Earticle

디지털 미디어 기술의 진화로 인해 뉴스이용의 중심축이 전통적 대중매체에서 인터넷매체 영역으로 이동하고 있음이 더욱 확연하게 드러나고 있다. 이에 따라 뉴스로 인한 인격권 침해에 초점을 맞춘 언론피해구제 방안도 중대한 변화의 기로에 서게 되었다. 많은 곳에서 뉴스의 이용으로 인한 인격권 피해가 빈번하게 발생할 것이므로 역동적으로 변화하는 디지털 뉴스생태계의 특성을 고려하여 언론피해구제 방안을 재정비하는 작업이 매우 시급하고 중요한 당면과제로 떠올랐다. 변화무쌍하고 복잡다단한 디지털 뉴스생태계가 뉴스이용과 관련하여 발생하는 인격권 피해에 미치는 영향을 적극적으로 고려해야 할 상황이 도래했다고 하겠다. 이런 맥락에서 본 연구는 디지털 시대에 언론피해구제의 공백과 혼란을 초래하는 뉴스생태계의 특징과 쟁점을 파악하고, 이를 해결할 수 있는 법과 제도의 개선방향을 제시하고자 한다. 특히 여기서는 뉴스의 유통 및 소비의 중심축으로 등장한 디지털 뉴스중개자(Digital Intermediaries)가 초래한 피해구제 환경의 변화에 주목했으며, 인터넷 공간에서의 언론피해구제의 대상과 영역을 다양한 유형의 디지털 뉴스중개자로까지 확대할 것을 제안하고, 이와 관련된 언론피해구제 개선 방안의 방향에 대해 논의했다.

The influence of internet media on the formation of public opinion has steadily increased in recent years. While the number of users of traditional news media in South Korea is decreasing, that of internet news media is rapidly increasing. This trend gave rise to a shift in the news ecosystem from a mass media-led society to one dominated by digital outlets. This shift resulted in more challenging and complex regulatory issues associated with press arbitration. One of the noticeable changes in the digital era is the entrance of various digital news outlets into the news distribution market. In this context, three research questions were identified. First, how has the diffusion of digital news media affected the current ecosystem of news production, distribution, and consumption? Second, what are the issues associated with the effectiveness of press arbitration in the newly emerged digital news ecosystem? Third, what kinds of policy suggestions can be made to better protect individuals’ reputations and privacy in the digital age? This study focuses on the concept of digital intermediaries, regarding them as a useful analytical tool to explain the recent dynamics of digital news distribution. This concept was also introduced to broaden the scope of press arbitration into the newly emerged news space in order to incorporate such entities as sites for news aggregation, news comment, social media, and a variety of news curation services. In addition, the press arbitration law must be revised to better protect individuals’ basic rights, which might otherwise be damaged by newly emerged digital news outlets including digital intermediaries. Along this line, this paper suggests that the press arbitration law include a clause addressing the right to erase false, erroneous, or irrelevant news reports. Arguing that internet space, in spite of its increasing importance for the formation of public opinion, has not been appropriately taken into account with regard to press arbitration, this study demands a more aggressive regulatory regime that will effectively reprieve innocent people whose basic rights were infringed by false or unethical news reports. However, it also points out that freedom of the press must not be threatened by this more aggressive regulatory system. The four modalities of law, norm, market, and architecture proposed by Lessig (1999) offer a useful guideline with which we can deepen our understanding of regulatory issues associated with press arbitration in the digital age. First, the present study suggests that the regulatory scope of press arbitration be expanded into the realm of different kinds of digital intermediaries exercising a certain level of influence in terms of share of news usage. Many complex issues related to measurement of the influence of each digital news outlet were not discussed because they go beyond the scope of this study. Third, emphasis upon the normative constraints regarding both journalistic professionalism and civic virtue of internet users was included as a policy option to diffuse the civic-oriented norm into cyberspace. Third, market-based institutions that measure individuals’ communicative performances in terms of civility were also proposed. Finally, the concept of architecture or code was included. Internet architecture designed to reduce uncivilized speech will alleviate the high cost associated with legal efforts to regulate online speech. Legal action such as revision of press arbitration law needs to be supplemented by other measures in the fields of norm, market, and architecture of technology.

