logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
헌재 1996. 6. 13. 선고 94헌마118 95헌바39 결정문 [헌법 제29조 제2항 등 위헌확인]
[결정문]
Cases

94헌마118,95헌바39(병합) 憲法 제29조 제2항 등 違憲確認, 憲法 제29조 제2항 등 違憲訴願

See en banc Decision 94Hun-Ma118,95Hun-Ba39, Jun. 13, 1996

[Main Issues]

A. As to the omission of administrative power and the legislative omission by the National Assembly

Constitutional Complaint

(b) Individual provisions of the Constitution are the Constitutional Court Act;

Whether it is subject to adjudication on constitutional complaint under Article 68 (2)

(c) a logical friendly relationship between individual provisions of the Constitution; and

Differences in effect

(1) The proviso to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act (State Compensation Act);

Whether the "police officer" is unconstitutional;

(2) Article 29(2) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea by the riot police officers

State Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "State Compensation Act") Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act;

Whether it constitutes a case

【Summary of Order】

A. (1) A constitutional complaint against an omission of administrative power is a public authority.

Specificly, the duty to act derived from the Constitution to the subject.

Accordingly, the subject of fundamental rights can file a claim for administrative action.

However, the subject of the public authority is allowed when he neglects his duties.

(2) The legal provisions for guaranteeing fundamental rights in the form of legislative omission

Although there is an incomplete provision, if it is required to supplement it.

incomplete legislation itself is a violation of the Constitution.

The active constitutional complaint is possible, aside from the possibility of the active constitutional complaint, legislation omission.

No object of constitutional complaint shall be the object of constitutional complaint.

(b) Article 111(1)1, 5 and 5 of the Constitution;

Articles 41(1) and 68(2) of the Constitutional Court Act

The norms subject to unconstitutionality review are stipulated as ‘law';

Here, the term "law" was enacted by a resolution of the National Assembly.

Since the Act refers to the formal meaning of the law, the individual provision of the Constitution itself is the individual provision.

It is not the object of constitutional review by constitutional complaint.

C. The Constitution is closely related to the preamble and each individual provision.

on the basis of establishing a unified value system;

Among the provisions of the Constitution, the fundamental value of the Constitution is more abstract.

Since a declaration has been made, it is ideological and logically between constitutional norms.

It is true, however, that this is recognized.

The friendlyness between constitutional norms is based on the concreteization of abstract value norms.

Therefore, it is useful for the uniform interpretation of the Constitution, but it is also useful.

any particular provision of the Constitution is the whole effect of any other provision.

To the extent that it can be denied, the effects between individual constitutional provisions are effective.

shall not be deemed to mean differential.

(1) The proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act (State Compensation Act);

The term "police officer" is defined in section 29(1) of the Constitution.

The inherent limitation of state compensation claims guaranteed by the Constitution

directly based on Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and in substance:

Since they share contents, they do not violate the Constitution.

(2) The riot police officers are belonging to the combat police units under the National Police Agency.

Duties are to carry out counter-espionage operations and assist in security affairs;

The risk of performing its duties is lower than that of other police officers.

In addition, it is not possible to establish a combat police unit.

Article 4 of the Police Officers Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the majority of the police laws.

In the light of the State Compensation Act Article 2(1) proviso of the State Compensation Act

The term "police officer" is only a police officer under the Police Officers Act.

It is difficult to readily conclude that it means a high level of police duties.

In consideration of danger and injury, "public official constituting a member of the police organization"

Since it is reasonable to grasp the purpose of special treatment, riot police officers are the same.

Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 2 of the State Compensation Act (State Compensation Act)

It should be viewed as a "police officer" under the proviso to paragraph (1).

This is the case.

Concurring Opinion by Justice Cho Jong-soo (Special Opinion)

In the adjudication of constitutionality of Article 68(2) of the Constitution,

No relevant legal provision which is the object of a trial shall violate the Constitution.

If it is determined, the form of the order of the court shall be 'request for trial'.

I think it is right to be dismissed.

