「부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률」 합헌 판결의 정치적 해석

The purpose of this paper is to examine the political meaning of Act on Anti Graft, which was determined to be constitutional. For this purpose, this paper analyzes judgments of constitutional courts based on analytical framework and concepts of political science such as responsiveness and legitimacy that make up the core concepts of representative politics. Judicial restraint in this paper is defined as the case for judgment results intentionally staying out of the political process and the case for judgment results actively reflecting public opinion. However, it is not interpreted as constitutional court being dragged or misled by public opinion. This paper interprets that constitutional court utilizes public opinion in making judgment on constitutional lawsuit to secure justification for judgment. In sum, constitutional court makes judgments of judicial restraint by not interacting judicial settlement with political process and being in line with the direction of public opinion. It is shown that constitutional court maximizes institutional legitimacy and responsiveness, while strategically minimizes accountability depending on political issues when evaluating cases regarding legislation.