우리나라는 전통적으로 미디어법에 의해 허가․승인․등록된 언론사가 생산한 뉴스와 그렇지 않은 일반 표현물을 분리하여 이원적으로 규제해 왔다. 최근 뉴스큐레이션서비스, 뉴스펀딩, 팟캐스트, MCN(Multi Channel Network) 등 신생 뉴스플랫폼의 등장은 뉴스소비 행태를 변화시키는 동시에 플랫폼 자체의 법적 지위에 대한 논란을 야기하고 있다. 이러한 상황은 자연스럽게 표현물 규제의 근간을 흔드는 이슈로 연결된다. 즉, 직업사회학적 관점에서 인쇄미디어와 방송미디어를 언론으로 규정하고 있는 현행 미디어법이 신생 디지털 뉴스미디어에도 동일하게 적용되면서 규제 대상의 불명확성 문제 또는 범위설정의 문제를 낳고 있는 것이다. 따라서 본 논문은 현행 미디어법에 의한 디지털 뉴스미디어의 법적 지위 부여의 한계점을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 이를 위해 먼저, 규제 대상의 불명확성 문제를 야기하고 있는 디지털 뉴스미디어의 특성을 소개하였다. 그리고 현행 미디어법에서 규정하고 있는 인터넷신문, 인터넷뉴스서비스사업자, 인터넷방송 등의 법적 지위 부여 요건을 정리하는 한편, 국내의 주요 신생 디지털 뉴스미디어에 그러한 법적 요건을 적용하여 현행 미디어법에 의해 언론지위를 부여하는 방식의 실효성을 점검하였다. 그 결과, 현행 미디어법의 틀 안에서 신생 디지털 뉴스미디어에 언론성을 부여할 경우, 실질적 언론행위를 포섭하지 못하거나 자유로운 의견과 정보 유통에 제약을 가져올 수 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Korean media has been traditionally grouped into two categories - one is news produced by media allowed, approved, and registered according to media law, and the other is general expressions produced by a body that did not follow such procedures. Recently, new news platforms such as curation news services, news funding, podcasts, and MCNs (Multi Channel Networks) have appeared. These appearances changed the behavior of news consumption and caused disputes about the legal position of the platforms themselves. This situation is naturally related to the issue having a big influence on regulation of expression. That is, present media law defines both printing media and broadcasting media as media from the viewpoint of sociology of occupation so that the present media law equally applies to emerging digital news media. This results in problems such as uncertainty regarding regulated objects or problems with scope decisions. Accordingly, this study aimed to review limitations in the legal position of digital news media by present the regulating law. First, the author introduced characteristics of digital news media that cause uncertainty regarding the problem of regulated objects. In addition, the author summarized the requirements for providing a legal position defined in present media law to internet newspapers, internet news service providers, and internet broadcasting, etc. On the other hand, by applying such legal requirements to major domestic emerging digital news media, this study analyzed the effectiveness of the method to provide legal media status through the present legal apparatus. As a result, it was found that, when providing a position for emerging digital news media within the framework of the present media law, this cannot include actual media activity or can limit the distribution of free opinion and information.

본 연구는 한국의 언론중재제도를 공중의 미디어 액세스권 실현방안이라는 관점에서, 최근 5년간 언론중재위원회 경남중재부에서 처리한 언론·조정중재 사건들의 현황과 특징을 분석하였다. 언론중재제도의 활용현황과 특징을 살펴보면, 경남중재부의 경우 최근으로 올수록 처리효율이 점차 감소하고 있는데, 그 이유는 일간신문들 간의 과당경쟁으로 추론된다. 이들의 과당경쟁으로 일간신문과 일간신문의 인터넷닷컴이 주요 조정청구 대상이 되고 있으며, 피해구제율을 낮추는 주요 원인이 되고 있다. 다음으로 청구유형이 정정보도와 손해배상에 집중되고 있었으며, 피해유형 중에서는 명예훼손이 96%를 차지해 피해유형도 편중되어 있었다. 요컨대 경남지역 언론중재제도의 활용 특징은 ① 조정처리효율의 감소, ② 청구유형의 편중화, ③ 청구대상매체의 양극화, ④ 피해유형의 집중화라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 특징은 중재제도가 운영상의 한계를 드러내는 것인 만큼 보완을 위한 노력이 절실하다. 따라서 언론중재제도가 미디어 액세스권을 보다 강력하게 담보해 내기 위해서는 ① 정확한 여론의 형성과 반영을 위한 지역언론의 노력, ② 언론중재위의 기능과 역할에 대한 홍보 및 교육 강화, ③ 중재부의 현장조사 및 사실조회 등 적극적인 조정 노력, ④ 기사삭제청구권의 도입, ⑤ 원 보도문과 동일한 수준의 피해구제보도 기회 제공, ⑥ 적극적인 손해배상 결정 및 합의 권유, ⑦ 중재위원들의 심의자세 및 태도개선 등이 필요하다고 생각한다.

