On the 25th, the Constitutional Court made a constitutional decision on the crime of defamation (Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code) in the criminal law with the opinion of the Constitutional Judge 5-4.
Constitutional majority opinion on Article 307 (1) of the Criminal Code △Socially, honor is important, but the damage caused by defamation is greater in our society, unlike legislation in which punitive damages are recognized. It is difficult to secure preventive or detrimental effects such as punishment by itself, and it is difficult to believe that there are less invasive means while achieving the same legislative purpose. It was judged that the restriction on freedom of expression was minimized as it was not abused as a means of suppressing criticism of public figures and state institutions.
In addition, △If this provision is determined to be unconstitutional, the secret of personal life, such as military history, sexual orientation, family history, etc. that an individual wants to hide may be violated △The person who claims the damage will damage the reputation of the perpetrator by stating the facts in lieu of civil and criminal procedures. It violates the constitution in consideration of the fact that it can be abused as a means of personal sanctions that does not meet the responsibility of the perpetrator △It is not in line with the purpose of freedom of expression that it is conducive to the formation of democratic intentions to disclose individual weaknesses and faults. Said that it is not possible.
Accordingly, Opennet, a corporate judicial corporation that has been carrying out a campaign to appeal and abolish the crimes of defamation in fact, on the 25th, made a stand on the 25th and reduced various social irregularities accusations such as the “MeToo Campaign for defamation in facts, which allows criminal punishment even if the truth is spoken. “I am sorry for the Constitutional Constitution’s decision to neglect the reality that it is infringing on the freedom of expression. Opennet is a group of experts for freedom, openness, and sharing of the Internet.
Opennet said, “Because there is no punitive damages compensation system, the fact that defamation crimes should be maintained in a timely manner is not only when the constitution stated’false facts’ as punitive damages was’malicious’, but also when saying’truth’. He argued that if it damages the reputation of others, it seems that it seems to be presupposed as a subject in need of’punitive’ compensation beyond the grand principle of civil damage compensation. He also criticized, “The Constitutional majority opinion overlooked the reality of excessively infringing on the freedom of expression by punishing it with this provision even when accusing the facts that were not related to the secret of private life.”
In addition, “a person is not subject to legal punishment such as sexual harassment, but there are countless unreasonable acts that deserve criticism in society. There are many victims of the common people who cannot afford to use the complex judicial system.” He refuted, saying, “Expressing activities that inform other people’s wrongdoings makes society members reflect and correct their actions in order to maintain a good social evaluation in the public sphere.” Many constitutional judges argued that “the real meaning of freedom of expression is lost.”
On the other hand, the four constitutional judges who judged that the crime of defamation was unconstitutional under the criminal law, △Indicating the truthful facts is difficult to see as an act that is generally evaluated negatively by the legal order, and damage caused by the timely truth of the truth is wrong or exaggerated. The fact is that there is no anti-value enough to justify criminal penalties because it is only falsehood based on facts △Proof of the existence and public interest of this clause even if the purpose of public interest is recognized under Article 310 of the Criminal Act in future trial proceedings and there is a possibility of being innocent. He pointed out that the atrophy effect on expression behavior cannot be prevented by the uncertainty of
In addition, △the foundation of democracy is that the community freely form opinions and opinions through discussion and deliberation based on truthful facts.△The false and exaggerated honor formed while the truthful facts are hidden causes a shrinking effect on the freedom of expression, while protecting it. Considering the fact that it is difficult to say that it is a legal interest to be done, the provision is said to infringe on freedom of expression against the rule of surplus funding.
Opennet stated, “What can be inferred in common from many opinions and minority opinions is the act of disclosing the secrets of private life such as military history, sexual orientation, family history, etc. that an individual wants to hide, even though the only basis for justifying the provision is true fact. The need for punishment for “there is a need for punishment.” “Now the ball has passed to the National Assembly. The harm of defamation in fact through a supplementary legislation that punishes only when the National Assembly abolishes the crime of defamation in a factual manner by reflecting the unconstitutional opinion of the Constitution and the recommendations of the international community, and discloses the fact that it infringes on the privacy of another person without a public purpose. I hope to correct it.”
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.