民事上 公人에 대한 名譽毁損責任의 成立要件 : 相當性과 公人理論을 중심으로

陳相旭(Jin, Sang-Wook) 한국재산법학회 2010 재산법연구 Vol.27 No.2

The defamation means the behaviour decreasing a victim's reputation in the community. Occasionally, there is unlawful even in case the defamation is established. Even in case where the media harms a person's reputation by reporting factual matters, if it is only for the purpose of public interest as matters related to the public interest, then such act should not be viewed as unlawful where the truth of the stated fact was proved, or where an actor believed its truth or had sufficient reason to believe even though it was not proved. However, the media has the burden of proving the truth of the communication, and the victim does not bear the burden of proving actual malice just because the victim is a public figure. In the public figure is included the public official and the person which the interesting of the public becomes by his achievements, reputation, occupation, and etc. The public figure has a small room for his reputation comparing to the private figure. In case there is no 'actual malice', the theory of an actual malice formed at U.S. is the theory which doesn't bear the liability for defamation. Supreme Court doesn't accommodate equally this theory. However, actually the ideology for guaranteeing the freedom of expression is admitted. As follows, Supreme Court judges a limit between a person's reputational protection and the freedom of expression. “In compromising the freedom of the press for the sake of protecting a person's reputation, the standard should be formulated depending on whether the victim is a public figure or a private one, or whether the communication is about a public issue or a person's privacy; thus, in the expression of public interests, the restriction on the freedom of the press should be less strict and matters related to public officers' integrity or job performance should be subject to the citizen's control and criticism. Therefore, the function of control and criticism should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or conspicuously unreasonable.”

Examination Standard on Defamation of Public Figures

Jung, Eui Lom(정의롬) 동국대학교 사회과학연구원 2014 사회과학연구 Vol.21 No.2

When freedom of expression, One of the basic principles of liberal democracy, conflicts with personal rights related to a person’s honor, it became a serious problem of defamation. However, there is no clear definition in concept of public figures in Korea. As a result, there is ongoing discussion on requirements and scope of defamation by precedents when defamation of public figures case occurs. News reports to public figures often get involved in lawsuit cases, still, predictable decision criteria is not presented. In the United States, defamation of public figures has a historic decision, New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, that presented the actual malice rule. It switched the burden of proof of establishment of defamation to the complainants, therefore, it constructed legal theory as establishing a responsibility of illegal act on public employee and public persons requires actual malice. Through this construction, it interprets the subjective requirements strictly, and make the complainants take the burden of proof of existing subjective requirements. On the other hand, legal concept of public figures is being discussed on criminal cases such as crimes against reputation or defamation through printed materials. ‘Intent to defame another’ is regulated as a part of requirements in Article 309, Criminal Act of Korea. In Article 310, the Justification of crimes against reputation is establish only in the course of pursuing solely for the public interest and the legal concept of public figures is used. In addition, Constitutional Court stated that the constitutional examination standard shall be different from whether the victim’s position or the content of expressions can be applied to public concern or not.

Examination Standard on Defamation of Public Figures

정의롬 동국대학교 사회과학연구원 2014 사회과학연구 Vol.21 No.2

When freedom of expression, One of the basic principles of liberal democracy, conflicts with personal rights related to a person’s honor, it became a serious problem of defamation. However, there is no clear definition in concept of public figures in Korea. As a result, there is ongoing discussion on requirements and scope of defamation by precedents when defamation of public figures case occurs. News reports to public figures often get involved in lawsuit cases, still, predictable decision criteria is not presented. In the United States, defamation of public figures has a historic decision, New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, that presented the actual malice rule. It switched the burden of proof of establishment of defamation to the complainants, therefore, it constructed legal theory as establishing a responsibility of illegal act on public employee and public persons requires actual malice. Through this construction, it interprets the subjective requirements strictly, and make the complainants take the burden of proof of existing subjective requirements. On the other hand, legal concept of public figures is being discussed on criminal cases such as crimes against reputation or defamation through printed materials. ‘Intent to defame another’ is regulated as a part of requirements in Article 309, Criminal Act of Korea. In Article 310, the Justification of crimes against reputation is establish only in the course of pursuing solely for the public interest and the legal concept of public figures is used. In addition, Constitutional Court stated that the constitutional examination standard shall be different from whether the victim’s position or the content of expressions can be applied to public concern or not.

