본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

‘삼성 X파일’ 보도 및 공개사건 판결 비판 - 대법원 2011.3.17. 선고 2006도8839 판결 및 대법원 2011.5.13. 선고 2009도14442 판결 -

Two Supreme Court Judgements Regarding the Samsung X-file: Over-protection of the Personality Rights of the Public Figures Who Committed Serious Crimes

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The Samsung X-File, which was illegally wiretapped by agents of the Agency for National Security Planning in 1997 and leaked in 2005, showed that the Samsung Group illegally provided fund to a conservative candidate before the 1997 presidential election and had regularly given 'rice cake money' to a number of high ranking public prosecutors. All of the related figures were not punished for the statute of limitation, while two reporters and a congressman were punished for revealing the X-file to the public. Mr. Lee Sang-Ho, who as an Moonhwa Broadcasting Company[MBC] reporter first obtained the X-file and reported it through MBC, was punished for the violation of the Communication Privacy Protection Act[CPPA]. Mr. Roh Hoe-Chan,who as a Democratic Labor Party congressman distributed the list of the prosecutors who had received the 'rice cake money' to the reporters in the National Assembly and unloaded on his internet homepage, was punished for defamation of the prosecutors and the violation of CPPA. The eight-to-five majority opinion of the Supreme Court held that Mr. Lee is guilty in that CPPA prohibits the release of the communication obtained by illegal wiretapping. The majority opinion provides very narrow exception for the prohibition,which is not applicable to the defendant. After this decision, the Court also held that Mr. Roh is guilty of uploading the list of the prosecutors on the internet homepage whileas not guilty of defamation and distributing it to the reporters. Criticizing these two decisions, this Article argues that the Supreme Court overprotects the personality rights of the public figures who committed serious crimes; the communication obtained by illegal wiretapping may be released by the press if the press is not involved in the illegal wiretapping and the communication contains significant public interests; and the congressman's privilege of speech covers the uploading of the list on his/her internet homepage.

Abstract

The Samsung X-File, which was illegally wiretapped by agents of the Agency for National Security Planning in 1997 and leaked in 2005, showed that the Samsung Group illegally provided fund to a conservative candidate before the 1997 presidential election and had regularly given 'rice cake money' to a number of high ranking public prosecutors. All of the related figures were not punished for the statute of limitation, while two reporters and a congressman were punished for revealing the X-file to the public. Mr. Lee Sang-Ho, who as an Moonhwa Broadcasting Company[MBC] reporter first obtained the X-file and reported it through MBC, was punished for the violation of the Communication Privacy Protection Act[CPPA]. Mr. Roh Hoe-Chan,who as a Democratic Labor Party congressman distributed the list of the prosecutors who had received the 'rice cake money' to the reporters in the National Assembly and unloaded on his internet homepage, was punished for defamation of the prosecutors and the violation of CPPA. The eight-to-five majority opinion of the Supreme Court held that Mr. Lee is guilty in that CPPA prohibits the release of the communication obtained by illegal wiretapping. The majority opinion provides very narrow exception for the prohibition,which is not applicable to the defendant. After this decision, the Court also held that Mr. Roh is guilty of uploading the list of the prosecutors on the internet homepage whileas not guilty of defamation and distributing it to the reporters. Criticizing these two decisions, this Article argues that the Supreme Court overprotects the personality rights of the public figures who committed serious crimes; the communication obtained by illegal wiretapping may be released by the press if the press is not involved in the illegal wiretapping and the communication contains significant public interests; and the congressman's privilege of speech covers the uploading of the list on his/her internet homepage.

참고문헌 (28)

  1. 노회찬, "노회찬과 삼성X파일", ~ (2012)
  2. 조국, "불법도청에 관여하지 않은 언론의 도청결과물 보도의 위법성조각-‘X파일’ 보도사건을 중심으로-", 법조, 57(12), pp.185~217 (2008), 법조협회
  3. 이정원, "도청정보의 공개에 대한 법적 고찰", 형사법연구, (24), pp.237~256 (2005), 한국형사법학회
  4. "서울고법형사9부 2006. 11. 23. 선고2006노1725 판결", ~
  5. "서울중앙지법형사합의24부 2006. 8. 11. 선고2006고합177 판결", ~
  6. "의안번호5487(2009. 7. 17. 발의)", ~ (2009)
  7. "대법원1994. 4. 15. 선고93도2899 판결", ~
  8. "대법원1996. 11. 12. 선고96도2214 판결", ~
  9. "대법원2001. 2. 23. 선고2000도4415 판결", ~
  10. "대법원2004. 8. 20. 선고2003도4732 판결", ~
  11. "대법원2008. 12. 24. 선고2007도1776 판결", ~
  12. 양화식, "형법 제20조의 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 행위에 대한 고찰", 형사법연구, (19), pp.175~199 (2003), 한국형사법학회
  13. 심헌섭, "일반조항소고, In 분석과 비판의 법철학", pp.241~242 (2001)
  14. "대법원2000. 4. 25. 선고98도2389 판결", ~
  15. 임웅, "형법 제20조 사회상규에 관한 소고", 성균관법학, 14(1), pp.9~ (2002)
  16. "대법원2002. 1. 22. 선고2000다37524, 37531 판결", ~
  17. "대법원2008. 9. 25. 선고2008도4889 판결", ~
  18. "대법원1988. 10. 11. 선고85다카29 판결", ~
  19. "대법원1992. 9. 22. 선고91도3317 판결", ~
  20. 홍성우, "홍성우 변호사의 증언, 인권변론 한 시대", pp.658~666 (2011)
  21. "서울중앙지방법원2009. 2. 9. 선고2007고단2378 판결", ~
  22. "서울중앙지방법원2009. 12. 4. 선고2009노520 판결", ~
  23. "대법원2011. 5. 13. 선고2008도14442 판결", ~
  24. "대법원2000. 2. 25. 선고99도4757 판결", ~
  25. 오병두, "노회찬 전 의원 ‘X파일’사건 제1심 판결의 문제점 -서울중앙지법 2009. 2. 9 선고, 2007고단2378 판결과 통신비밀보호법 제16조 제1항 제2호의 해석을 중심으로 -", 민주법학, (41), pp.453~480 (2009), 민주주의법학연구회
  26. "Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204(1880)", ~ (1880)
  27. "Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27(1803)", ~ (1803)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)