The study analyzes the current status and characteristics of mediation cases handled by the Gyeongsangnam-do Arbitral Tribunal of the Press Arbitration Commission in the past five years. For this purpose, the study uses content analysis and expert interviews. The content analysis included 556 cases handled by the Gyeongsangnam-do Arbitral Tribunal from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014. The expert interviews targeted three former-incumbent directors and one member of the Gyeongsangnam-do Arbitral Tribunal of the Press Arbitration Commission. The research focuses on realizing the right of access to the press in Korea. The characteristics of the Gyeongsangnam-do Arbitral Tribunal are as follows. First, the efficiency of mediation has been gradually reduced. The efficiency percentages of mediation during the five years amounts to 65.7%, including 85.4% in 2010, 76.4% in 2011, 55% in 2012, and 46.6% in 2014. This is mainly because of excessive competition of daily newspapers in the specific region, such as the town of Haman. Second, most claim cases have been required on ‘Report on a corrected statement’ and ‘Compensation for damage’. In the study period (2010-2014), the proportion of requests for correction to a news report was 51.3% (N=285), and compensation for damages was requested in 41.3% of cases (N=285). The proportion of requests for refutation or exculpation to a news report was much lower. Among the several types of damage, claims of defamation account for 96%, 100% in 2010 and 2014, 98.9% in 2011, and 88.9% in 2013. In 2013, the proportion of claims of property damage was 9.5%. Third, mediation cases against the daily newspaper and its online news site accounted for 29.9% (N=166) and 31.5% (N=175) of cases, respectively. The proportion of claims regarding Internet news media as Internet news portal was 46.6%. a much higher proportion than the others. Among the several claimant types, individual cases account for 55% (N=306), followed by media organization (12.6%; N=68), local government (12.6%; N=63), business entity (10.3%; M=57), and civic group (5.2%; N=29). Finally, the proportion of mediation cases toward Internet news media has increased in the last five years (except 2010), from 45% to 60%. In short, the noted features of the Press Arbitration System in Gyeongsangnam-do are as follows. The system experienced a recent decline in mediation handling efficiency, an unequal distribution of claim cases, a polarization of claim media subjects, and a centralization of damage types. Such characteristics must be improved as they reveal the operational limitations of the system. Accordingly, in order for the Press Arbitration System of Korea to allow a stronger right of access to the press, there is a need for 1) effort by the regional press to develop and reflect more accurate public opinion, 2) reinforcement of publicity and provision of education about the function and role of the Press Arbitration Commission, 3) active mediation efforts such as field surveys and fact inquiries by the regional Arbitral Tribunal, 4) introduction of a right to delete articles, 5) providing the press with opportunities to help victims in similar conditions to those in the reported article, 6) active compensation decisions and settlement recommendations, and 7) improvement of attitudes of the commissioners.

인격권은 무형성을 특징으로 하며 특히 미디어를 통하여 인격권이 침해된 경우는 일반적인 불법행위와는 다른 양상을 가진다. 이에 따라 일반불법행위와는 다른 준거법결정 원칙을 적용하여야 할 필요성이 대두되었는데, 중국 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」은 제46조에서 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 준거법을 피해자의 상거소지법으로 규정하고 있다. 중국에서 활동하고 있는 우리나라 연예인들이 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 피해자로서 법적 분쟁에 휘말리게 된 경우 중국 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」에 따라 준거법이 결정된다. 또한 우리 국제사법 제9조가 반정(renvoi)을 인정하고 있으므로 한국 법원에서 문제된 국제불법행위 사안에 대하여 우리 국제사법의 적용을 통해 중국법이 준거법으로 지정된 경우에는 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」에 의해 한국법이 준거법으로 결정되는지를 확인하여야 한다. 우리 국제사법은 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 준거법에 관하여 별도의 규정을 두고 있지 않으므로 중국의 입법에 대한 연구는 장차 우리 국제사법의 개정에도 좋은 참고가 될 수 있을 것이다.

