지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2021.8
- 수록면
- 3 - 45 (43page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2021.8.32.3.3
이용수
DBpia Top 5%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
2021
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In a free democracy, the constitutional freedom of the press and publication holds a great significance. However, in case exercising the right to freedom of the press and publication infringes upon other basic rights or undermines the constitutional order, it is subject to a certain level of limitation. This is clearly stated under Article 21(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and Article 37(2) of the Constitution also stipulates legal limitations on such freedom under the Principle of Limitation of Basic Rights.
While the expression of one’s personal opinion and the publication of specific facts is legally guaranteed under the right to the freedom of the press and publication, the scope of its guarantee or limitation will differ depending on whether it is an expression of opinion or communication of a fact, and also depending on the factuality of the content.
In particular, when a person expresses one’s opinion, which is an individual’s subjective view, or when a person communicates an objective fact while expressing one’s view, such freedom of the press and publication should be fully protected. However, the expression of falsified facts, or fake news, is not guaranteed on an equal level under the right to the freedom of the press and
publication.
For, while the freedom of the press and publication serves to uphold the foundation of democracy by allowing the free formation and circulation of opinions, the publication or statement of false facts fails to serve such function. Furthermore, such falsified content is likely to defame another person, undermining personal rights and even causing social confusion.
Due to the above mentioned reasons, expressing or circulating false facts such as fake news is regulated by the Constitution as well as other legislative provisions. For example, there are non-criminal regulations like the press arbitration or civil liability compensation. Also such offense may be subject to punishment for defamation under the Criminal Act, or punishment for publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act, as well as other criminal regulations. Countries with advanced legislative systems such as Germany or the United States have long implemented both criminal and non-criminal legal actions on the expression of falsified facts, or fake news, based on the countries’ historical, social, and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, in imposing criminal punishment, greater scrutiny is required than non-criminal punishment, in that there is a higher possibility of limiting or infringing the constitutional freedom of the press and publication. Under the current law, legal provisions on criminal punishment applicable to the offense of publicizing false facts include defamation under the Criminal Act; defamation under the Information Communication Network Act; publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act; and fabrication and circulation of false facts under the National Security Law.
However, concerns have been constantly raised that such criminal regulation may result in violating the constitutional right to freedom of the press and publication. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the current criminal punitive system with foreign judiciaries with advanced legislative systems such as Germany and the United States, and conduct a thorough study on practical cases in order to determine whether there is a violation of the Constitution.
As a result of this study, punishing a defamer under the Criminal Law for circulating false facts may involve abuse of the National Penal Power, due to the issue of “vagueness” of the ‘intent to defame others’ and the condition of No Punishment against Will. In punishing the offense of publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act, there is a possibility of violating the Principle of Proportionality due to the de facto mandatory invalidation of election under the mandatory minimum sentence. Punishment for fabricating and circulating false facts under the National Security Law may also infringe upon the Principle of Proportionality due to the uniform and high statutory sentence without distinction on the level of offense. Therefore there is a need to improve current legal provisions to resolve possible issues of constitutionality.
Furthermore, with the increasing level of damage on the victims of fake news, there is a growing argument to introduce new legislation to impose criminal punishment on expressing false facts that cause social conflict and confusion, which previously has not been subject to criminal punishment. While such legal action is deemed necessary, excessive criminal regulation may result in infringing on the freedom of the press and publication. Therefore such legal measures require thorough review to ensure that such measures are introduced on a minimum necessary scale. In conclusion, both the existing criminal regulation and newly introduced legal measures must guarantee the freedom of the press and publication, while contributing to safeguard the constitutional values of personal rights, social order, as well as national security.
While the expression of one’s personal opinion and the publication of specific facts is legally guaranteed under the right to the freedom of the press and publication, the scope of its guarantee or limitation will differ depending on whether it is an expression of opinion or communication of a fact, and also depending on the factuality of the content.
In particular, when a person expresses one’s opinion, which is an individual’s subjective view, or when a person communicates an objective fact while expressing one’s view, such freedom of the press and publication should be fully protected. However, the expression of falsified facts, or fake news, is not guaranteed on an equal level under the right to the freedom of the press and
publication.
For, while the freedom of the press and publication serves to uphold the foundation of democracy by allowing the free formation and circulation of opinions, the publication or statement of false facts fails to serve such function. Furthermore, such falsified content is likely to defame another person, undermining personal rights and even causing social confusion.
Due to the above mentioned reasons, expressing or circulating false facts such as fake news is regulated by the Constitution as well as other legislative provisions. For example, there are non-criminal regulations like the press arbitration or civil liability compensation. Also such offense may be subject to punishment for defamation under the Criminal Act, or punishment for publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act, as well as other criminal regulations. Countries with advanced legislative systems such as Germany or the United States have long implemented both criminal and non-criminal legal actions on the expression of falsified facts, or fake news, based on the countries’ historical, social, and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, in imposing criminal punishment, greater scrutiny is required than non-criminal punishment, in that there is a higher possibility of limiting or infringing the constitutional freedom of the press and publication. Under the current law, legal provisions on criminal punishment applicable to the offense of publicizing false facts include defamation under the Criminal Act; defamation under the Information Communication Network Act; publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act; and fabrication and circulation of false facts under the National Security Law.
However, concerns have been constantly raised that such criminal regulation may result in violating the constitutional right to freedom of the press and publication. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the current criminal punitive system with foreign judiciaries with advanced legislative systems such as Germany and the United States, and conduct a thorough study on practical cases in order to determine whether there is a violation of the Constitution.