【References to Adjudication】

Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

The proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act (State Compensation Act)

[Reference Provisions]

Article 111(1)1 and 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Articles 41(1) and 68(2) of the Constitutional Court Act

Article 4 of the Establishment of combat Police Units Act

【Reference Cases】

(a) Order 89Hun-Ma163 delivered on September 16, 1991

【Court Order 89Hun-Ma1 decided July 28, 1989

Seoul High Court Order 89Hun-Ma248 delivered on September 27, 1993

b.D. Dec. 28, 1995, 95HunBa3

Claimant

【Party】

1. Lee Dong-gu and four others;

Attorney Han-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

2. Maximum flag and five other persons;

Korea-U.S. Law Office, represented by the claimant

【Related Litigation Case】

2. The Seoul High Court 95Na15478 damages.

Text

1. Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the claimant (wholly amended on October 29, 1987)

The request for a trial on the part of "police officer" and the request for a trial;

○○, Lee, Lee, Lee, Lee ○, Lee Dong-young

The non-exercise of governmental power by the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and the National Assembly

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

2. A. The State Compensation Act (Law No. 1899, Mar. 3, 1967)

The proviso to Article 2 (1) of the Act (amended by Act No. 3464 of Dec. 17, 1981)

The term "police officer" does not violate the Constitution.

B. The applicant’s title to this section, the appellate court, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, and the second instance.

The appeal on the legal provision shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Case summary and the object of the trial;

A. Case summary

(1) 94Hunma18

(A) On November 19, 1993, the date of the request for active duty service.

After the enlistment in the support, it shall be transferred to the compulsory riot police officer on January 29, 1994.

It shall be accompanied by the Seodaemun Police Station’s delivery box from March 17, 1994 to the Seodaemun Police Station.

There was work experience.

(B) On April 18, 1994, the second floor of the police box around 08:45 on April 18, 1994

Police Officers belonging to the same police box in the premises of a restaurant, 3.8 Mabber of the highest level of police officers

Hospitalization at the Sven Hospital by suffering from two government official trade due to the studio shot;

On April 22, 1994, death occurred around 02:50.

(C) The claimant of the above No. 1, who is the bereaved family of the above 00 days.

Constitution of the Republic of Korea excludes police officers from claiming State compensation.

Article 29(2) of the State Compensation Act, proviso to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and directly compensate for damages.

shall not amend the provisions of the law or regulations concerned.

The failure by the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and the National Assembly to exercise public authority

The Constitutional Court Act of June 15, 1994, asserting that the fundamental rights have been infringed.

Pursuant to Article 68(1), the constitutional complaint of this case was filed.

(2) 95HunBa39

(A) On September 4, 1992, the outer network maximum display is called as active duty servicemen.

After completion of the prescribed military education, the riot police officers of November 7, 1992 shall be the riot police officers of the operations.

full-time, serving in the Third East of the Busan Regional Police Agency;

on February 25, 1993 22:40, a bus operated within a large bus affiliated with the above military unit.

An assault from the upper knife Kim ○, a four-minute group leader, shall be set up in a balute.

The external shock caused by the depression was killed at that time.

(B) The claimants of the above Section 2, who are the bereaved families of the above maximum 00 malm.

6 May 1993 diversity against the Republic of Korea to the Seoul District Court

Part of the judgment in favor of the court by filing a lawsuit claiming state compensation (93 Gohap31967)

On April 19, 1994 Korea also at Seoul High Court (93Na49194)

The decision dismissing an appeal was rendered, but the final appeal is the final appeal applicant.

Supreme Court (94Da25414) reversed the judgment of the court below and reversed the case.

Seoul High Court remanded.

(C) The claimant's above remand case is Seoul High Court (95Na15478).

While continuing, Article 29(2) of the Constitution and the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

A request for adjudication on constitutionality (95Ka410) was made, but the above court

Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of September 26, 1995 and Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Part of "military personnel, civilian military employees, and homeland reserve forces members" in the proviso to paragraph (1).

The part of "police officer" in the proviso is dismissed.

In accordance with Article 68(2) of the Constitutional Court Act of October 9, 1995, this case

The Constitutional Court requested adjudication on constitutional complaint.

(b) Object of adjudication;

Therefore, the subject of this case shall be the first, the Minister of Home Affairs.

It permits police officers to carry and use firearms, but it is an error.

shall not be liable for any damage to the victim by the Minister of Justice.

No State Compensation shall be allowed to the injured party, and the National Assembly shall

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 29(2) of the Constitution does not amend; and

Damage caused by a tort committed by a soldier or police officer on duty;

Non-establishment of a law that substantially compensates for losses by each public authority.

Whether it infringes on the basic rights of the claimant as a non-exercise

Whether or not (94Hunma18) is the Constitution, the second one is the Constitution (wholly amended on October 29, 1987).

Article 29(2) of the State Compensation Act (Law No. 1899, Mar. 3, 1967)

Article 2(1) of the Act (amended by Act No. 3464, Dec. 17, 1981)

In the proviso, each police officer's "police officer" (94Hunma18, 95HunBa39) is unconstitutional.

The contents of the above provisions of the Constitution and the law are as follows.

Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Damage incurred by a person determined by him/her in connection with the performance of duties, such as combat and training

For the State or public organizations, in addition to compensation as provided by Acts.

