헌법 제21조 제3항이 규정하고 있는 언론기관의 시설기준과 신문기능보장의 법정주의를 실현하기 위하여 국회는 2004년 12월 31일, 신문등의자유와기능보장에관한법률(이하 ‘신문법’이라 한다)과 언론중재및피해구제등에관한법률(이하 ‘언론중재법’이라 한다)을 통과시켰다. 신문의 사회적 책임을 높여 민주적인 여론형성을 도모하고, 언론의 건전한 발전과 독자의 권익을 보호하기 위해서는 기존의 신문이 지나치게 보수적이어서 여론형성을 왜곡하기 때문에 ‘권력과 자본으로부터 독립한 언론’을 형성할 필요가 있다는 판단에서였다. ‘언론개혁’의 일환으로 단행된 동 법률들은 제정단계에서부터 ‘개혁이라는 명분으로 비판신문의 정부 감시기능을 봉쇄하기 위해 국가가 지나치게 개입함으로써 독자의 알권리를 침해하는 동시에 언론의 자유를 위축시킨다’는 비난과 함께, ‘언론피해로부터 일반인을 구제하기보다 언론자유에 피해를 줄 우려가 훨씬 더 높다’는 이유로 위헌논란을 야기하였다. 그러나 일부에서는 ‘그 내용이 미흡하여 개혁이 실종되었다’는 비판과 함께 ‘드물게 여야 합의로 만들어진 진정한 국민의 법’이라는 평가를 동시에 받았다. 대형 신문사와 전․현직 언론인, 법학교수, 독자 등이 제기한 헌법소원결과 동법의 특정조항들에 대해 각각 합헌, 위헌, 헌법불합치, 각하, 기각 등 다양한 결정이 내려졌지만 1년 반이 넘도록 국회가 후속 개정작업을 하지 못한 상태에서 정권이 바뀌자 대통령직 인수위원회는 신문법을 폐지하고 대체입법을 추진하겠다는 방침을 밝혔다. 이같은 인수위 측의 방침에 대해 일부언론은 ‘당연한 일’이라며 반기고 있으나, 일부 시민단체들은 ‘언론사유화 저지 및 미디어공공성 확대를 위한 사회행동’을 구성하며 강하게 반발하면서 또다시 첨예한 의견대립을 낳고 있다. 본고는 현행 헌법이 규정하고 있는 신문기능보장 법정주의의 의미를 살펴 본 후(II) 현재 논란이 되고 있는 신문․방송 겸영문제(신문법 제15조), 시장지배적 사업자 추정규정(신문법 제17조)과 경영자료의 신고 등 신문공개제도(신문법 제16조) 등을 헌법이론적으로 조망해 본 후(III) 합헌적인 언론관계법제정의 정책적 제언을 한다.

National Assembly enacted the Act on Protection of Freedom and Function of the Press(from now on ‘Press Law’) as one of its four reform bills on Jan. 1 2005 which curbs press ownership, puts restrictions on the market dominance of newspapers, press owners to report circulation and the advertising revenue to the Press Development Committee, infringes the freedom of the press and trespass the rights of freedom enshrined in the Constitutional Law(§21). The main articles of the law contain the possibility of an unjust use of government power, so stirred up much controversy and debate among the public and the political parties due to a core article that curbed market shares - lowering the ceiling to 30 percent for an individual paper and 60 percent for the top three mass-circulation newspapers from 50 percent and 75 percent, respectively. The controversial revision of the law to limit the dominance of the nation`s major newspapers was filed against the law as a petition to the Korean Constitutional Court. The Court ruled that “Articles 17 and 34 of the Press Law are unconstitutional, these articles has the danger of the government obtaining complete control of the press which means encroachment of freedom”, but allowed the prohibition of one firm owning newspaper and broadcasting companies, in the case of 2005hun-ma165, 314, 555, 807, 2006hun-ga3 in June 2006. Nowadays President-elect Lee Myung-bak's transition team will come up with the alternative legislation seeking to ease regulations prohibiting major newspapers from controlling broadcasting companies and vice versa, to allow newspapers to own broadcasting companies, replacing the current Press Law to give newspaper companies more autonomy. But civic groups and the National Union of Media Workers said they will launch a campaign to block any replacement of the Press Law. This paper suggest next government should enact Media Unification, not a revision bill, to get rid of stumbling blocks to the growth of their business in coping with the new media environment, strengthen the financial health of the media industry and focus on the constitutionality.

National Assembly enacted the Act on Protection of Freedom and Function of the Press(from now on ‘Press Law’) as one of its four reform bills on Jan. 1 2005 which curbs press ownership, puts restrictions on the market dominance of newspapers, press owners to report circulation and the advertising revenue to the Press Development Committee, infringes the freedom of the press and trespass the rights of freedom enshrined in the Constitutional Law(§21). The main articles of the law contain the possibility of an unjust use of government power, so stirred up much controversy and debate among the public and the political parties due to a core article that curbed market shares - lowering the ceiling to 30 percent for an individual paper and 60 percent for the top three mass-circulation newspapers from 50 percent and 75 percent, respectively. The controversial revision of the law to limit the dominance of the nation`s major newspapers was filed against the law as a petition to the Korean Constitutional Court. The Court ruled that “Articles 17 and 34 of the Press Law are unconstitutional, these articles has the danger of the government obtaining complete control of the press which means encroachment of freedom”, but allowed the prohibition of one firm owning newspaper and broadcasting companies, in the case of 2005hun-ma165, 314, 555, 807, 2006hun-ga3 in June 2006. Nowadays President-elect Lee Myung-bak's transition team will come up with the alternative legislation seeking to ease regulations prohibiting major newspapers from controlling broadcasting companies and vice versa, to allow newspapers to own broadcasting companies, replacing the current Press Law to give newspaper companies more autonomy. But civic groups and the National Union of Media Workers said they will launch a campaign to block any replacement of the Press Law. This paper suggest next government should enact Media Unification, not a revision bill, to get rid of stumbling blocks to the growth of their business in coping with the new media environment, strengthen the financial health of the media industry and focus on the constitutionality.

freedom of Expression, press law, the function of the press, press reform, constitutionality