Although the Republic of Korea has made remarkable economic development, the government’s corruption index is at the lowest level among OECD countries, and it is a fact that corruption can not escape from the widespread state in many fields. In order to achieve the growth engine of the nation, this liquidation of corruption is an essential element. From this national mission, Kim Young–Ran’s proposal was presented at the 19th National Assembly for the purpose of clearing up corruption and enhancing integrity of the public societies. After consultation between the public hearing and the related organizations, the “Kim Young–Ran Law” was enacted, the “Act on the Prohibition of Illegal Filing and Receipt of Money, etc.”.

Article 1 of the Act stipulates that the illegal appeal against public officials and the receipt of money such as public officials shall be prohibited so as to ensure the fair performance of public officials and ensure public confidence in public institutions. Although the legitimacy of these legislative purposes is all affirmative, there is criticism that the enactment of the law without a careful examination of the effects of the law has had a significant negative impact on the national economy as well as unconstitutional regulations.

In this paper, the criticism of the decision of the Constitutional Court and the unfairness of this law are examined through the critical analysis of the unconstitutional judgment decision of the case 2015 HUNMA 236, 2015 HUNMA 412, 2015 HUNMA 662, 2015 HUNMA 673. And the unconstitutionality of the law. The amendment should amend and supplement the legislation to ensure that political power is provided to prevent institutional abuse, such as media and means for static elimination.

[사실관계]
 [결정요지]
 [결정근거요지]
  □ 이유의 요지
   1. 청구인 사단법인 한국기자협회의 심판청구의 적법 여부
   2. 제한되는 기본권
   3. 부정청탁금지조항의 명확성원칙 위배 여부
   4. 부정청탁금지조항과 금품수수금지조항의 과잉금지원칙 위배여부
   5. 위임조항의 기본권 침해 여부
   6. 신고조항과 제재조항의 기본권 침해 여부
   7. 부정청탁금지조항과 금품수수금지조항 및 신고조항과 제재조항의 평등권 침해 여부
  □ 정의조항에 대한 반대의견(재판관 김창종, 재판관 조용호)
  □ 정의조항 반대의견에 대한 보충의견(재판관 김창종)
  □ 위임조항 중 제8조 제3항 제2호에 대한 반대의견(재판관 이정미, 재판관 김이수, 재판관 안창호)
  □ 위임조항에 대한 반대의견(재판관 김창종)
  □ 위임조항 법정의견에 대한 보충의견(재판관 서기석)
  □ 제재조항 중 제22조 제1항 제2호에 대한 반대의견(재판관 이정미, 재판관 김이수, 재판관 김창종, 재판관 안창호)
 [평석 및 김영란법의 분석내용]
  Ⅰ. 들어가면서
   1. 심판대상 법률
   2. 위헌청구의 논거
   3. 입법 과정
   4. 향후 전망
  Ⅱ. 본 법률의 입법취지와 문제점
   1. 입법취지
   2. 헌재 결정에서 본법의 문제점
   3. 17·18세기 경찰국가시대로의 회귀 가능성
  Ⅲ. 법률의 구체적 내용에 대한 검토
   1. 법률의 대상 범위의 확대로 인한 잠재적 범죄자 확대
   2. 법률에서 처벌하고자 하는 범죄의 명확성 여부
   3. 사회상규에 위배되지 않는 행위와 관련된 법리적 문제점
   4. 본 법률의 선언적 의미의 순기능과 역기능의 혼재
   5. 금액 산정의 위임 및 역기능
   6. 국민권익위의 권한과 관련된 문제점
  Ⅳ. 결 론
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 오경식(Professor, Gangneung–Wonju National University, Ph.D in Law.) | Oh, Kyung-Sik