메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국비교형사법학회 비교형사법연구 비교형사법연구 제11권 제1호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
245 - 278 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The Crime of False communication on Framework Act of Telecommunications, generally known as ‘disseminaton of false information’, is criticized by many people because the clause in the act violates the principle of legality. They says if ‘false information’ itself be punished, then every expressions cannot be protected by freedom of expression. I think this opinions may be acceptable, but the clause is not aimed for dissemination of false information. From history of the clause, I conclude this clause dates from the Telecommunication Act in 1900 and the Radio Act in 1915. The old Acts were instituted by Japanese imperialism, then the clause has two categories of private interest and public interest. And the clause is necessary for protecting illegal use of telecommuncations facilities. For this reason, I think the meaning of ‘false communincation’ is not of ‘false information’ but of ‘illegal use of telecommunication’. If this clause is regarded as crime of ‘dissemination of false information’, it may be understood as repressing freedom of speech. But the crime of false communication is not interpretable as that meaning, instead as belief for safety and public concern of telecommunications include internet. Recently at the case of ‘Minerva’, the man indicted by violation of the clause of false communication on Framework Ac of Telecommunication was given a verdict of “not guilty”. This case shows the limits of application of the act.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (19)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0