사실적시명예훼손죄에 관한 재고찰

초록

Article 307(1) of the Korean Criminal Act, which criminalizes defamation by stating facts, has long been at the center of social controversy as it represents a direct conflict between two constitutional values: freedom of expression and the protection of individual reputation. Recently, a petition calling for its abolition was submitted to the National Assembly and received tens of thousands of endorsements. Cases such as counter-suits against victims of sexual violence and the 2004 Miryang middle school gang rape incident have highlighted the problematic aspects of this provision. Proponents of abolition argue that criminal punishment for exposing truthful facts excessively restricts constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression, discourages the disclosure of social injustices, and ultimately deprives society of opportunities for progress. On the other hand, supporters of retention emphasize that indiscriminate revelations of private matters, even if true, can cause severe social harm, and that victims should seek redress through formal legal procedures. In judicial practice, the Supreme Court has acquitted defendants when the truthfulness and public interest of the statements were recognized, while the Constitutional Court has upheld the provision as constitutional, reasoning that civil remedies alone are insufficient. However, criticisms persist due to inconsistent outcomes depending on the presiding judge. In contemporary Korean society—where traditional emphasis on honor and prestige intersects with rapid information dissemination via the internet—reputations are particularly vulnerable. Although public opinion increasingly favors abolition of the crime, concerns remain about the potential rise of privacy violations and reckless disclosures. Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes the major arguments on both sides of the debate, examines foreign legislative approaches, and reviews the case law of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. Based on this analysis, it proposes a balanced alternative: while private life intrusions should remain subject to regulation, factual statements concerning public officials’ official conduct or matters of significant public interest should be decriminalized.

키워드