본 연구에서는 해사대학의 학칙에 근거한 승선생활교육이 학생의 기본권을 제한하게 되는 경우, 그 제한이 헌법상 기본권 제한에 관한 일반원칙의 테두리 내에서 이루어지고 있는지 여부를 연구하고자 하였다. 해사대학은 헌법 제31조 제4항에 근거하여 자율적으로 학칙을 제정하여 학생을 규율하고 있다. 하지만, 학생의 기본권을 제한하기 위해서는 기본권 제한 3단계인 ① 법적 근거가 있어야 하며, ② 비례성원칙을 통과하고, ③ 헌법 제37조 제2항에 따른 본질내용을 침해하지 않아야 한다. 이 논문에서 검토결과 첫째, 법적근거는 고등교육법과 국립학교설치령 및 학칙에 근거하고 있다. 둘째, 헌법의 비례성원칙을 위반한 것으로는 보이지 않으며, 셋째, 기본권제한의 한계인 본질내용의 침해가 없는 것을 확인하였다. 즉 해사대학생에 대한 승선생활교육이 헌법상 보장하고 있는 기본권 침해는 없는 것으로 확인되었다. 다만, 승선생활교육을 시행하는 과정에서 비례성원칙의 한계를 넘지 않도록 감독을 강화하고, 개별학생의 일탈이 발생하지 않도록 지도·감독을 철저히 해야 한다.

As long as convicted prisoner is a citizen of the nation, his/her fundamental human rights must be guaranteed to the maximum extent in accordance with the constitutional spirit within the range of not becoming a barrier to accomplish a legitimate penological purpose. When we put too much emphasis on protection of human rights of prisoners insomuch as to disturb and violate the correctional order and regulations, however, it would not only cause life and physical safety of both prisoner and correctional officer to be threatened but to make eligible prisoners unable to return to society through correctional and reformative activities, which are basic and valid penological objectives, and also correctional institute unable to detain an offender in custody that is a premise of imprisonment. Therefore, it is required to accomplish the ultimate penological goals so much as to make convict return to society, while the state should guarantee human rights of prisoners, and, at the same time, firmly establish correctional orders. But there are contradictory relationships between protection of convict rights and establishment of correctional orders, so that problems have risen in due course from the perspective of how to achieve harmonization between the two. Then, it would not be too much to say that to maintain discipline and order in correctional institution up to an appropriate level is the most basic premise for penological practices. In this sense, it can be said that to establish correctional orders in a firm manner is essential for penological practices. If discipline and order is exceedingly strict in observance, however, convict will merely become an object to be controlled, thus that it would be not only difficult to achieve certain expected effects of correctional goals but to bring about worries to infringe human rights because of unwanted limitation of fundamental rights of individuals. So then, it is thought that to set up balanced relations between human rights protection and establishment of correctional order by harmonizing tensive relationships in between is an important task in contemporary correctional practices. In any case, limitation of fundamental human rights of convict, however, should not cross boundary that has been set in order to maintain an orderly prison life having secured physical custody of convict.