본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

피의사실공표죄(형법 제126조)의 규범적 한계에 관한 고찰 - 형법 제126조의 사문화 현상에 대한 원인분석과 해결방안을 중심으로-

A Study on the Normative Limitations of the Publication of Facts of Suspected Crime(Article 126)

0

조회

0

다운로드

25

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

It is enacted under Article 126 of the Korean Criminal Act that a person who, in the performance or supervision of, or in the assistance in, functions involving prosecution, police, or other activities concerning investigation of crimes, makes public, before request for public trial, the facts of a suspected crime which have come to his knowledge during the performance of his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years, or suspension of qualifications for not more than five years. But Article 126 is malfunctioning as the situation now stands. There are three major causes for this loss of Article 126´s normative power. First, sociocultural causes are as follows. 1. Commercial Journalism that only takes an interest in the timing for release of the information than the accuracy and social influences of information to release 2. Investigative agency's briefing practice for public relations and a convenience of investigation Next, juridical causes are as follows. 3. the misconception about the object and limitation of the right to know and the abuse of the right Therefore, to recover the normative power of Article 126, we need (1) to expand a range of the crime subject as a requirement constituting a Article 126 from ‘the persons referring to the investigation’ to ‘any body(man)’, (2) to understand exactly about the object and limitation of the right to know and to establish clear-cut lines of juridical permissible standard or limitation, (3) for a law enforcement agency's to strive for a strict application of the law and a severe punishment.

Abstract

It is enacted under Article 126 of the Korean Criminal Act that a person who, in the performance or supervision of, or in the assistance in, functions involving prosecution, police, or other activities concerning investigation of crimes, makes public, before request for public trial, the facts of a suspected crime which have come to his knowledge during the performance of his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years, or suspension of qualifications for not more than five years. But Article 126 is malfunctioning as the situation now stands. There are three major causes for this loss of Article 126´s normative power. First, sociocultural causes are as follows. 1. Commercial Journalism that only takes an interest in the timing for release of the information than the accuracy and social influences of information to release 2. Investigative agency's briefing practice for public relations and a convenience of investigation Next, juridical causes are as follows. 3. the misconception about the object and limitation of the right to know and the abuse of the right Therefore, to recover the normative power of Article 126, we need (1) to expand a range of the crime subject as a requirement constituting a Article 126 from ‘the persons referring to the investigation’ to ‘any body(man)’, (2) to understand exactly about the object and limitation of the right to know and to establish clear-cut lines of juridical permissible standard or limitation, (3) for a law enforcement agency's to strive for a strict application of the law and a severe punishment.

참고문헌 (16)

  1. 국회법제사법위원회, "검찰수사관행의 현실과 개선방향", 정책연구, 1~41 (2009)
  2. 강찬우, "언론의 보도태도", 관훈저널, 50(2), pp.99~103 (2009)
  3. 김경호, "도청된 자료의 보도와 언론의 책임에 관한 연구", 한국언론학보, 50(1), pp.5~30 (2006), 한국언론학회
  4. 김기창, "피의사실보도의 문제점", 「피의사실공표와 인권침해」공청회자료(국가인권위원회), 17~46 (2005)
  5. 김상겸, "피의사실공표의 허용범위와 한계", 형사법의 신동향, (27), pp.1~23 (2010), 대검찰청[DOI]
  6. 김옥조, "범죄보도와 언론윤리 - 만두소 사건과 연쇄살인 사건 보도를 중심으로", 언론과 법, 3(1), pp.176~224 (2004)
  7. 문성도, "피의사실공표의 형법적 한계", 치안정책연구, (15), pp.39~68 (2001)
  8. 박성천, "형법의 피의사실공표죄의 운영실태와 개선방안", 인권과 정의, 396, pp.116~132 (2009)
  9. 박영희, "검찰의 한마디, 그리고 검찰기사 작성법", 관훈저널, 50(2), pp.86~93 (2009)
  10. 박진석, "피의사실 공표’에 대한 ‘알권리’의 변명", 관훈저널, 50(2), pp.79~85 (2009)
  11. 신정훈, "피의사실공표죄의 형법적 한계", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.169~200 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  12. 이근우, "중간수사발표에 대한 피의사실공표죄 적용의 몇 가지 쟁점", 비교형사법연구, 10(1), pp.253~272 (2008), 한국비교형사법학회
  13. 이원석, "알권리와 피의사실공표죄의 관계", pp.119~200 (2006), 법무연수원
  14. 이준일, "피의사실공표죄의 헌법적 정당화", 고려법학, (47), pp.161~187 (2006)
  15. 정성엽, "피의자 구속을 수사의 정점으로 판단", 관훈저널, 50(2), pp.104~109 (2009)
  16. 한위수, "피의사실공표죄의 적용과 한계", 인권과 정의, 396, pp.113~139 (2009)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)