No claim for damages for a tort committed by a public official in the course of his duties may be filed.

Article 2 (Liability for Compensation) (1) of the State Compensation Act: Provided, That this provision shall not apply.

Military personnel, civilian employees in the military, police officers, and local reserve members are combat and trained;

For the purpose of the maintenance of national defense or public peace related to performance of duties;

Facilities used, motor vehicles, boats, aircraft and other transportation equipment;

Where a person was killed or wounded in action or on duty, his/her or his/her bereaved family members are different.

Pursuant to the provisions of statutes, disaster compensation, survivors' pension, pension, etc.

When compensation can be paid, it shall be as prescribed by this Act and the Civil Act.

No damages may be claimed.

2. Claimant's assertion and summary of the related person's opinion

A. Summary of the claimant's assertion

(1) 94Hunma18

(A) Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 2(1) proviso of the State Compensation Act

Military service or public security service with high risk of thought for the nation;

A higher level for soldiers or police officers killed in action;

It is not possible to undermine the protection, but rather, recognize the right to claim the state compensation.

It is relatively poor because of its failure to do so.

Articles 10, 11, 23, and 37 (2) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Opinions clearly indicating the fundamental democratic order and the equal improvement of the people’s lives;

It is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the Constitution.

(b) The State's basic principle of indeption held by soldiers and police officers;

Since it is obligated to guarantee human rights, the choice of the principal or his/her bereaved family;

whether compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service is received;

System to receive compensation under the State Compensation Act;

Measures shall be provided, or military personnel or police officers shall receive official duties.

The enactment of Acts to actually compensate for damage caused by illegal acts;

To that end, the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service is amended; or

Measures such as amending Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 29 (2) of the Constitution, etc.

Notwithstanding the obligation to take action, 1. The Minister of Home Affairs shall:

It permits police officers to carry and use firearms, but it is an error.

There is no claim for damages by the victim. ② The National Assembly does not hold the claim for damages.

Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act is not amended; and

Damage caused by a tort committed by a soldier or police officer on duty;

there is no enactment of the law that actually compensates for losses.

The Minister of Justice does not permit the victim to claim the State compensation.

This is the unconstitutional non-exercise of national authority.

(2) 95HunBa39

(A) The provision on the exclusion of police officers' claims for national compensation

Article 29 (2) of the Constitution is the fundamental value system of the Constitution and the core of fundamental rights.

Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; and Article 11

It shall be null and void in violation of Article 29(1).

(B) In addition, the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is unconstitutional.

Article 29(2) provides grounds and Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Since fundamental rights are violated beyond the limit, it is unconstitutional

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, even if not, shall be null and void.

Members of the riot police within the scope of "police officer" under the proviso to paragraph (1).

The above proviso provision is unconstitutional unless it is interpreted that it is included.

(b) Summary of opinions from the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Commissioner General;

(1) First, as to whether Article 29(2) of the Constitution is unconstitutional, the Constitution

Article 107(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, Articles 41(1) and 68(2) of the Constitutional Court Act

If a court becomes the premise for a trial whether a law violates the Constitution

or upon the request of the parties, the court shall judge the unconstitutionality.

The provisions of the Constitution can not be subject to the examination of the constitutionality.

A request for adjudication is unlawful.

(2) A clause subject to adjudication is a combat, training, etc. in light of the nature of the duty.

at least a high level of danger is engaged in, or entered in, a business; or

Operations or duties in an imminent situation, such as being accompanied by a criminal;

With respect to the military, police, etc. to be carried out, the risk burden on their duties shall be borne.

Under the premise that the compensation system is guaranteed in the sense of social security

It is intended to exclude damages that may be inconsistent with the contents of the compensation.

Since the purpose of proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is to be unconstitutional, it can be considered unconstitutional

shall not be effective.

The State Compensation Act limits the right to claim State compensation against the military and police;

Even if it is, it is in accordance with the purport of Article 29(2) of the Constitution.

It is a problem related to the determination of the scope of the subject of rights, but it is a legislative omission.

It is also possible to recognize the claim of state compensation against the military and police.

Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the State Compensation Act shall be applied to the positions of the Ministry of Home Affairs

The provisions of the proviso of Article 2(1), which are deemed to have been unconstitutional.

It should be dismissed.

(3) The "police officer" under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is the State Compensation Act.

The term "public officials constituting members of the police organization" refers to "public officials constituting members of the police organization".

The riot police officers also belong to the above police officers.

3. Determination

(a) A portion of claims made against a non-exercise of each public authority;

(1) Non-exercise of authority by the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Justice

In the case of a constitutional complaint against omission of administrative power:

The duty to act derived from the Constitution to the public authority is particularly particular.

