2022년 4월에 군형법 제92조의 6 추행죄에 관하여 나온 대법원 전원합의 체 판결(2019도3047)은 법학방법론적으로 다양한 문제지점들을 담고 있어 서도 관심을 끈다. 그 판결에서 다수의견과 별개의견들 및 반대의견은 적용 법조항의 의미를 두고서 전통적인 법학방법론의 네 가지 방법인 문언, 체계, 역사, 목적은 물론 법해석과 법형성의 구별 및 허용되지 않는 법형성, 헌법합 치적 해석과 헌법정향적 해석, 그리고 법해석 일반론에 이르기까지 상이한 의견을 제시하였다. 특히 다수의견이 법원의 법해석권한을 넘어서 국회나 헌 법재판소의 권한을 침해하는지가 명시적으로 다투어진 점은 법원의 법해석권 한의 한계에 관한 관심을 불러일으켰다. 이 연구에서는 이 판결을 법학방법론상 다음과 같이 분석하고 평가하였다. 1. 문언해석의 차원에서 군형법 추행죄에서 대표적인 예시적 구성요건인 ‘항문성교’는 이성 간에도 가능한 일상적 의미가 아니라 남성 간의 행 위를 가리키는 일종의 전문용어로 해석하는 것이 동 조항의 입법의도를 포함한 역사적 맥락에 부합한다. 이 판결의 다수의견은 이와 달리 그 단어를 일상적 의미로 해석해서 항문성교의 대표적인 예시적 구성요건 으로서의 의미를 탈각시키고 소극적 구성요건을 창설하였다. 법문언에 반하는 이러한 목적론적 축소해석은 민주적 법치국가에서 재판의 법률 구속성 요청에 따르는 엄격한 정당성 심사를 받아야 한다. 2. 체계적, 목적론적 해석의 차원에서 동 조항의 보호법익으로 군기 이외 에 성적 자기결정권을 포함시킨 다수의견은 군형법과 형법의 체계에 맞 지 않다. 3. 역사적 해석의 차원에서 다수의견은 입법자의 의사를 지나치게 경시하 였다. 4. 입법자의 의도에 반하는 법해석 또는 법형성의 정당성은 예외적으로만 인정될 수 있다. 국회의 입법권과 헌법재판소의 위헌법률심판권을 침해 하여 법치국가원리를 침해하기 때문이다. 이 판결 다수의견의 법형성은 그러한 예외적 정당성이 인정되는 경우가 아니다. 5. 헌법합치적 해석은 헌법의 기본권 조항들 뿐 아니라 민주적 법치국가의 권력분립존중 요청에도 부합하게 이루어져야 한다. 이 판결 다수의견은 그런 요청에 부합하지 않아서 헌법합치적 해석으로 타당하지 않다. 결론적으로 이 판결의 다수의견과 별개의견들은 민주적 법치국가 원리에 따라서 존중해야 하는 국회의 입법권과 헌법재판소의 위헌법률심판권을 침해 하여 부당하다.

The purpose of the Act on The Protection of Children Against Sexual Abuse is to prepare procedures for relieving and assisting victimized children and juveniles, and protecting them against sexual abuse and assisting them to become sound members of society. Any person who commits an offense of indecent act against a child or juvenile shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a limited term of at least two years or by a fine of at least ten million won, but not more than 30 million won. From the perspective of children and juveniles, protection of their sexual autonomy should have special meaning. Understanding of self, will, sex, age, and environment of children must be considered when the court make decision on the relevant cases. Sexual violence against children must have devastated effect on their development towards a man or woman who fully enjoys his or her own self determination of sex. The case reviewed by this essay is on the issue of medical treatment by pediatrist and indecent act against children patients. The court denied victims’ statement on their victimization as a guess or emotional reaction, not real experiences. Investigators and judges should have special understanding on the characteristics of child victim’s statements on his or her experiences. Most of all, the criminal court in sexual violence cases should pay attention not to the consistency of statement by children, but to the special behaviour and mind of their victimization, and further to the social context of sexual violence.

Recently, the scope of indecent act by compulsion has widened significantly. Also, the citizens are increasingly aware that most cases of indecent assault are done by forcible compulsion so, there is no animosity towards the expansion of indecent act by compulsion. However, it is somewhat inappropriate to expand the role of indecent act by compulsion in our criminal law. Because, in our criminal justice system, it is not intended to punish anyone for abusing all sexual harassment, but it is designed to punish people for violating their sexual decision–making rights by mobilizing force. Of course, indecent acts are reprehensible. But, it is necessary to think again about trying to punish indecent acts in the area of indecent act by compulsion. That is why the responsibility of the criminal law can be damaged. In such a sense, I agree with the supreme court decision in conclude. However, there has been a growing social interest in recent sexual assault. And the demand for punishment for indecent assault is on the rise. Therefore, it is a great burden to insist on reducing the role of indecent act of compulsion in criminal law. This paper does not claim to be lenient on sexual assault by reducing the role of indecent act of compulsion. but, within the principle of criminal law, indecent act of compulsion in criminal law should be more rationally applied. Because, criminal punishment is not the master key to solve all crimes. Indecent act by blitz(sexual harrassment) should not be included in the concept of indecent act by compulsion. Thus, indecent act by blitz should be punishable by a separate crime as sexual harrassment. And indecent act by compulsion should just play its own role. as it were, indecent act by compulsion should play its planned role in principles of responsibility of criminal law.

In our criminal law system, rape and forcible sexual abuse are distinguished, and forcible sexual abuse and public obscenity are also different. Forcible sexual abuse is forcing undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another with force or threat. Nowadays, among some cases the meaning of force is interpreted willfully, so that even though one cannot see forcible sexual abuse, it seems to be the case. So it is advisable that the meaning of force is interpreted narrowly. There is no the offence of sexual abuse in public in our criminal law, but in special law(the Special Act of Sexual Assault) there is an offence of sexual abuse in public. But it is not good way to treat this problem, so it is advisable that the offence of sexual abuse without force should be introduced into the Criminal Act. In the Criminal Act even though sexual abuse and public obscenity is distinguished, the meaning of abuse similar to that of obscenity. To this a case said that the meaning of abuse is harm to one’s sexual determination, and obscenity is harm to public sexual morale.