[국가공무원법위반][공1990.11.15.(884),2224]
A. Whether Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act is unconstitutional (negative)
B. Whether the court violated Article 107 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea of the measure that proceeded with the litigation procedure by deeming that the above provision of the law is not an unconstitutional provision (negative)
A. Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act prohibiting a collective action by a public official cannot be deemed as a unconstitutional provision against Article 33(1) and (2) of the Constitution, Article 37(2) of the Constitution, Article 21(1) of the Constitution, such as the right to organize, etc. of workers, Article 33(1), Article 33(2) of the Constitution, Article 37(2) of the Constitution, Article 21(1) of the press, publication, assembly, and association’s freedom provision, Article 31(4) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 3
B. The court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 107(1) of the Constitution in taking the measure where the court held that the provision of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act is not an unconstitutional provision.
(a)Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act, article 11(1), article 21(1), article 31(4), article 33(1), article 33(2) and Article 37(2) of the Constitution;
A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do332 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1104) 90Do497 delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1305) 90Do77 delivered on June 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1498) 90Do957 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1640) 90Do961 delivered on July 13, 1990 (Gong190, 1753) 90Do618 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong190, 1829)
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No1029 delivered on May 29, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The provision of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is a provision such as the right to organize of workers referred to in Article 33 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, Article 21 (1) of the Constitution, Article 21 (1) of the Constitution, Article 33 (1) of the Constitution, Article 33 (1) of the Constitution, Article 31 (4) of the Constitution, Article 31 (4) of the Constitution, Article 31 (1) of the Constitution, Article 11 (1) of the Constitution, and Article
The court below's decision is just in holding that the provision of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is not an unconstitutional provision, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 107 (1) of the Constitution, such as the theory of lawsuit.
In light of the record, the court below did not find that there was an error of arbitrary application of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act as pointed out in the arguments, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal that the sentencing of the court below is excessive and unreasonable in this case does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)