형법에 의한 인격권보호와 명예훼손법제
Protection of Personal Rights by Criminal Law and Legal System of Defamation
0
조회
0
다운로드
14
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Not only honor of personal rights but also freedom of the expressions should keep control and balance so that both of basic human rights should keep harmony at collision to legislate and interpret laws. Article 309 of the Criminal Act had dual values, that is to say, weighted punishment of not only intent of defame another but also limitation on defamation crime for freedom of expressions to have border between individuals' honor protection and freedom of expressions. The interpretation should be applied to Article 70 of the Information and Communications Network Act having same structure as Article 309 of the Criminal Act, and both regulations having no discrimination of both structure and functions should be regulated by the Criminal Act in the future. Article 307-1 of the Criminal Act should not be cancelled considering personal and social influence, and prosecution conditions should follow current regulation of ‘Crime shall not be prosecuted over the express objection of the victim’. The insult had relation with ‘freedom of expressions’ in accordance with Article 21-4 of the Constitution to have no relation with the people's right to know on expressions to have less Constitutional protection and to have no need of enactment. Being different from the Criminal Act, legislation of ‘Crime shall not be prosecuted over the express objection of the victim’ had uncertain insult from objective point of view to have intention of not victim but investigation agency that was thought to be inappropriate. Being different from defamation, the insult crime that committed minor illegality should have de-criminalization from long term point of view. The overall de-criminalization that was difficult to apply should follow not imprisonment but punishment concerning property considering practical situation.
Abstract
Not only honor of personal rights but also freedom of the expressions should keep control and balance so that both of basic human rights should keep harmony at collision to legislate and interpret laws. Article 309 of the Criminal Act had dual values, that is to say, weighted punishment of not only intent of defame another but also limitation on defamation crime for freedom of expressions to have border between individuals' honor protection and freedom of expressions. The interpretation should be applied to Article 70 of the Information and Communications Network Act having same structure as Article 309 of the Criminal Act, and both regulations having no discrimination of both structure and functions should be regulated by the Criminal Act in the future. Article 307-1 of the Criminal Act should not be cancelled considering personal and social influence, and prosecution conditions should follow current regulation of ‘Crime shall not be prosecuted over the express objection of the victim’. The insult had relation with ‘freedom of expressions’ in accordance with Article 21-4 of the Constitution to have no relation with the people's right to know on expressions to have less Constitutional protection and to have no need of enactment. Being different from the Criminal Act, legislation of ‘Crime shall not be prosecuted over the express objection of the victim’ had uncertain insult from objective point of view to have intention of not victim but investigation agency that was thought to be inappropriate. Being different from defamation, the insult crime that committed minor illegality should have de-criminalization from long term point of view. The overall de-criminalization that was difficult to apply should follow not imprisonment but punishment concerning property considering practical situation.
참고문헌 (45)
- "형법개정법률안 제안이유서(형사법개정자료XIV)", 법무부, 169~ (1992)
- 강동범, "사이버 명예훼손행위에 대한 형법적 대책", 형사정책, 19(1), pp.39~62 (2007), 한국형사정책학회
- 박광민, "인터넷상의 명예훼손에 대한 형사법적 규제", 형사법연구, (24), pp.99~120 (2005), 한국형사법학회
- "대법원 2000. 2.11. 선고 99도3048 판결", ~ (2000)
- "대법원 1998.10. 9. 선고 97도158 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 1997. 8.26. 선고 97도133 판결", ~ (1997)
- 정소영, "사생활 보호에 대한 형사법적 연구", 박사, pp.2012
- 주승희, "현행 사이버 명예훼손죄 법리의 문제점 및 개선방안 관련 최근 논의 검토", 형사정책연구, 20(1), pp.585~611 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 곽병선, "사이버명예훼손에 관한 규제상의 문제점 및 대응방안", 법학연구, (23), pp.371~387 (2006), 한국법학회
- 사이버공간에서의 표현행위와 형사책임, "김혜경", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2005)
- : 개인적 법익에 관한 죄(1), "이천현", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2007)
- 사이버공간상 인권침해범죄에 대한 법제도적 통제방안 연구, "정완", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 명예에 관한 죄 규정의 개정방안, 형사법개정연구(IV): 형법각칙 개정안, "서보학", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2009)
- 도중진, "명예에 관한 죄의 정비방안", 형사법연구, (22) (2004), 한국형사법학회
- 오영근, "인터넷범죄에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 14(2), pp.8~332 (2003), 한국형사정책연구원
- 윤종행, "사이버명예훼손죄에 있어서 비방의 목적과 공익 관련성", 형사정책, 18(1), pp.289~324 (2006), 한국형사정책학회
- 임웅, "비범죄화의 이론", pp.5~ (1999), 법문사
- 申平, "새로운 名譽毁損法 體系의 構築에 관한 試圖", 공법연구, 31(3), pp.8~8 (2003), 한국공법학회
- "General Comment No.34. Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, CCPR/C/GC/34"[URL]
- "표현의 자유를 위한 정책제안", 표현의 자유를 위한 연대, ~ (2012)
- "대한변협의 2012년 1월 박영선안에 대한 의견서(2012.03.05.자)", ~ (2012)
- "대법원 1970. 7.21. 선고 70도1266 판결", ~ (1970)
- "대법원 1993. 4.13. 선고 92도234 판결", ~ (1993)
- "대법원 1999. 4.23. 선고 99도636 판결", ~ (1999)
- "대법원 2007.12.14. 선고 2006도2074 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 1993. 6.22. 92도3160 판결", ~ (1993)
- "대법원 1988.10.11. 선고 85다카29 판결", ~ (1988)
- "헌법재판소 1999. 6.24. 선고 97헌마265 결정", ~ (1999)
- "대법원 1998.10. 9. 선고 97도158 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 2007.12.14. 선고 2006도2074 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2001.10. 9. 선고 2001도3594 판결", ~ (2001)
- "대법원 1997. 4.11. 선고 97도88 판결", ~ (1997)
- "헌법재판소 2011.12.29. 선고 2007헌마1001 결정", ~ (2011)
- "대법원 1996. 6.28. 선고 96도977 판결", ~ (1996)
- "대법원 2007. 1.26. 선고 2004도1632 판결", ~ (2007)
- "헌법재판소 1999. 6.24. 선고 97헌마265 결정", ~ (1999)
- "대한변협의 2005년 박영선안에 대한 의견서(2005.10.11.자)", ~ (2005)
- "일부개정법률안(장윤석안)(발의 2008.10.30, 의안 제1801637호)", ~ (2008)
- "정보통신망법 일부개정법률안(나경원안)(발의 2008.11.03, 의안 제1801683호)", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2004. 6.25. 선고 2003도4934 판결", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2008. 7.10. 선고 2008도1433 판결(“한심하고 불쌍한 인간” 사례)", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2003.11.28. 선고 2003도3972 판결(“자식을 범법행위 변명의 방패로 쓰시다니 대단하십니다” 사례)", ~ (2003)
- "대법원 1959.12.23. 선고 4291형상539 판결", ~ (1959)
- "2012년 7월 박영선안(모욕죄 폐지안) 입법의견서", 3~4 (2012)