업무방해죄의 적용에 관한 헌법적 고찰 ― 헌법재판소 결정의 규범적 이해 ―

The Korean Constitutional Court held that the article of the Interference with Business in Korean Criminal Code was constitutional. The holding was based on the fact that the article was neither against the Void for Vagueness Doctrine nor against the Right to Collective Action if the article would be applied only to the labor disputes that went beyond the immanent limits of the worker's Right to Collective Action. I believe the Korean Constitutional Court's decision didn't exempt the article of the Interference with Business in Korean Criminal Code from the unconstitutionality but the Court made it clear that the article itself was constitutional if it would be applied only to the actions beyond the limits of the Right to Collective Action. In terms of the constitutional law principles, these kinds of cases could be understood as cases of 'the Conflicts between the Constitutional Rights,' the Conflicts between the worker's Right to Collective Action and the employer's Property Right. This paper aims at exploring the constitutional solutions for the conflicts between the constitutional rights by applying the concerned constitutional law theories. To achieve this aim, it will analyze the concerned Korean Constitutional Court's case at first and examine the areas that the worker's Right to Collective Action and the employer's Property Right would protect. Then, this paper will try to constitutionally solve the conflicts by applying the Double Standard Doctrine and other constitutional law theories. In addition, it will inquire into the impacts of the Korean Constitutional Court's decision into a general court's decision in the future.