도로교통법상 어린이 보호구역의 연중 24시간 일률적 차량 시속 30km 제한 규정의 합헌성 연구 - 관련 교통사고 실증 분석과 독일·프랑스의 법제 비교를 겸하여 -

Recently, On April 22, 2025, a constitutional complaint in the form of an abstract constitutional review was filed with the Constitutional Court, challenging Article 12 (1) of the current Road Traffic Act, which permits a uniform speed limit of 30km/h to be imposed 24 hours a day, year-round, in all school zones nationwide. The complainant, a vehicle driver, argues that this provision excessively restricts the general freedom of action and other fundamental rights, thereby violating the constitutional principle of proportionality. In response, this study, for the first time, presents an original and in depth argument based on empirical analysis, comparative law, constitutional theory, and legislative policy that it is constitutionally appropriate for the Constitutional Court to uphold Article 12 (1) of the Road Traffic Act as constitutional. This conclusion is advanced on the basis of two principal grounds. First, Germany and France historically experienced exceptionally high rates of pedestrian fatalities and injuries due to a traffic culture that prioritized drivers over pedestrians. In response, and as a profound act of legislative self reflection, both countries have, since the 1980s, imposed strict and uniform speed limits of 30km/h on most urban roads including school zones on a 24-hour, year-round basis. Through this approach, they have clearly instilled a “pedestrian-centered” conception of traffic safety in drivers’ consciousness and have further internalized it as a social norm. As a result of these sustained efforts, Germany and France recorded traffic fatality rates per 100,000 population that were significantly lower than the average of other OECD member states and high income countries between 2015 and 2022, according to major official statistics. By contrast, South Korea continues to exhibit markedly higher rates of pedestrian fatalities and injuries from traffic accidents than Germany, France, and other OECD member states across multiple objective indicators. Accordingly, it is necessary for South Korea to maintain Article 12 (1) of the Road Traffic Act without amendment, as it allows for a uniform speed limit of 30km/h to be imposed year-round in school zones nationwide, in line with the legislative models of Germany and France. In other words, the road traffic safety outcomes demonstrated by German and French legislation present a compelling normative benchmark that South Korea should aspire to in fulfilling the State’s constitutional duty to protect children’s rights to life and bodily integrity within school zones. Second, major official statistics from 2020 to 2024 indicate that traffic accidents involving child pedestrians in school zones occur continuously, regardless of time of day or day of the week. Notably, both the total number of such accidents and the number of injured victims increased by 2024 compared to 2020. Furthermore, South Korea exhibits a significantly higher pedestrian fatality rate relative to total traffic accidents than other OECD member states and high income countries, including Germany and France. Numerous empirical studies analyzing the correlation between vehicle speed and pedestrian injury severity demonstrate that pedestrian fatality and injury rates increase exponentially once collision speeds exceed approximately 30km/h. In light of these findings, the legislative purpose of Article 12 (1) of the Road Traffic Act —namely, to proactively and effectively suppress or prevent the risks posed by vehicle impacts and to ensure the maximum possible protection of children’s rights to life and bodily safety as vulnerable road users—must be regarded as constitutionally legitimate. Moreover, the provision contributes to fundamentally reforming the entrenched “driver-centered” traffic culture in South Korea and to enhancing drivers’ duty of care, which remains insufficient, regardless of time or day. Through these effects, Article 12 (1) provides substantive protection for children’s rights to life and bodily integrity within school zones. Accordingly, the provision constitutes an appropriate means of achieving its legislative objective and thus satisfies the suitability requirement under the constitutional principle of proportionality. In addition, given South Korea’s still relatively low level of traffic safety awareness and the fact that traffic accidents in school zones occur across all times and days, a 30km/h speed limit represents an unavoidable measure to effectively reduce fatality and injury rates among child pedestrians, while imposing only the minimum necessary restriction on drivers’ general freedom of action and related rights. In particular, Article 12 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is not a mandatory provision but rather a discretionary one, allowing local governments to flexibly adjust speed limits based on regional characteristics, traffic conditions, and child accident and fatality rates within school zones. As such, the provision already incorporates safeguards against excessive speed restrictions on drivers and therefore complies with the requirement of minimal impairment under the principle of proportionality. Finally, the public interest protected by Article 12 (1)—namely, the protection of children’s rights to life and bodily safety within school zones—is of substantial constitutional importance. By contrast, the private interest of drivers in their general freedom of action, which is restricted only briefly while passing through such zones, is comparatively minor. Accordingly, Article 12 (1) satisfies the requirement of proportionality in the narrow sense, or the balancing of legal interests, under constitutional law.