In China, an act that infringes upon a personal right constitutes a tort; before enacting the private international law, China applied the same governing law to both general cases of torts and special cases where the personal rights of a foreigner in China had been infringed. However, personality rights are characterized by intangibility. In particular, personal rights violated by media require a different type of tort. In regard to this, there is an increasing need to apply different governing laws from general torts. Article 46 of China’s Private International Law stipulates as follows: when a person’s personal rights have been violated by the media, the governing law should be that of the victim’s residence. Personal rights vary in sort, praxis, and extent, especially in different countries. Moreover, every country offers different levels of respect to personal rights and the freedom of press and publication. Thus, the outcome of litigation varies depending upon the governing law. When the personal rights of a Korean entertainer working in China are violated by the media, resulting in a legal battle, the governing law is applied in accordance with China’s private international law. Moreover, Korea’s private international law does not have regulations regarding cases where personal rights have been violated by media. Therefore, China’s private international law may be a good reference for the revision of Korea’s private international law. In this sense, this study is highly significant in terms of theory and practicality in that it focuses on how China’s private international law applies to cases of personal right infringement by the media. The following is the summary of this study. Article 46 of China’s Private International Law stipulates that, in cases in which personal rights such as name rights, portrait rights, and privacy rights are violated through the internet or other form of media, the case should be governed by the law of the victim’s residence. In a dispute caused by the infringement of personal rights accompanied with emotional damages, the residence has a lot to do with the consequence of the damage. Ordinarily, the victim’s residence is the center of his or her economic and social activities. Therefore, the victim’s residence is the place of damage and is the most closely related to the case. It is comparatively easy to define the victim’s residence; in the event that the law of the residence becomes the governing law, it is advantageous to the victim because the compensation can be based on the social norms with which the victim is familiar. Contrarily, in China, the establishment of personal rights has not yet been established in point of law. Therefore, a Chinese person who lives is China might have a lower level of protection than a foreigner whose residence is a foreign country. Media interactions often involve foreign relations; thus, personality rights violated by the media are likely to be subject to distant torts. Most medium and large press bodies have publishing factories in locations different from their headquarters; in such cases, the place of wrongful behavior is different from the place of the damage. Torts by media can be global issues, in which it is often difficult to define the place of damage. When the involved media body is the Internet, it is much more difficult to define the origin of the wrongful behavior. With the interpretation of the existing jurisdiction, China regarded the location of internet facilities as the place of the tort; however, China’s private international law applies the law of the victim’s residence as the governing law on personal right infringement by an Internet body.

인류의 경제 발전을 이끈 가장 큰 동기 중 하나는 재산권 추구의 욕망이었다. 재화의 증가를 통한 부의 축적을 통해 개인은 물론 국가는 새로운 번영을 이룰 수 있었다. 재산권을 어떻게 설정하느냐의 문제는 재산권 연구자들뿐만 아니라 사회의 모든 구성원들이 관심을 갖는 사안이다. 인류는 사적재산권의 확립을 통해 자원의 효율적 배분을 이루어 왔고 다양한 재산권 유형을 발전시켜 왔다. 이러한 관점에서 퍼블리시티권에 대한 논란의 본질은 퍼블리시티권이란 재산권을 어떻게 설정하느냐의 문제와 연결된다. 퍼블리시티권이 인격권이냐 재산권이냐 혹은 지식재산권이냐의 규정보다는 다양한 형태의 재산권을 어떻게 설정할 것이냐가 보다 중요한 문제의식이라 생각된다. 본 연구는 재산권 개념의 사상적․경제적․법적 측면을 포괄적으로 접근하여 새로운 유형의 재산권인 퍼블리시티권이 어떻게 설정되는 것이 바람직한 것인지에 대해 재산권 이론의 시각을 차용하여 살펴보려고 한다. 또한 개인의 동일성 내지 인격적 특성이 재산적 가치로 변화되는 현대 재산권 체계의 변화에도 주목하고자 한다.

