경찰공무원법상 징계처분의 위헌·위법성 여부에 대한 법리적 검토 - 본질성이론(Wesentlichkeitstheorie)을 중심으로 - = Legal review of suspention as disciplinary Punishment in the Police Officers Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The article 80 of the State Public Officials Act was revised on 24 December, 2015. According to the revision, an officer who is submitted to the demotion or suspension as a disciplinary punishment will receive nothing for his salary. On the other hand the Police Officers Act has no article of effect of disciplinay punishment. Therefor the question arises whether the Police Officer can receive something for his salary, when he is submitted to the disciplinary punishment. Before the Police Officers Act had revised on 31 December 1982, the Act had each article of the appointment, the appointment examination, the salary, the Police Officer`s Service, the guarantee of a Police Officer`s status, the disciplinary punishment etc.. But this Act was revised for some reasons that are removal of overlapping articles between the State Public Officials Act and the Police Officers Act and especially regulation of the article for only the Police Officers. As a result, there are no articles of the effect of disciplinary punishment in the Police Officers Act. On the contrary, the legal decree of the salary applies to the state public officer as well as the police officer. According to this decree, the salary in the disciplinary punishment applies to the article 80 of the State Public Officials Act. As a consequence of that, the police officer receive nothing for his salary when he takes the aforementioned disciplinary punishment. But there still remain some questions, when this isn`t accorded with the theory of fundamental Guarantee. Because the legislative itself must regulate all that is important to realization of the basic rights according to this theory. It is obvious that the promotion, the salary etc. are important. But the police officer can suffer from disadvantages in field of the promotion and the salary etc., when he is disciplined according to other Police Act. Even though the disciplinary punishment is so important to the police officer, there are no articles such as the kind and effect of disciplinary punishment in the Police Officers Act. Therefore the Police Officers Act should be reconstructed and revised.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 박영사 2014
• 2 한수웅, "헌법학" 법문사 2011
• 3 홍정선, "행정법특강(제14판)" 박영사 2015
• 4 류지태, "행정법신론 제14판" 박영사 2010
• 5 박균성, "행정법강의 제10판" 박영사 2013
• 6 김남철, "행정법강론 사례연습" 박영사 2015
• 7 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ" 박영사 2014
• 8 정형근, "행정법" 서울 2016
• 9 송동수, "중요사항유보설과 의회유보와의 관계" 한국토지공법학회 34 : 99-119, 2006
• 10 김성수, "일반행정법" 홍문사 2010
• 11 김렬, "인사행정론" 박영사 2016
• 12 김해원, "수권법률에 대한 수권방식통제로서 포괄위임금지원칙 - 기본권심사를 중심으로 -" 한국헌법학회 21 (21): 159-193, 2015
• 13 김해원, "수권법률에 대한 수권내용통제로서 의회유보원칙 - 기본권심사를 중심으로 -" 한국비교공법학회 16 (16): 85-104, 2015
• 14 김대환, "본질적 내용 침해금지 원칙의 이론과 실제― 헌법재판 25주년을 되돌아보며 ―" 한국헌법학회 19 (19): 197-240, 2013
• 15 김성균, "본질성이론의 관점에서 본 불확정개념의 효력 ―세법을 중심으로―" 한국세법학회 14 (14): 99-135, 2008
• 16 김명수, "보건의료법제에서 포괄적 위임금지원칙에 관한 고찰" 세계헌법학회한국학회 20 (20): 23-62, 2014
• 17 김민호, "법률유보의 한계와 위임입법" 한국공법학회 2 (2): 209-223, 2000
• 18 배영길, "법률유보의 원칙" 한국해사법학회 (4) : 231-255, 1992
• 19 유진식, "법률유보원칙의 실제와 개선방안 - 「자유ㆍ재산의 침해」에서 「법률의 규율밀도」로 -" 한국공법학회 44 (44): 193-215, 2015
• 20 김명길, "국민의 안전을 위한 법치행정의 방향" 법학연구소 56 (56): 1-31, 2015
• 21 이철호, "경찰공무원의 법적 지위에 관한 고찰" 아세아태평양공법학회 5 : 303-331, 1998
• 22 이효민, "경찰공무원 합리적 징계양형을 위한 제도적 개선방안" 영산대학교 법률연구소 9 (9): 115-138, 2012
• 23 권장훈, "경찰공무원 징계제도 개선방안에 관한 연구" 영남대 한국균형발전연구소 2 (2): 115-139, 2011
• 24 김영식, "경찰공무원 직위해제처분의 법적 성격과 한계 - 판례와 소청 결정례 분석을 중심으로 -" 한국경찰법학회 11 (11): 145-165, 2013
• 25 성홍재, "개정된 국가공무원법 제80조의 위헌·위법여부에 대한 법리적 검토 - 정직 및 강등처분의 효력을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 57 (57): 63-89, 2016
• 26 Thomas Oppermann, "Verhandlungen des Deutschen Juristentages, Band 1, Gutachten C 1-108" C.H. Beck 1976
• 27 Werner Heun, "Staatshaushalt und Staatsleitung" Nomos Verl. 1989
• 28 Jürgen Staupe, "Parlamentsvorbehalt und Delegationsbefugnis" Duncker & Humblot 1986
• 29 Christian Seiler, "Der einheitliche Parlamentsvorbehalt" Duncker & Humbolt 2000
• 30 Eberhard Schmidt-Assmann, "Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee" Springer 2006
• 31 Rolf Groß, "Das Dritte Rundfunkurteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts - Echo und Konsequenzen" 561-, 1982
• 32 Reinhard Hendler, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" Boorberg 2001
• 33 Hartmut Mauer, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" C.H. Beck 2006
• 34 Hans Peter Bull, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" Müller 1997
• 35 Jörn Ipsen, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" Carl Heymanns Verlag 2007