종교적 행위의 형사법적 허용범위

There are a lot of religions in our society. From a very long time ago, humans have lived in various forms of orientation that are the source of religion. Because of the close relationship between these religions and humans, freedom of religion is recognized as a fundamental human right in the world. It is also difficult, if at all, forbidden to give absolute moral authority or political influence to a religion because the religion they believe is diverse. In other words, the freedom of religion is guaranteed not to be forced to a particular religion from the state or other people. However, it can be understood that there may be judicial limitations on the outwardly expressed religious activities. I have confirmed three things here in order to understand the extent to which freedom of religion can be recognized. First, what is the meaning of ‘religion’, which is one of the contents of our liberty right now? Second, what is the scope of free religious activities guaranteed by ‘freedom of religion’? Third, if the freedom of religion is understood as a category of human rights, what kind of solution will it take and how far can it be questioned? Concretely, the representative problem at the limit is the rejection of blood transfusion, circumcision, and conscientious objection resulting from religious reasons. These are the areas that originate from the religious thought of the individual and eventually clash with another external benefit. In other words, it is the subject of constitutional control that can not be guaranteed freedom. However, the right of self-determination, which started from religious ideas, is also an important element of fundamental rights that the Constitution intends to guarantee fairly broadly. Ultimately, it is necessary to balance conflicting profits from the exercise of these powers and the relative profits that will be damaged thereby. The choice of the individual as the right of self-determination in the extension of freedom of religion, which is the basic right, should not be the subject of criminal law intervention easily, even if it does not directly cause harm or damage to others, need.