As a result of this study, punishing a defamer under the Criminal Law for circulating false facts may involve abuse of the National Penal Power, due to the issue of “vagueness” of the ‘intent to defame others’ and the condition of No Punishment against Will. In punishing the offense of publication of false facts under the Public Officials Election Act, there is a possibility of violating the Principle of Proportionality due to the de facto mandatory invalidation of election under the mandatory minimum sentence. Punishment for fabricating and circulating false facts under the National Security Law may also infringe upon the Principle of Proportionality due to the uniform and high statutory sentence without distinction on the level of offense. Therefore there is a need to improve current legal provisions to resolve possible issues of constitutionality.
Furthermore, with the increasing level of damage on the victims of fake news, there is a growing argument to introduce new legislation to impose criminal punishment on expressing false facts that cause social conflict and confusion, which previously has not been subject to criminal punishment. While such legal action is deemed necessary, excessive criminal regulation may result in infringing on the freedom of the press and publication. Therefore such legal measures require thorough review to ensure that such measures are introduced on a minimum necessary scale. In conclusion, both the existing criminal regulation and newly introduced legal measures must guarantee the freedom of the press and publication, while contributing to safeguard the constitutional values of personal rights, social order, as well as national security.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. ‘허위사실’과 ‘가짜뉴스’의 개념
Ⅲ. 가짜뉴스 등 허위사실 표현에 대한 현행법상의 법적 규제
Ⅳ. 가짜뉴스 형사적 규제에 대한 헌법적 검토
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (21)
참고문헌 신청
김재선 / 2020 / 허위정보 규제를 위한 행정법적 대응방안 - 영국의 규제 논의를 중심으로 - / 법학논집 24(3):223~248
김종철 / 2012 / 공직선거법 제250조 제2항(낙선목적 허위사실 공표죄)와 관련한 대법원 판결에 대한 헌법적 검토 - 소위 ‘정봉주 사건’을 중심으로 - / 법학연구 22(1):1~32
김해웅 / 2019 / 온라인상의 가짜뉴스와 법적제재에 관한 이론적 연구 / 한국IT정책경영학회 논문지 11(2):1173~1178
문재완 / 2011 / 허위사실의 표현과 표현의 자유 ― 한국과 미국의 판례 비교를 중심으로 ― / 공법연구 39(3):113~142
박경신 / 2009 / 허위사실유포죄의 위헌성에 대한 비교법적인 분석 / 법학연구 12(1):1~44
김종철 / 2012 / 공직선거법 제250조 제2항(낙선목적 허위사실 공표죄)와 관련한 대법원 판결에 대한 헌법적 검토 - 소위 ‘정봉주 사건’을 중심으로 - / 법학연구 22(1):1~32
김해웅 / 2019 / 온라인상의 가짜뉴스와 법적제재에 관한 이론적 연구 / 한국IT정책경영학회 논문지 11(2):1173~1178
문재완 / 2011 / 허위사실의 표현과 표현의 자유 ― 한국과 미국의 판례 비교를 중심으로 ― / 공법연구 39(3):113~142
박경신 / 2009 / 허위사실유포죄의 위헌성에 대한 비교법적인 분석 / 법학연구 12(1):1~44
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
코로나19 관련 가짜뉴스 등 ‘공공의 이익’을 해하는 허위사실 표현에 대한 형사처벌과 헌법상 언론 · 출판의 자유
법학평론
2021 .04
-
허위사실공표죄에 대한 비판적 검토 - 미국법과의 비교를 중심으로 -
미디어와 인격권
2023 .12
-
언론보도에 대한 징벌적 손해배상의 헌법적 한계
외법논집
2021 .08
-
가짜뉴스의 개념과 헌법적 한계에 관한 고찰 - 표현의 자유의 보호영역을 중심으로
공법학연구
2020 .02
-
무고죄의 법정형 강화방안에 대한 검토
법학연구
2023 .06
-
영국 선거법상 허위사실공표와 표현의 자유
공법학연구
2018 .11
-
허위사실의 표현에 대한 법적인 분석 — 가짜뉴스에 대한 규제의 조건 —
언론과법
2021 .12
-
공직선거법상 허위사실공표죄와 정치적 표현의 자유- 대법원 2020. 7. 16. 선고 2019도13328 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -
형사법의 신동향
2020 .01
-
합리적인 형사입법을 위한 방향
한양법학
2018 .08
-
사자명예훼손 관련 입법의 체계정당성에 관한 고찰
미디어와 인격권
2021 .12
-
陽村 申東旭 박사의 생애와 형법사상
형사법연구
2021 .12
-
허위조작정보 규제의 헌법적 한계 — 언론중재법 개정안(대안) 및 5･18민주화운동특별법을 중심으로 —
언론과법
2021 .12
-
’가짜뉴스’와 온라인 허위정보(disinformation) 규제에 대한 비판적 검토
언론정보연구
2019 .05
-
조선시대의 형사법제 연구 : 총칙의 현대 형사법 편제에 따른 재정립
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2015 .12
-
법치국가에서의 안전지향형법에 대한 비판적 고찰
원광법학
2018 .01
-
인터넷 가짜뉴스의 규율을 위한 형사입법모델 연구: 프랑스의 입법례를 분석하여
서강법률논총
2021 .02
-
가짜뉴스에 대한 중국 법적 규제의 특징과 향후 과제
법학연구
2021 .09
-
허위사실유포에 대한 형법의 대응방안 고찰 - 소위 ‘가짜뉴스(fake news)’를 중심으로 -
형사법의 신동향
2019 .01
-
특정범죄가중법 제5조의4의 성격 및 해석에 관한 판례 법리
형사판례연구
2021 .01
-
伪满时期日伪刑罚适用评析
법학논총
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0