소비자 불매운동의 정당성 - 헌법적 허용한계와 형법적 규제의 타당성-

It is stipulated in Article 5 of the Korean Consumer Framework Act that consumers can legitimately exercise their fundamental rights granted under its Article 4. But the Act does not give any answers regarding whether the consumer boycott is justifiable, or whether it incurs any civil or criminal liabilities. Because there is no provision regulating consumer boycotts under the Act, it is possible that consumers involved are punished in accordance with Article 314 of the Korean Penal Code. When the so-called candlelight vigil against US beef imports was held in 2008, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the defendants, who boycotted goods from three newspaper companies, to be guilty in regards to the violations against for 1st Section of Article 314, Article 324, and 1st Section of Article 350 of the Penal Code. In this context, the legality of consumer boycott needs to be critically considered. Also, it should be inquired into if the criminal regulations of consumer boycotts have validity from the constitutional perspective. If consumer boycotts meet certain basic requirements, for example (i) public interests (ii) subject of rights (iii) peaceful means (iv) self-activity (v) fair information etc, consumers have to be immune from civil or criminal responsibilities with respect to those boycotts. Therefore, it is unfair to apply the above-mentioned criminal provisions to consumer boycotts without no careful consideration of its justifications. The court plays a key role in supporting the activities of corporations or companies. Therefore, with no specific provision to regulate consumer boycotts, the court needs to take into account such requirements as its purpose, subject, means, etc in the case. And the validity of criminal regulations should be reviewed, only when it is assessed that consumer boycotts deviate from constitutional limits given.