earticle

영어

The study aims to examine the appropriateness of restrictions on freedom of speech by insult. In July 2019, the Supreme Court presented sentencing guidelines to punish hate speech for insult. In the case of insult, the ranges are wide, which has an overly large chilling effect on freedom of speech. In a majority of countries, insult is excluded from crimes against freedom of speech, with only the Republic of Korea going against the international tide. In this study, as a result of examining the nature of insult through a precedent, the court does not apply the theory of public figures to insult. The court is in a position that the Justifiable Act clause of Article 20 of the Criminal Act alone can solve justification. In addition, the Constitutional Court consistently rules that Article 311's "insult" meets the principle of clarity and does not infringe on freedom of speech. The expressions of insult in cases related to public figures or public concerns were often mocked by parodying words, slang, and new words that were widely spoken at the time through major social issues or characters. Therefore, the justification of Article 310 of the Criminal Act might be an idea to apply mutatis mutandis to the Crimes of Insult to any case in which public interest is concerned. Moreover, it can be as part of a countermeasure to control the tyranny of decision-makers. As Crimes of Insult, as a clause, also punishes people for their behavior of expression like Crimes of Defamation, it would be in line with the balance of interests in the protection law by establishing an exemption clause such as grounds for preventing the illegality of Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The reason such exemptions are required separately is that the Korean court has applied rigorous standards to Article 20 of the Criminal Act for a long time, and if freedom of speech occurs because of frequent conflicts with other fundamental rights, it is difficult to receive exemptions from Article 20 of the Criminal Act. The Internet has established itself as mainstream media in Korea, wherein nearly every citizen expresses their political opinion through the accessible and fast-paced Internet. However, the Supreme Court's willingness to impose additional punishment for insult, citing the propagation of media, has problems in terms of effectiveness under the positive law. In addition, criminal penalties should be reconsidered at a time when 89% of the crimes of insult are fined. In particular, any military person who insults his/her superior shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor without punishment of a fine. Furthermore, this is a blind spot for freedom of speech and, therefore, requires reformation. Moreover, how the Supreme Court regulates insult speech only through order-oriented thinking in a participatory media environment is unrealistic as well. The State will have to leave a certain portion to the citizens' self-purification mechanism until civil society forms a culture of mature public opinion, and regulations will also have to be sought more rationally within the framework of the law.

한국어

2019년 7월 대법원은 혐오표현을 모욕죄로 처벌하는 양형기준을 마련했다. 표현의 자유를 보호하기 위하여 모욕을 범죄에서 제외하고 있는 국제적 추세에도 대한민국만이 이를 역행하고 있다. 공적 인물과 공적 사안 관련 판례를 통해 모욕죄의 특성을 살펴본 결과, 우리 법원은 모욕죄에 있어 공인이론을 적용하지 않았다. 재판부는 형법 제20조의 정당행위 조항만으로 위법성 조각 문제를 해결할 수 있다는 입장이다. 그러나 형법 제20조의 경우 매우 엄격한 잣대를 준용하고 있는 점과 사후적인 결과로서의 위법성 조각이어서 표현행위의 위축효과를 해소할 수 없다. 헌재는 형법 제311조 모욕죄의 명확성원칙 및 표현자유 침해와 관련해서 위헌성을 부정했다. 모욕죄의 89%가 벌금형에 처해지는 현실에서 모욕죄의 형사처벌 규정은 재고되어야 할 것이다. 특히 상관모욕죄의 경우 군인이 직무와 무관하게 상관을 모욕해도 군형법으로 벌금형 없이 징역이나 금고 처분을 내리고 있다. 국민들은 표현 촉진적이고, 즉시성을 띠는 주류 매체인 인터넷을 통해 자신의 정치적 견해를 주로 표현한다. 대법원이 매체의 전파성을 들어 모욕죄를 가중처벌 하겠다는 의지는 참여적 매체 환경에서 질서위주의 사고만으로 규제하려는 시대착오적 발상이다.