현재 변호사에게 변리사자격을 자동 부여하는 변리사법의 제3조 제1항 제2호에 대해서 헌법재판소의 법정의견은 넓은 입법재량권을 인정하여 평등권을 침해하지 않는다고 판시하였다. 물론 헌법재판소의 판단이 직업의 자유의 내용을 구체화하는 문제에 대해서 합리적인 입법재량권을 인정하는 해석이라면 일응 타당할 수 있다. 그러나 50 여년 동안 변리사법의 입법사실과 입법목적은 변화되었거나 소멸되었다는 점을 고려하면, 법개정의 책무를 게을리하는 입법부의 입법재량을 수수방관하는 판결이라고 비판받을 것이다. 만약 헌법소송에서 입법재량권에 대해서 사법억제라는 사법소극적인 헌법해석을 극복하지 못하면, 결과적으로 기본권보장자로서 헌법재판소의 책무와 역할을 포기하게 될지도 모른다. 따라서 이 글의 목적은 헌법재판에 있어서 입법재량론과 입법사실론에 대하여 실질적이고 객관적인 심사기준을 검토하되, 국내외 선행연구가 미미한 까닭으로 일본과 미국의 헌법 이론과 판례를 고찰하여 상기의 변리사법의 위헌법률심판사건에 있어서 구체적인 입법사실과 입법재량권의 적용 효과를 살펴본다.
The Constitutional Court made decision on the case of 2007 hunma 956 as constitutional in 25th Feb. 2010, which the patent attorney act should authorize attorney with title of patent attorney by the article 3 section 1, as well as the legal opinion of the court ruled to a broad legislative discretion as not violating the equal right. As though the Constitutional Court could not put on material and objective standards of the legislative discretion and legislative facts in spite of a rapid increasing those kind of cases through the constitutional litigations, it can result with violation of human rights by itself. This paper is explored the Japanese and American cases and theory on both legislative facts and legislative discretion, and then I reviewed the detail judging criteria as both legislative facts and legislative discretion on adjudication on the constitutionality of the patent attorney act.
The Constitutional Court made decision on the case of 2007 hunma 956 as constitutional in 25th Feb. 2010, which the patent attorney act should authorize attorney with title of patent attorney by the article 3 section 1, as well as the legal opinion of the court ruled to a broad legislative discretion as not violating the equal right. As though the Constitutional Court could not put on material and objective standards of the legislative discretion and legislative facts in spite of a rapid increasing those kind of cases through the constitutional litigations, it can result with violation of human rights by itself. This paper is explored the Japanese and American cases and theory on both legislative facts and legislative discretion, and then I reviewed the detail judging criteria as both legislative facts and legislative discretion on adjudication on the constitutionality of the patent attorney act.