earticle

영어

In the event of defamation of a dead person through media reports of false facts, the provisions for defamation of a dead person under Article 308 of the Criminal Act and the provisions for the protection of personal rights of a dead person under Article 5-2 of the Media Arbitration Act85) may be applied at the same time. However, the two legislations have different aspects in terms of the object of protection (protected legal interests), the content of regulated actions (constituent elements), and the period of protection (limitation periods for public prosecution), it may be questioned whether the two legislation violates the constitutional principle of the systemic consistency of legislations. In terms of the object of protection, the provisions for defamation of a dead person under the Criminal Act protect a dead person’s honor. Meanwhile, the provisions for protecting the personal rights of a dead person under the Media Arbitration Act are not only for a dead person’s honor but also for the secret and freedom of life, liberty, body, privacy, portrait, name, voice, dialogue, works, private documents, and other personal values. As for the subject of protection and the content of the act, these regulations are different. Regarding the content of the act, the provision of the Criminal Act for defamation of a dead person requires the publicly alleging of false facts, while the provision of the Media Arbitration Act generally does not ask whether the news content is false, so there is no need to state false facts. The subject of protection of the crime under the Criminal Act, stipulating punishment, is “honor,” which is only one of the contents of the personal rights protected by the provisions of the Media Arbitration Act, and punishment is imposed only if “false facts” are publicly alleged. Meanwhile, the Media Arbitration Act provisions also apply to cases where the “honor” of a dead person is violated by specifying “false facts.” In other words, the legislator stipulated the “false fact” was evaluated as the most illegal among the various types of infringement of the dead person’s rights, and only the violation of a dead person’s “honor” was subject to punishment. In this respect, it seems complicated to say that both legislation has the same subject of regulation. In the issue of violating the systemic consistency of legislation, it is not considered the systemic consistency of legislation violation because the disciplinary purpose and object of the two pieces of legislation cannot be regarded as the same. If the subject of both regulations is interpreted to be stipulating different effects on the same subject, noting only the case where a dead person’s “honor” is infringed by indicating “false facts.” In that case, it may be interpreted as a problem of violation of system legitimacy. However, the legislator intends to allow the perpetrators to receive punishment under the Criminal Act and at the same time allow the victims to use the remedies under the Media Arbitration Act for relief if alleged “false facts” infringe the “honor” of a dead person. This addition will further protect the victims. In other words, it does not mean that only one of the two regulations should be applied arbitrarily, but that both should be applied. In this respect, it is difficult to say that the two regulations are conflicting. Even if the two regulations are regarded as violations of the systemic consistency of legislation, in the case of defamation caused by false facts, it can be justified in consideration of the legislator’s intention to strengthen the protection of victims by applying both regulations.

한국어

허위사실의 언론보도에 의하여 사망한 사람에 대한 명예가 훼손된 경 우에는 형법 제308조의 사자명예훼손죄 규정과 언론중재법 제5조의2 사 자의 인격권보호규정이 동시에 적용될 수 있다. 그런데 양 입법은 보호대 상(보호법익)과 규율되는 행위의 내용 그리고 보호기간 등의 내용에서 상 이한 측면이 있어 양 입법이 규범 상호간의 구조와 내용 등이 모순됨이 없이 체계와 균형을 유지해야 한다는 헌법적 원리인 체계정당성의 원리 에 위배되는 것이 아닌지 의문이 제기될 수 있다. 체계정당성위반 문제와 관련하여, 두 입법의 규율목적과 규율대상이 완전히 동일한 것으로 볼 수는 없다는 측면에서 체계정당성위반의 문제 는 없다고 본다. 다만 ‘허위사실’적시에 의한 사자의 ‘명예’를 침해한 경 우만을 주목하여 양자의 규율대상을 동일한 것으로 보아 동일한 규율대 상에 대하여 상이한 효과를 규정한 것으로 해석하여 체계정당성위반의 문제가 있다고 해석할 여지도 있다. 하지만 ‘허위사실’ 적시에 의한 사자 의 ‘명예’를 침해한 경우에는 행위자가 형법상 형벌을 받음과 동시에 피 해자는 구제를 위해 언론중재법상 구제절차도 이용할 수 있도록 하여 피 해자를 더욱 보호하는 것이 입법자의 의사로 보인다. 이러한 측면에서 양 입법이 충돌한다고 보기 힘들고, 설령 양 입법을 체계정당성 위반으로 본 다고 할 경우에도 허위사실적시에 의한 명예훼손의 경우 두 규정 모두를 적용하여 피해자의 보호를 두텁게 하려는 입법자의 의사를 고려한다면 이를 정당화할 수 있다고 본다.