공직선거법상 후보자비방죄에 대한 연구

권오걸(Kwon, Oh Geol) 한국법학회 2013 법학연구 Vol.49 No.-

선거범죄 중 후보자비방죄는 그 성격상 허위사실 유포와 명예훼손을 결합한 성격의 범죄로서 위의 도표에서는 흑색선전이 이에 해당한다고 볼 수 있다. 전체 선거범죄에서 흑색선전이 차지하는 비율은 대체로 10% 이상(2006년-2010년)이며, 2008년을 기점으로 꾸준하게 증가하는 양상을 보이고 있다. 본 연구에서는 표현의 자유라는 헌법상의 기본권보장의 관점에서 후보자비방죄의 구성요건요소에 대한 제한 해석의 가능성과 그 구체적 해석의 방향을 제시하고자 하였다. 우선 후보자비방죄에서 말하는 ‘당선되거나 되게 하거나 되지 못하게 할 목적’은 고의와는 별도로 초과주관적 요소로서 미필적인 인식으로는 부족하고 확실한 인식과 목표 지향적 의욕이 필요하다고 본다. 또한 사실의 범위를 지나치게 확대하여 판단하는 경우에는 피고인에게 불리한 해석으로 궁극적으로는 표현의 자유에 대한 침해로 이어질 가능성이 매우 높기 때문에 의견과의 구별이 중요하다. 공적인 활동에 대한 부분도 비방의 대상으로 본다면 비방의 범위가 지나치게 확대되어 선거의 자유와 더불어 헌법상의 표현의 자유라는 기본적 권리가 훼손될 수 있다. 따라서 사생활에 대한 비방과 같은 수준으로 평가할 수 있을 정도에 이른 경우에만 비방의 대상에 포함시키는 것이 합리적이라고 본다. 그리고 제251조 단서는 “오로지”라는 단어가 포함되어 있지 않기 때문에 , 진실한 사실의 적시에 관한 한 그것이 반드시 공공의 이익이 사적 이익보다 우월한 동기가 된 것이 아니더라도 양자가 동시에 존재하고 거기에 상당성이 인정된다면 위법성이 조각된다고 보아야 한다. 후보자비방죄는 선거과정에서 무분별하게 나타나는 후보자에 대한 흑색선전을 억제하여 건전한 선거문화를 정착시키고자 하는 국가적 , 사회적 보호법익을 지키고자 하는 개별 법규범이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 한편으로 후보자에 대한 비난을 모두 후보자에 대한 비방으로 보고 이를 처벌하는 경우에는 일반시민이 향유해야 하는 표현의 자유를 침해할 가능성이 함께 상존한다. 따라서 선거의 공정성에 기초한 허용성의 관점과 표현의 자유를 침해할 수 있다는 위험성의 관점에서 후보자비방죄라는 개별 구성요건을 통해서 얻을 수 있는 이익과 침해될 수 있는 이익의 적절한 형량과 한계의 설정이 필요하다. 이러한 논의는 결국 축제의 장으로서의 선거에 대해서 형사제재라는 국가형벌권의 발동의 당위성과 한계에 대한 논의이며 이러한 논의는 비례성과 형법의 보충성의 관점에서 그 구체적인 적용의 방향이 검토되어야 할 것이다. The Defamation to the candidate among crime of election is composed of both character of the false fact spread and defamation. It could be amount to the a malicious (false) propaganda, The rate of the malicious (false) propaganda among the crime of election roughly is over 10%, and is on the increase since 2008. In this article I would like to show the possibility of the limited translation to the component of the Defamation to the candidate and direction of the concrete translation. At first ‘the aim making the candidate to be elected or not to be elected at the Defamation to the candidate’ is an excessive subjective component of the Defamation to the candidate, therefore it needs both some goal-oriented volition and certain awareness. If the scope of the fact is excessively broadly translated, the freedom of the expression could be infringed. Therefore the distinguish fact from opinion is very important. If public part is regarded as the focus of Defamation, as a result the realm of the Defamation is extended to much, after all the basic right of the constitutional law could be spoiled. Accordingly in case that the defamation to the public part of the candidate reaches to the level like the Defamation to the private part of the candidate, it is reasonable to include public affairs into the object of the defamation. And there is not a word only at the pro-visory clause of the Article 251, therefore if someone present true fact about the candidate with both public profit and private profit, the illegality of the defamation to the candidate would not be recognized on the condition that a sufficient reason is in existence. On the other (hand) if we regard not serious criticism as The Defamation to the candidate and punish it all, There is the possibility of the infringement to the freedom of the expression that citizen must enjoy. Therefore it is necessaryto set limits between interest to be taken and to be losed through the punishment to the Defamation.

표현의 자유와 명예훼손

이동훈(Lee, Dong-Hoon) 한국비교공법학회 2017 공법학연구 Vol.18 No.4