[판례평석] 항공보안법상 항로변경죄의 문리해석에 있어서의 문제점 -대법원 2017. 12. 21. 선고 2015도8335 전원합의체 판결-

The purpose of ‘Korean Aviation Safety and Security Act’ is to prescribe standards, procedures and duties in airport facilities, air navigation safety facilities and aircraft. Moreover, its another purpose is to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. In order to prevent any wrongdoing and unlawful conduct in such places, there are various penal provisions such as ‘Crime of Causing Damage to Aircraft(Article 39)’, ‘Crime of Hijacking Aircraft(Article 40)’, ‘Crime of Altering Course of Airplane(Article 42)’, ‘Crime of Interference in Airport Operation(Article 45)’. The penal provisions of the Act seem to be clear. Furthermore, the term “in flight(Article 2 of the Act)” definitely means “from the time all the doors of an airplane close after passengers board the airplane to the time all the doors of the airplane open for passengers to disembark”. Recently, the majority opinion of the Korean Supreme Court held that “Altering Course of Airplane”of Article 42 means altering airway of airplane even though the term of “in flight” exists in the penal provision. However, the dissenting opinion found that “Altering Course of Airplane” means not only altering airway of airplane but also altering of taxing, towing and pushing back of airplane itself. The majority opinion held that grammatical interpretation should be applied to the Crime of Altering Course of Airplane in the Act. However, grammatical interpretation is not properly applied to this case. Instead, the majority opinion applied a mixture of grammatical interpretation and teleological interpretation. Therefore, “Course of Airplane” of Article 42 of the Act includes not only airway of airplane but also land route of airplane “in flight”.