[2] Whether Article 17 (2) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order is unconstitutional (negative)

[3] Whether the exercise of the right to trial guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is restricted (negative)

1. Regarding Article 17(2) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order

The applicant asserts that it is unconstitutional because it is too comprehensive to stipulate the matters to be specified in the document to be imposed by the Presidential Decree, because it is difficult to predict what matters are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, since it is too comprehensive.

In the case of delegated legislation, its limit is predictability. This means that the basic matters of the contents and scope that are already provided for by Presidential Decree are specifically defined in the Act, and any person can predict the contents that shall be provided for by Presidential Decree, etc. from the relevant Act. The existence of such predictability is not determined with only one of the relevant specific provisions, but shall be determined with organic and systematic integration of the relevant provisions. If it can be reasonably predicted when comprehensively considering the nature of each specific provision and the legislative intent of the Act, it does not deviate from the limitation of delegation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007).

Article 17 (2) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order shall be specified in a document to impose an administrative fine, which shall include "violation of public order", "amount of an administrative fine", and other matters to be specified by Presidential Decree. Any Presidential Decree delegated by the above provision of the Act shall stipulate the subject of imposition of an administrative fine, the subject of imposition, the person subject to imposition, the payment of an administrative fine, the procedure for appeal, and the method of appeal. Thus, the above provision of the Act shall not

2. Regarding Article 20(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order

The applicant asserts that the right to trial is unconstitutional by infringing on the other party's right to appeal, since there is no provision on the other party's right to appeal in the case that the administrative agency fails to properly appeal due to the negligence of the administrative agency, such as the other party's error, etc. by giving wrong notice.

However, the above reasons alleged by the petitioner alone cannot be deemed as unconstitutional by infringing the right to trial, and the parties concerned may appeal the imposition of fines for negligence by the administrative agency on the disposition of imposing fines for negligence on the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, and if there is an objection, the imposition of fines by the administrative agency itself does not directly affect the rights and duties of the people. Meanwhile, the imposition of fines for negligence by the administrative agency itself does not directly affect the rights and duties of the people. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the exercise of the right to trial guaranteed by the Constitution is restricted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du19369, Oct. 11, 2012).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application for the motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment] List of Applicants: Omitted

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)