (3) 4 of the Constitutional Court Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges

Justices Kim Chang-soo

Justices Lee Dong-dae et al.

Clerks' Office