현행 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률상 집회 금지 장소 규정의 쟁점 및 개선 방향

Over the years, the Constitutional Court of Korea has repeatedly rendered decisions-on largely similar grounds-declaring constitutional nonconformity or (simple) unconstitutionality with respect to various provisions of Article 11 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstration, which designate specific locations as prohibited areas for assemblies. In response, the National Assembly has amended Article 11 of the Law on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, as of December 2025, significant legal issues remain unresolved regarding the continued maintenance or further revision of this provision, particularly when assessed in comparison with relevant legislative models in the United States and Germany. Against this backdrop, the following five broad directions may be proposed as desirable legislative improvements for the future reform of this provision. First, it is advisable to maintain the current legislative approach adopted in Article 11 of the Law, which provides for a principle of prohibition with exceptional permission for assemblies held within 100 meters of major state institutions. This approach remains justified for the purpose of ensuring the smooth functioning of key governmental bodies and safeguarding the physical safety of public officials. Second, Article 11 currently consists of five subparagraphs that, in substance, adopt identical or nearly identical legislative approaches by imposing a principle of prohibition with exceptional permission for assemblies within 100 meters of major state institutions. This structure may give rise to unnecessary confusion in the interpretation and application of the provision. Accordingly, in order to enhance legislative efficiency and economy, it would be desirable to consolidate these five subparagraphs into one or two integrated provisions in future revisions. Third, among the various grounds on which assemblies may exceptionally be permitted under Article 11, the phrase “where there is no risk of the assembly developing into a large-scale gathering” should be retained in its current form. Removing this phrase would make it difficult for the police to promptly and effectively assess, in light of the diverse and evolving characteristics of assemblies on the ground, whether an exceptionally permitted assembly near major state institutions constitutes a “large-scale assembly.” Such deletion could also result in overly restrictive regulation and unjustifiably narrow the scope of exceptional permission for assemblies in the vicinity of designated prohibited areas. Fourth, it is desirable to promptly introduce a provision under Article 11 that, similar to other subparagraphs, adopts a principle of prohibition with exceptional permission for assemblies held within 100 meters of the President's residence and the official residences of the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the President of the Constitutional Court. Fifth, it is advisable to maintain the current legislative approach under Article 11, which uniformly prohibits assemblies, in principle, within 100 meters from the boundary points of major state institutions. Unlike Germany, South Korea frequently experiences changes in surrounding areas due to new developments, road renaming, and modifications in road layouts. Moreover, many citizens still find it difficult or inconvenient to identify locations based on street-name addresses. For these reasons, a uniform distance-based regulatory scheme remains preferable.