ABSTRACT

The Constitutional Court decided that Article 47.1 of Telecommunications Acts is a violation of the Constitution on December 28, 2010, which became a hot potato because of so called ‘Minerva’ incident. This article is to punish "those who make false communication using telecommunication facilities for the purpose of infringing public welfare". It is called the crime of false communication or crime of false information dissemination. The reason why The Constitutional Court decided that the article is a violation of the Constitution is "It does not satisfy the Principle of Clarity as the public welfare is obscure and it breaches the Principle of Surplus Prohibition." This article got extinct with the decision of The Constitutional Court. However, Ministry of Justice addressed that they would devise alternative legislation to punish those who try to disseminate false information on Internet. They asserted that it should not be accepted to disseminate false information when national security is in danger. On the other hand, those who believe in the principle that 'Obscure Punishment is Invalid' and assert that even false information falls under the freedom of expression are against the alternative legislation. In this situation, we tried to study how to prevent the dissemination of false information that may infringe national security and destroy social order, not limiting the freedom of expression too much. As a matter of fact, it is not easy to solve these two problems completely. If we emphasize the ‘interactivity’ of internet and the freedom of expression, we cannot help controlling rumors on the Net. In my personal opinion, if personal honor is defamed because of rumors on the Net, it can be punished by Criminal Law and Information Communication Law, and if the false rumor contains national and social danger to cause war or terror, it can be punished by National Security Law. Accordingly, to provide grounds to object against the alternative legislation for the Crime of Spreading False Information, we will review the History of Crime of Spreading False Information, concept of false information, telecommunication facilities, public goods and freedom of expression in details.

KEYWORD

Constitutional Court, Telecommunications Acts, Crime of Spreading False Information, Freedom of Expression, Telecommunication Facilities, Public Goods.

REFERENCES(17)open

  1. [book] 배종대 / 2010 / 형법각론(제7전정판) / 홍문사

  2. [book] 이재상 / 2009 / 형법각론(제6판) / 박영사

  3. [book] 최승기 / 1967 / 전기통신법 / 성문문화사

  4. [book] 황승흠 / 2003 / 인터넷은 자유공간인가 / 커뮤니케이션북스

  5. [jounal] 권 영 준 / 2006 / 인터넷상 표현의 자유와 명예의 보호 / 저스티스 (91) : 5 ~ 25

  6. [other] 김승환 / 2009 / 유언비어유포죄․허위사실유포죄 / 한겨레

  7. [jounal] 류시조 / 1999 / 가상공간에 있어서 표현의 자유 / 한국헌법학회 5 (1)

  8. [book] 문재완 / 2005 / 인터넷 실명죄와 익명 표현의 자유 / 인권과 정의

  9. [confproc] 박경신 / 2009 / 허위사실유포죄의 위헌성에 대한 비교법적 분석 / 서울대학교 기술과 법 센터 세미나 발표논문

  10. [jounal] 박진애 / 2009 / 표현의 자유의 관점에서 바라본 인터넷에서의 허위사실유포 / 언론과 법 8 (1) : 129 ~ 170

  11. [jounal] 박진애 / 2008 / 헌법재판소 결정에 나타난 인터넷에서의 표현의 자유 / 경희법학 43 (3) : 199 ~ 237

  12. [jounal] 성낙인 / 2009 / 인터넷과 표현의 자유 / 언론과 법 8 (1) : 99 ~ 128

  13. [jounal] 송기춘 / 2009 / 이른바 ‘허위사실유포죄’는 없다 -전기통신기본법 제47조 제1항의 해석 및 위헌론- / 민주법학 (39) : 47 ~ 92

  14. [jounal] 이정훈 / 2009 / 전기통신기본법상 허위통신죄 규정의 연혁 및 의미 / 비교형사법연구 11 (1) : 245 ~ 278

  15. [jounal] 이향선 / 2009 / 인터넷상의 표현규제에 관한 비교법적 고찰: 사이버모욕죄 도입과 허위사실유포죄 유지의 법리적 정책성ㆍ 타당성에 관하여 / 언론과 법 8 (1) : 171 ~ 203

  16. [jounal] 황성기 / 2009 / 헌법적 관점에서 본 미네르바판결 - 소위 ‘허위사실유포죄’의 헌법적 문제점을 중심으로 - / 인권과 정의 (395) : 6 ~ 29

  17. [other] 주간경향 / 2011 / 미네르바의 부엉이 / 표현자유 ‘날개’