초록 close

The extension of law by analogy is used as a method of gap-filling where there is no applicable law. The extension of law by analogy has not been the subject of the constitutional review by the Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court, however, declared recently that analogy could also be a subject of constitutional examination in the field of criminal law. This article is an attempt to answer the question, “What is the relation between the rule of clarity and extension of law by analogy?”, “To what extent the constitutional review about extension of law by analogy can be justified?”The rule of clarity is inextricably connected with statutory interpretation especially in constitutional cases because Justices usually try to judge whether the case is within the boundary of statutory interpretation. In this regard, the view of a person of common sense is the most important element in determining whether a statute is sufficiently clear, satisfying the rule of clarity. A statutory interpretation which exceeds the understanding of a person of common sense would, then, be an analogy. Extension of law by analogy is generally accepted in the area of civil law unlike the area of criminal law and tax law owing to the constitutional provisions. I argue that analogy by judges should be excluded from the subject of constitutional review if when it is not constitutionally prohibited, because this analogy is generally grounded on Article 11 and Article 103 of the Constitution. In the area of law restricting fundamental rights, the question of whether the analogy would be subject to constitutional review depends on the severity and range of the restriction. Meanwhile, Judges should show the reasonable grounds for the analogy when an analogy is employed.