헌법 제84조의 비교헌법사적 해석 : ‘재직 중’과 ‘형사상의 소추’의 의미를 중심으로

A Comparative Historical Interpretation of Art. 84 of the Constitution : The Original Meaning of “Presidential Immunity Clause”

이 논문은 대통령의 형사상 특권에 관한 현행헌법 제84조의 시간적, 사항적 적용범위를 비교헌법사의 방법으로써 밝힌 것이다. 미합중국, 독일, 중화민국, 대한민국 등 각국의 헌법사를 비교 대조함으로써, 현행헌법 제84조 중 ‘재직 중’과 ‘형사상의 소추’의 의미에 접근하고자 했다. 그 결과 현행헌법 제84조에 근거한 대통령의 형사상 특권은 대통령의 취임 전 범죄행위에까지 미치지는 않지만, 그 적용을 받는 ‘형사상의 소추’에는 취임 후 범죄에 대한 공소제기 외에 수사 등 형사상 법적 책임추궁이 광범하게 포함된다는 결론에 도달했다.

Article 84 of the current Constitution of Korea, the Presidential Immunity Clause, provides that the President shall not be charged with a criminal offense during his tenure of office except for insurrection or treason. In the paper, I tried to explain by comparative-historical analyses how long and to what extent the President should be immune from judicial process under this article 84. First, I examined several U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as U.S. v. Nixon (1974), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Clinton v. Jones (1994), Trump v. Vance (2020), and Trump v. U.S. (2024). Second, I traced the constitution-making history of article 43 section 3 of the Weimar Constitution (1919) and that of article 60 section 4 of the Bonn Basic Law (1949). Third, I made chronological surveys of some related provisions in Chinese constitutional documents from article 76 of the Tiantan Draft Constitution (1913) to article 54 of the Five-five Draft Constitution (1936). Here, I also introduced two significant judicial interpretations about article 52 of the ROC Constitution (1947). Finally, I concentrated on the constitution-making history of the ROK Constitution (1948) and found some clues to interpretate both article 67 of the ROK Constitution (1948) and article 84 of the current Constitution. In conclusion, I maintained that the presidential immunity under article 84 of the current Constitution should not protect the President’s unofficial acts, but it should protect the President not only against criminal prosecutions but against criminal inspections as well.