Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal for the Supreme Court is unconstitutional.

○ Oca

2015.013

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the case;

On May 29, 2014, a petitioner was sentenced to a fine of one million won in the first instance court (defluence) on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (defluence), and the appeal and appeal were all dismissed (Cheongju District Court 2014No498, Supreme Court 2014Do12723), and the said judgment became final and conclusive. The claimant asserts that Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Trial and Appeal, which provide for the above Supreme Court Decision and the system for non-judicial proceedings, infringe on the applicant’s personality rights, equality rights, etc., and filed the petition for the instant constitutional complaint on December 24, 2014.

2. Determination

A. Part concerning the Supreme Court decision

According to the main sentence of Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, in principle, a request for adjudication on constitutional complaint is not allowed, but a request for adjudication on constitutional complaint may be made only in accordance with Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act only for a trial which infringes on the fundamental rights of the people by applying the statutes that the Constitutional Court has decided unconstitutionality. However, the above Supreme Court’s judgment, which is the subject of adjudication, is not an exceptional judgment

B. The part concerning Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal

A constitutional complaint under Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act may be filed by a person who is currently and directly infringed on his/her fundamental rights due to the exercise or non-exercise of the public authority. This means that, in the exercise or non-exercise of the public authority, the petitioner himself/herself must be legally related. Here, legal relevance means the possibility of infringement of fundamental rights, and in cases where the petitioner’s fundamental rights are not likely to be infringed due to the exercise or non-exercise of the public authority, self-relatedness is denied (Hun-Ga, December 28, 2006).

However, the above legal provision does not apply to a case of final appeal in a civil lawsuit, family litigation, or administrative litigation due to the dismissal of an appeal to the Supreme Court or the related trial procedures. The claimant does not have any fact of being tried by the court of final appeal in connection with a civil lawsuit, family litigation, or administrative litigation. Thus, this part of the petition for final appeal is unlawful because it does not have any possibility of infringement on fundamental rights and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the latter part of Article 72 (3) 1 and 4 of the Constitutional Court Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul, Justice

Justices Lee Jin-sung

Justices Kang Jong-won