2009. 12. 31. 법률 제9905호로 개정된 공무원연금법 제64조 제1항 제1호의 적용 범위에 관한 부칙 규정의 해석론

According to the State Public Officials Act, the Local Public Officials Act and the Public Officials Pension Act, if a public officer receives a punishment above imprisonment, he properly retires and gets a reduction on retirement annuity. The constitutional court pronounced rulings that the proper retirement provision is constitutional, but the provision about reduction on retirement annuity is unconstitutional and ordered the National Assembly amend the provision by 31th of December 2008. But the National Assembly had not amended that provision by December 31, 2008, so the provision became invalid from January 1, 2009, and public officers who were subject to punishments above imprisonment got full payment of their retirement annuity from January 1, 2009. The National Assembly amended the Public Officials Pension Act at December 31, 2009 so that retirement annuity is not reduced if the public official who received punishment above imprisonment as a result of a crime which was not related to his official work, and he had no criminal intent. And the National Assembly made a supplementary provision which provided that the amended provision is applied from January 1, 2009. The Constitutional Court ruled that the above supplementary provision is unconstitutional because it violated ex post facto law. But the above supplementary provision has two meanings. One is that the amended provision is applied to public officer who retired before January 1, 2010. And the other is that the above portion is retroactively applied from January 1, 2009. The part which violates ex post facto law is not the former, but the latter. Thus, the Constitutional Court should not have ruled the above supplementary provision unconstitutional and made the supplementary provision invalid. The Constitutional Court should have ruled the above supplementary provision unconstitutional and ordered the National Assembly to amend the supplementary provision. The unreasonable ruling of the Constitutional Court caused absurd consequences where retirement annuity reduction from January 1, 2010 varies depending on when the public official retired. According to above ruling of the Constitutional Court, retired public officials during 2009 due to sentences of punishment above imprisonment should get full payment of their retirement annuity after January 1, 2010 in accordance to the absence of reduction provision. But Supreme Court made a wrong judgement on April 24, 2014 at the expense of legal reasoning. In conclusion, I criticize the above ruling of the Constitutional Court and the above judgement of the Supreme Court concerning the erroneous legal reasoning.