위력에 의한 업무방해죄의 입법목적에 관한 비판적 검토 : 독일 법학방법론의 해석목표 개념에 비추어

From 1998 to 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled six times on constitutional petitions filed regarding the crime of interference with business by the threat of force in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act. However, there may be differences of opinion as to whether the Constitutional Court has sufficiently responded to the repeated concerns that the above provision is unconstitutional. Even if the issue is limited to the legitimacy of the legislative purpose, which is the first step in the proportionality review, it is argued that the legitimacy of the legislative purpose of the crime of interference with business by the threat of force is not legitimate in consideration of the legislative history of that provision. That question still remains unresponded. Unlike in Korean judicial practice, in German legal methodology, the ‘objective of interpretation of the law’ refers to the actual content of the law to be discovered through legal interpretation. There is a subjectivist perspective that understands the legislator's intent as the content of the law and an objectivist perspective that understands the purpose of the law itself as the content of the law. The two positions cannot be strictly separated, and if one perspective regarding the goal of interpretation is completely excluded from legal interpretation, it may result in a lack of specific validity or legal stability. The practical significance of this discussion is that it recognizes that there are multiple competing interpretation possibilities for a single legal provision and requests judicial authorities to provide arguments for the substantive reasons for selecting one of them. At this time, the judicial authority's argument inevitably includes an argument for the reason for determining the priority of the interpretation method. In determining the constitutionality of a statute provision, the Constitutional Court interprets and confirms the legislative purpose of the legal provisions subject to judgement and determines whether the legislative purpose it has confirmed is justified. If the legislative purpose of the legal provision subject to adjudication is not accurately confirmed by the Constitutional Court, not only the judgment of the legitimacy of the purpose but also the subsequent stage of proportionality review, which is based on the sentencing of the purpose and means, is likely to be distorted. Therefore, methodological rigor and honesty must be ensured when the Constitutional Court interprets the legislative purpose of the legal provisions. Looking at the interpretation of the legislative purpose of the crime of interference with business by the threat of force of the Constitutional Court, both the court's opinion that the provision is constitutional and the dissenting opinion that some parts of it are unconstitutional lacked a subjectivist perspective in the interpretation of the legislative purpose. They also lacked both the reason for excluding the subjectivist perspective and the specific reason for adopting their own objective perspectives. However, in order to strictly examine the legitimacy of the legislative purpose, the legislative purpose must be interpreted from both a subjectivist and an objectivist perspective.