선거운동에서 확성장치 사용에 관한 헌법적 검토-헌재 2019. 12. 27. 2018헌마730, 헌재 2008. 7. 31. 2006헌마711 결정을 비교하며-

On December 27, 2019, the Constiutional Court ruled that it was unconformable withthe Constiution to not set standards for noise control while alowing the use ofloudspeakers during election campaigns under the Public Oficial Election Act. 1 yearsafter the decision on July 31, 208, the previous precedent (206 Hunma 71) waschanged. The decision in this case (2018 Hunma 730) neds to be reviewed because mostof the isues are under discusion in constiutional theory. First, in relation to environmental right, the Constiutional Court recognizes thecomprehensive fundamental rights of environmental right acording to the previousdecision. However, in the previous decision, the protection value of the environmentalright was relatively recognized only when it was conected as a means to protect thefredom of life and body. But in this case, it can be evaluated that the value ofenvironmental right was further raised by recognizing and judging the independentrights. Next, regarding the judicial review for obligation to protect of environmental right, theconfusion in the previous decision is overcome and the principle of prohibiton ofminimum protection is selected. In aditon, unlike in the past, when only clarity controlwas aplied as the judicial review for the principle of prohibiton of minimumprotection, a relative standard is presented. The changed the judicial review of theprinciple of prohibiton of minimum protection can be evaluated positvely in that itdirectly ses the characteristics of state obligation to protect fundamental rights. Lastly, the Constiutional Court revealed that there was a precedent with substantialythe same content and overuled the precedent. However, the precedent was changedwith a one-line declaration without suficient argument on the necesity or reason foroveruling of precedent, and this atitude may be sen as a result-oriented judgment.