학술논문
언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - ‘안기부 X파일’ 사건과 미국연방대법원 판례와의 비교를 중심으로
이용수 275
- 영문명
- Freedom of Speech and Communications Privacy ― Especially on the comparison between ‘NSP X-file’ scandal and the U.S. Supreme Court case ―
- 발행기관
- 한국헌법학회
- 저자명
- 허순철(Huh Soon-Chul)
- 간행물 정보
- 『헌법학연구』憲法學硏究 第13卷 第3號(第2冊), 663~697쪽, 전체 35쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.09.30
7,000원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
After the broadcasting media reported that the undisclosed voice-tapped conversation containing the political bribery between the high-ranking official of the conglomerate and the daily newspaper publisher had been surreptitiously recorded by the spy agency of the Agency for National Security Planning(NSP), so-called, the ‘NSP X-file’ has ignited the debate on the conflict between the freedom of speech and the communication privacy.
Since the lower courts have come to differing conclusions about the alleged guilty of the accused reporter, it seems useful to compare and analyze the ‘NSP X-file’ with Bartnicki v. Vopper, the very important and similar case of the U.S. Supreme Court, before the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea on the alleged crime and the constitutional controversy.
Despite the Seoul High Court(appeal court) decided that the accused violated, the Korean wiretap act, the Protection of Communications Secrets Act(PCSA), article 16 paragraph (1), subparagraph 2, it applies not to the person who did not “directly involved in the recording or eavesdropping” the conversation, but to the person who has disclosed or leaked the sub- stance of communications or conversations he has learned “in a manner referred to in subparagraph 1.”
Assuming that it has the same text of the equivalent article of the ECPA, the U.S. federal wiretap act, it is reasonable to regard this problem as the limitation of the constitutional right other than the justification defenses. Because the government limits the constitutional right, the freedom of the speech, with the PCSA, the Court should review the constitutionality or validity of the article of the PCSA in light of the principle of the Article 37, paragraph (2) of the Korean Constitution. Therefore, it seems plausible to consider the following facts: (1) whether the disclosed private conversation with other parties was “legitimate public concern,” (2) whether the contents of the conversation was illegal, (3) whether the publisher of the conversation encouraged or participated directly or indirectly in the interception, (4) the degree of the reasonable expectation of communication privacy.
In conclusion, the accused was not guilty since his report was not a crime proscribed in the PCSA. Furthermore, it seems the PCSA unconstitutional because of violating the essential aspects of the free speech. Therefore, it appears reasonable to revise the PCSA with newly inserting the justification defenses.
Since the lower courts have come to differing conclusions about the alleged guilty of the accused reporter, it seems useful to compare and analyze the ‘NSP X-file’ with Bartnicki v. Vopper, the very important and similar case of the U.S. Supreme Court, before the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea on the alleged crime and the constitutional controversy.
Despite the Seoul High Court(appeal court) decided that the accused violated, the Korean wiretap act, the Protection of Communications Secrets Act(PCSA), article 16 paragraph (1), subparagraph 2, it applies not to the person who did not “directly involved in the recording or eavesdropping” the conversation, but to the person who has disclosed or leaked the sub- stance of communications or conversations he has learned “in a manner referred to in subparagraph 1.”
Assuming that it has the same text of the equivalent article of the ECPA, the U.S. federal wiretap act, it is reasonable to regard this problem as the limitation of the constitutional right other than the justification defenses. Because the government limits the constitutional right, the freedom of the speech, with the PCSA, the Court should review the constitutionality or validity of the article of the PCSA in light of the principle of the Article 37, paragraph (2) of the Korean Constitution. Therefore, it seems plausible to consider the following facts: (1) whether the disclosed private conversation with other parties was “legitimate public concern,” (2) whether the contents of the conversation was illegal, (3) whether the publisher of the conversation encouraged or participated directly or indirectly in the interception, (4) the degree of the reasonable expectation of communication privacy.
In conclusion, the accused was not guilty since his report was not a crime proscribed in the PCSA. Furthermore, it seems the PCSA unconstitutional because of violating the essential aspects of the free speech. Therefore, it appears reasonable to revise the PCSA with newly inserting the justification defenses.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 우리나라에 있어서 언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - ‘안기부 X파일’ 사건
Ⅲ. 미국에 있어서 언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - Bartnicki v. Vopper사건
Ⅳ. 안기부 X파일 사건의 문제점 및 검토
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
Ⅱ. 우리나라에 있어서 언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - ‘안기부 X파일’ 사건
Ⅲ. 미국에 있어서 언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - Bartnicki v. Vopper사건
Ⅳ. 안기부 X파일 사건의 문제점 및 검토
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 國民代表關係의 法的 性格
- 원리모델에 의한 사회적 기본권 침해여부의 판단기준 및 심사구조
- 언론의 자유와 통신비밀 - ‘안기부 X파일’ 사건과 미국연방대법원 판례와의 비교를 중심으로
- 현행 헌법상 기본권 체계 및 범위에 관한 일고찰
- 유럽을 위한 헌법원리들
- 우선변제제도와 재산권 보호의 함수관계 - 헌재결 2006. 11. 30. 2003헌가14ㆍ15(병합)를 중심으로
- 落胎節次規制의 違憲性與否에 관한 硏究 - 美 聯邦大法院 判例를 中心으로
- 대입3불정책의 헌법적 문제점
- 大統領의 有故의 憲法問題 - 한국과 프랑스의 논의를 중심으로
- 지방분권시대에 있어서 새로운 조례 유형에 대한 헌법적 분석 - 일본의 분권개혁을 중심으로
- 革新都市最終立地選定公表行爲에 대한 憲法訴願決定에 관한 小考 - 헌재결 2006. 12. 28, 2006헌마312
- 언론개혁에 관한 헌법학적 연구
- 社團法人 韓國憲法學會 定款 외
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!