$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$
  • 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
안녕하세요!
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

휴대전화 문자메시지를 이용한 선거운동금지 규정에 대한 헌법적 평가 - 헌법재판소 2009. 5. 28, 2007헌바24 결정의 평석을 중심으로

A Constitutional Evaluation on the Forbidden Clause of the Election Campaign used a Cellular Phone Letter Message - Focused on the Annotation of The Conclusion of the Constitutional Court 2009. 5. 28. Sentence, 2007Hun-Ba24 -

외법논집 v.34 no.4 , 2010년, pp.159 - 174   http://dx.doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2010.34.4.159
이희훈
초록

The Constitutional Court decided in its 2007 Hun-ba 24 decision (May 28, 2009) that Clause 1, Article 93 of the Public Official Election Law did not violate the void for vagueness doctrine and the principle of balancing test. First of all, the Constitutional Court is correct in holding that the part ‘or the like’ in the same Article is a general provision and that the Article falls under the non-exhaustive (the methods in the Article are not exhaustive) legislative format and does not violate the void for vagueness doctrine. Also, the Constitutional Court is correct in that the Article, categorically prohibiting the transmission of all mobile text messages to voters for certain period of time in order to protect a peaceful and fair election, has a legitimate legislative purpose and since the means provided for in the Article at least contributes to achieving such purpose, they conform to the principle of suitability of means.But sending mobile text messages to voters as a means of election campaigning, since it is much less expensive and is easier and more effective in transmitting information on the election to the voters than any other campaign methods provided for in the Public Official Election Law, has to be protected in the Public Official Election Law in principle. And thus Clause 1, Article 93 of the Public Official Election Law, in denying such protection, does not conform to the framework of protecting basic constitutional rights as a principle and restricting them as an exception.And the Public Official Election Law does not minimize damage to a peaceful and fair election by restricting the total number of mobile text messages sent to voters or requiring the campaigners to obtain consent of the voters to receive the messages but categorically prohibit transmission of all mobile text messages on the election for certain period of time, which is an excessive restriction of the freedom of election campaigning and thus a violation of the principle of minimum infringement.For such reasons, the benefit of a peaceful and fair election obtained by the Article is exceeded by the benefit of the candidates' freedom of election campaigning damaged by the Article, so the Article violates principle of the balance of benefit and protection of the law. Therefore, the Constitutional Court's decision, which decided differently from this author regarding the above, is not correct.

참고문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문의 참고문헌 없음

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음

원문보기

원문 PDF 다운로드

  • KCI :

원문 URL 링크

  • 원문 URL 링크 정보가 존재하지 않습니다.
상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일