Accordingly, the subject of the fundamental rights has specified the administrative action.

In a case where the subject of the public authority neglects his/her duty despite a claim;

That is to be permitted (the Constitutional Court Decision 91.9.16, 89Hun-Ma163, Sept. 16, 1991).

[See Decision] The Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Justice

The duty to act derived from the Constitution for damages related to ideas

Since it cannot be specifically defined, it is not specifically defined.

In this case, the claimant ○○-gu, the appellate court, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, and the second instance.

A request for adjudication on constitutional complaint is unlawful.

(2) Legislative omission by the National Assembly

As a whole, the Constitution is the decision of the people or the people who are sovereigns.

Since it should be seen as the result of agreement, individual provisions of the Constitution should be viewed as the result of agreement.

The result of the exercise of the public power under Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act

not (see Constitutional Court Decision 95Hun-Ba3 delivered on December 28, 1995, see Constitutional Court Decision 95Hun-Ba3),

Therefore, the National Assembly does not amend Article 29(2) of the Constitution.

section 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act does not exercise the public power

shall not be deemed to constitute a case.

Furthermore, the law for guaranteeing fundamental rights in the form of a false legislative omission

Where there is no provision or a provision on it, but there is a provision on it.

In cases where supplement is required by incomplete regulations, it may be presented.

However, the provisions of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act are alleged by the above claimant.

As such, the claimant's claim for state compensation is incomplete; and

In addition, it provides for a compensation system within the meaning of social security for them.

The details of compensation in the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service are insufficient.

even if it is insufficient to actually compensate for damage, such failure;

The insufficient legislative content is the category of the latter among the forms of the above legislative omission.

Since this form of legislative omission belongs to its jurisdiction, it shall be deemed that this form of omission was made.

incomplete legislation itself is a violation of the Constitution.

The active constitutional complaint is possible, aside from the possibility of the active constitutional complaint, legislation omission.

The object of constitutional complaint can not be considered as the object of constitutional complaint (The Constitutional Court).

【Court Order 89Hun-Ma1, Sept. 27, 1993; 89Hun-Ma248, Sept. 27, 1993

See Decision)

Therefore, the above claimant's this part of this case

The request for adjudication on constitutional complaint is also unlawful.

B. The part concerning "police officer" in the proviso to Article 29 (2) of the Constitution

(1) Article 111(1)1 and 5 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act

Articles 41(1) and 68(2) shall be subject to an examination of unconstitutionality.

The term "law" is defined as "law", and the term "law" is defined as "the National Assembly."

The so-called formal meaning of law enacted through resolution means the so-called formal meaning.

Therefore, it has the same effect as the above formal meaning.

Treaty, etc., separate from those covered by the unconstitutionality review

Each of the above provisions that the individual provisions of the Constitution itself cannot be subject to an unconstitutional review

It is obvious by the language and text of the provision.

(2) In regard to this, the claimant shall be the citizen of the Republic of Korea.

It is impossible to exercise the right to claim the state compensation that can enjoy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

§ 11, Section 1, Article 23 of the Constitution provides for a person.

The spirit of the Constitution expressed in Articles 29(1) and 37(2)

I argue that the constitution is invalid because it is in violation of the constitution.

In this regard, the Constitution is related to the professional and simple individual provisions.

(2) A single uniform, not only in a group of members, but

It forms a value system and among the provisions of the Constitution, the meaning of the Constitution.

There is no more abstract declaration of fundamental value than this.

Since specific expressions have been expressed, ideological and logically;

It can be recognized that there is a high value between constitutional norms. However, it can be recognized that there is a high value between constitutional norms.

The friendlyness between the constitutional norms recognized at this time is the abstract value norm.

It is useful for the uniform interpretation of the Constitution as a result of embodying the Constitution.

In excess of the extent, the effect of a specific provision of the Constitution is completely effective.

to the extent that it means a difference in the effect of the denial;

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, there is no provision on the limit of constitutional amendments.

Unlike the amendment of a law, the amendments to the Constitution shall be made by a national referendum.

(Article 130, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution), which stipulates that a determination shall be made, shall be made

In our Constitution, what provision is the constitutional core.

As a constitutional norm, a superior norm and any provision is simple.

It is not possible to distinguish whether it is a subordinate norm as a constitutional amendment norm.

There is no difference in effect between each individual provision of the Constitution.

There is no basis for recognition.

Furthermore, as a whole, the Constitution is the decision of the people who are sovereigns.

It should be seen as the result of the national agreement, and the individual provisions of the Constitution should be regarded as the result.

