중대재해처벌법은 사업 또는 사업장, 공중이용시설 및 공중교통수단을 운영하 거나 인체에 해로운 원료나 제조물을 취급하면서 안전 ‧ 보건 조치의무를 위반 하여 인명피해를 발생하게 한 사업주, 경영책임자, 공무원 및 법인의 처벌 등 을 규정함으로써 중대재해를 예방하고 시민과 종사자의 생명과 신체를 보호하 는 것을 목적으로 2021. 1. 26. 제정되어 2022. 1. 27.부터 시행에 들어갔다. 제정 당시부터 찬성과 반대의 목소리가 많았다. 사업주나 경영책임자들의 책 임을 강화함으로써 종사자들의 생명과 신체를 보호하고자 하는 측면에서는 필 요한 입법이라는 주장과 너무 과도한 입법이라는 주장이 대립되었다. 그동안 산업 현장에서 근로자들의 보호를 위한 입법이 미비하고 사용자들의 책임을 강화하여야 한다는 주장이 많아 중대재해처벌법이 제정이 되었으나, 중대재해처벌법이 위헌이라는 주장도 많이 제기되었다. 근로자들의 생명과 신체를 보호하고자 하는 입법목적은 정당하다고 할 수 있 다. 그러나 이러한 목적을 위한 입법도 헌법에 위반되어서는 안된다. 특히 사 업주나 경영책임자와 법인을 형사처벌하는 내용의 입법이므로 죄법정주의에 위반되면 안되고 책임과 형벌의 비례원칙에 위반되면 안되며, 기본권 보호를 위한 비례의 원칙 등을 준수하여야 한다. 중대재해처벌법은 근로자의 생명과 신체를 보호하고자 하는 측면에서 필요한 형사처벌 규정을 두고 있으나, 중대재해처벌법을 적용하는데 있어서 불명확하 거나 책임과 형벌간의 비례원칙 등에 위반된다고 판단되는 조문들이 있다. 필 요한 입법이라 하더라도 헌법에 위반되는 법률은 법치주의를 훼손하는 입법이 므로 위헌성을 제거할 필요가 있다. 최근에 중대재해처벌법 일부 조항에 대하 여 법원에서도 위헌법률심판제청을 하였다는 점을 고려하여, 위헌성을 제거하 기 위한 개정 작업이 필요하다고 본다.

The article 18 of game review regulation has some problems related to mandate of upper law; it violates the limit of mandate of upper law and judicial power. The article 2 of Game industry promotion law defines the concept of ‘gambling behavior’. But the article 18 of game review regulation includes behaviors which are not included in the article 2 to regulate them. Court should have the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not; according to the article 18 of game review regulation, the game rating board has the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not. According to the revision of Game industry promotion law, rating rejection to the violation of Game industry promotion law is possible. Minor violation of law as to business regulation should not be considered as the reason of rating rejection. Therefore, The revision of game law has probability of violating Constitution principle such as proportion rule.

On January in 2013, a district judge made a constitutional suit to the Constitutional Court whether voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. The key point is that the legal interest of the punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, to punish it is not accorded with the properness of manner and the minimum of victim, and it is questionable in point of equal protection. The question that voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional is during debate since long time ago. Some says it should not be punished because everybody has a sexual self-determination, others it is crime because it is immoral, and the others it is controlled by the state because it is harmful to the moral people. I make a couple of proposals in the following points. Firstly, because the legal interest of punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, so that it should not be punished. Secondly, punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional because everybody has a sexual self-determination and buying or selling sexual service is absolutely depending on the individual. Thirdly, punishing voluntary prostitution is out of the principle because it goes against with the ultima ratio rule. Fourthly, punishing all the patterns of voluntary prostitution is not possible and punishing some peculiar types of prostitution does not accord with equal protection. Finally, punishing voluntary prostitution is against the principle of less restrictive alternative because everybody has a right to have a sex without force with another. So punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. However, if the Constitutional Court proclaims that it is unconstitutional, it would give a shock to the ordinary people because they do not have an open mind with it. So I dare to say that punishing voluntary prostitution is committed to the ‘factual’ decriminalization for a while before punishing adultery is unconstitutional proclaimed by the Constitutional Court.

This study has considered on basis of constitutionality that the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy, over-prohibition, and rights to equality. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy because it is a security measure to restrict freedom without imprisonment. However double assessment of second conviction dangerousness at additional punishment to repeated offense and sentence of the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location could be raised objection of double jeopardy. A sex offence has a character that second conviction dangerousness and crime victimization are serious. Thus to release sex offenders is very dangerous, and protection of victims and social defence are necessary. Therefore the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of over-prohibition because there is a balance between human rights violation and public interest. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location is applied special offences, but it doesn't violate the principle of rights to equality because of a sanction to character of sex offenders.