명예훼손 사건에서 ‘사실’의 의미와 입증
Meaning and proof of ‘facts’ in defamation case
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Today, there are many defamation cases in our country. Various issues in many areas of our society are not solved by dialogue and compromise, but have been passed into the judicial process. As the result, investigative agencies and judicial institutions are playing a role in judging social controversies. However, this phenomenon is causing many undesirable problems. So it is necessary to limit the role of the judiciary as a judge. For this end, it is necessary to restrictively interpret the scope of recognition of ‘facts’ in defamation cases, by strictly applying the requirements such as concreteness and possibility of demonstration. If we interpret the meaning of ‘facts’ broadly, there is a risk that people will feel less free to express opinions. So the concept of ‘facts’ should be interpreted as narrowly as possible in order to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of speech. This judgment provides one consideration. That is, even if the expression of a word or a writing appears to represent ‘facts’ when it is seen from the outside, when the whole context or intention is examined, the reality may correspond to the expression of opinion.
Abstract
Today, there are many defamation cases in our country. Various issues in many areas of our society are not solved by dialogue and compromise, but have been passed into the judicial process. As the result, investigative agencies and judicial institutions are playing a role in judging social controversies. However, this phenomenon is causing many undesirable problems. So it is necessary to limit the role of the judiciary as a judge. For this end, it is necessary to restrictively interpret the scope of recognition of ‘facts’ in defamation cases, by strictly applying the requirements such as concreteness and possibility of demonstration. If we interpret the meaning of ‘facts’ broadly, there is a risk that people will feel less free to express opinions. So the concept of ‘facts’ should be interpreted as narrowly as possible in order to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of speech. This judgment provides one consideration. That is, even if the expression of a word or a writing appears to represent ‘facts’ when it is seen from the outside, when the whole context or intention is examined, the reality may correspond to the expression of opinion.
참고문헌 (14)
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2018), 홍문사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2017), 박영사
- 젊은역사학자모임, "욕망 너머의 한국 고대사" (2018), 서해문집
- "명예훼손죄에 있어 ‘사실의 적시’ 해당 여부 판단에 관한 판례의 검토" (2018), 공일규[URL]
- 김경호, "‘의견표현’과 ‘사실적시’ 이분법에 따른 대법원의 표현의 자유 보호 법리에 관한 연구", 언론과학연구, 8(1), pp.39~80 (2008), 한국지역언론학회
- 김종철, "공직선거법 제250조 제2항(낙선목적 허위사실 공표죄)와 관련한 대법원 판결에 대한 헌법적 검토 - 소위 ‘정봉주 사건’을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 22(1), pp.1~32 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 박범영, "명예훼손에 있어 사실과 의견의 구별론– 서울고등법원 2014. 8. 8. 선고, 2013나38444 판결에 대한 검토 -", 법조, 65(5), pp.300~338 (2016), 법조협회[DOI]
- "19. 언론법" (2018), 양철한[URL]
- 이원상, "허위사실적시에 의한 명예훼손죄의 적용에서 전제사실의 미확정으로 인한 문제점 고찰", 형사판례연구, 22, pp.105~137 (2014), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- "이정희에겐 안 되고, 문성근에겐 되고…대법 ‘종북 명예훼손’에 다른 판단" (2018), 경향신문[URL]
- "식민사관 비판하다 법정에 선 역사학자 이덕일 ‘현 검찰은 조선총독부 검찰인가’" (2015), 주간경향[URL]
- "‘민족대표33인 후손 명예훼손’ 설민석씨에… 법원 ‘1400만원 위자료 지급’" (2018), 한겨레[URL]
- "‘손혜원 논란’, 엄정한 검찰 수사로 진실 규명해야" (2019), 한겨레[URL]
- "사법부도 매국사학에 동참하는가?" (2015), 한국NGO신문[URL]