The result of the exercise of the public power under Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act

No such person shall be allowed (the Constitutional Court Decision 95HunBa3 delivered on December 28, 1995).

[Reference]

(3) Ultimately, the instant appeal on the part of the above constitutional provision is filed.

As to the individual provisions of the Constitution which cannot be the subject of the constitutional review

It is illegal and illegal.

C. Part of "police officer" in the proviso to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

(1) First, the claimant's assertion that the above legal provision is unconstitutional

In relation to the health section of the above Act, Article 29(1) of the Constitution

The Constitution prohibiting state compensation claims guaranteed by the Constitution from internalizing them;

directly based on paragraph 2 of Article 29 and substantially identical to the content.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that it violates the Constitution (see the above Order 95HunBa3).

Therefore, the claimant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) the next claimant’s maximum flag, maximum ○, maximum ○, e.g., Lee, e., maximum ○;

Within the scope of "police officer" in the part of the most recent provision of the law.

The assertion that it is unconstitutional to interpret that it includes riot police officers.

For health,

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act shall apply to duties with high risk.

For a person engaged in social security at the risk of social security

The State Compensation System shall be formulated separately, but it shall be easy to compete with it.

In order to exclude the claim of state compensation, the legislative purpose is to exclude the claim of state compensation.

The riot police officers are belonging to the combat police units under the National Police Agency.

Duties are to carry out counter-espionage operations and assist in security affairs;

The risk of performing its duties is lower than that of other police officers.

In addition, Article 4 of the Establishment of Reference Police Units Act is applicable.

Considering that many provisions of police officers law apply mutatis mutandis, etc.

However, the veterans' provisions of Article 16 of the Police Officers Act are excluded from the application mutatis mutandis.

(2) Article 7 and Article 8 of the Establishment of Reference Police Units Act

The State Compensation Act, the State Compensation Act,

The term "police officer" in the proviso to Article 2(1) means a police officer under the Police Officers Act.

It is difficult to readily conclude that police officers only refer to police officers, and widely;

Members of the police organization taking into account the inherent high level of danger;

It is reasonable to grasp to the effect that 'public officials' will be specially treated, as such.

Article 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

It should be seen as a ‘police officer' in the proviso.

Ultimately, the above claimant's above assertion is groundless.

We cannot accept it.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, "police officer" in Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of the appellant.

A request for a trial on a part of the claimant, Lee Dong-gu, Kang-hee, Lee In-hee,

The Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and each public authority of the National Assembly;

The request for an adjudication against a non-exercise shall be dismissed respectively in an unlawful manner;

The term "police officer" in the proviso to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act means the Constitution.

No violation, the claimant's second section, the lecture, the second section, the second section, the second section, and the second section;

A petition for a trial on the part of the same provision of interest is without merit.

It shall be dismissed and the indication of the order as referred to in Article 2-1(1) of the Disposition

In addition to the separate opinion by Justice Cho Jong-soo, all participating Justices

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

5. The indication of the text of Article 2-1 (1) of the Protocol of the Judicial Police Officers;

Separate Opinion

B. "State Compensation Act (c)" in the disposition indication of the order No. 2(a)

The term "police officer" in the proviso to Article 2 (1) is in violation of the Constitution.

(c)"State Compensation Act, in the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act."

The request for a trial on the part of police officer is dismissed.

I think it is reasonable to think that it is reasonable to do.

The reason is that the Korean Court of Justice 92Hun-Ba45 delivered on October 26, 1995

Article 75(1)1 of the Military Criminal Act, 93Hun-Ba62 Gu

unconstitutionality of Article 52(1)3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act;

94Hun-Ba7/8(combined) unconstitutionality of Article 62(3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act;

95HunBa22 unconstitutionality of Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

94Hun-Ba28 The Trial of Small Claims Act (Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act)

As stated in the Concurring Opinion regarding the indication of order, as written:

Articles 75(7) and 47 of the Constitutional Court Act recognize the binding force

There is no need to make a decision on constitutionality, and in this case,

Since the citizen claims adjudication on the constitutionality of the statute of limitations, the purport thereof.

In other words, if the conclusion that cannot be accepted is constitutional, no longer effective

It is necessary to indicate in the text that "the Constitution" has not been claimed by the people.

It is because there is no problem.

Judges

Justices Kim Yong-han

Justices Kim Jin-hun

Justices Kim Jong-hee

Justices Hwang Dok-do;

Judges Lee Jae- Goods

Justices Cho Jong-soo

(1) The principal trial officer of the State

Senior Justice Lee Jung-soo

Justices Shin Jae-sik

arrow