One of the biggest motives leading to humanity's economic development was the desire to own property. Through wealth accumulation by the increase in goods, countries and individuals were able to achieve new prosperity. One resulting problem is the establishment of the property rights of all members of society, a matter of primary concern to property researchers and society members. A variety of property types and efficient allocation of resources have resulted from the establishment of private property rights. The right of publicity is the right of an individual to protect his or her name, likeness, signature, photograph, voice, and other distinctive characteristics from non-authorized commercial use by others. In the United States, this right has been developed while distinguishing the concept of the right of property from that of privacy since the early 1950s. The right of publicity was first recognized in the Haelan Case and is now largely protected by state common or statutory law. After this decision, most courts and many state legislatures in the U.S. recognized the right of publicity as independent of the right of privacy. Therefore, the right of publicity is not a moral right, but a property right. Recently in South Korea, due to the radical development of popular entertainment, professional sports, and advertising, many cases involve the use of names or likenesses of famous people for advertisement. The legal concept of right of publicity is relatively new in South Korea. About 25 years ago, affected by the U.S. entertainment law cases, the Korean legal society began to theorize the concept of right of publicity. Finally, the lower courts of Korea approved the right of publicity, although there has been no ruling from the Supreme Court, and no specific statute provisions have been established. According to the Korean lower court’s rulings, the right of publicity is an exclusive property right independent from the traditional right of privacy. It is a property right to use the name, image, or any other identity of a person for commercial purpose and to control the use thereof. The courts have ruled that the right of publicity can be transferred and inherited. Not only a living person, but also a dead person has the right of publicity, which is protected for 50 years from the date of death. In Korea, there have been many cases where celebrities and sports stars claim their rights of publicity against various types of unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity. In this respect, the controversial nature of the right of publicity is connected with the question of establishment of the right of publicity. The most important issue regarding the right of publicity is how to create new types of property rights rather than only defining the right of publicity as a personality right, intellectual property right, or property right. The purpose of this paper is how to regulate the right of publicity and what is desirable for its creation based on property theory and ideological, economical, and legal approaches. Also, this concentrates on the change in the modern property system that individual identity or personality rights are transformed into property rights.

오늘날 인터넷매체의 확산 등으로 인해 방송의 영향력이 약해지고 있다고는 하지만, 민주적인 의사결정을 위한 사회적 공론의 장을 마련하여야 한다는 방송의 사회적 책임은 여전히 중요하다. 최근 방송의 공정성 심의에 관한 법적 분쟁이 증가하고 있으며, 이는 행정처분에 대한 다툼으로서 행정소송법상 쟁점을 다수 포함하고 있으나, 행정소송법적 시각에서의 연구결과물은 많지 않은 실정이다. 그에 따라 이 논문은 행정소송법상 쟁점에서 도출할 수 있는 현행 공정성 심의제도의 문제점을 해결하고 공정성 심의에 관한 국민의 신뢰성을 제고하는 방안에 대하여 고찰하는 데 목적이 있다. 방송의 공정성 심의절차와 관련하여 제기되는 행정소송법상 쟁점으로는, 의결권한을 행사하는 방송통신심의위원회의 행정기관 여부, 방송법상 재심의 특별행정심판 여부, 불확정 개념에 대한 사법심사의 정도, 제재처분에 수반되는 고지방송명령의 행정처분 여부 등이 있다. 이러한 쟁점과 관련하여 현행 공정성 심의제도에 대해서는, 정치적 독립성이 보장되지 않는 심의기구의 인적 구성 및 모호한 공정성 심의기준으로 인한 신뢰성 저하 등의 비판이 제기되고 있다. 이러한 문제점을 해결하기 위해 이 글은 심의기구 구성 측면, 심의기준 측면, 법원의 판결례를 분석하는 측면에서 개선방안을 제시해 보았다. 먼저 방송통신심의위원회의 정치적 독립성을 제고하기 위해 행정기관으로서의 법적 지위를 명확히 함과 동시에 심의위원 추천권을 행정부, 입법부, 사법부에 각 3인씩 동등하게 부여할 필요가 있다. 다음으로 불확정 개념으로서의 공정성 기준이 갖는 모호성 문제를 해결하기 위하여 방송법령에서 공정성 기준을 삭제하고 자율심의 중심으로 규율체계를 개편해야 한다. 마지막으로 축적된 법원의 판결례가 제시하고 있는 공정성 기준을 구체화하는 작업을 함으로써 공정한 방송에 관한 사회적 수용가능성을 제고해야 할 것이다. 향후 공정성 심의에 대한 행정소송법상 관심의 확대 추세에 발맞추어, 법원의 판결을 분석하고 유형화하여 법적 판단기준을 정립함으로써 공정성 심의제도의 타당성과 신뢰성을 제고하기 위한 논의가 계속되기를 기대한다.

Because of the trend toward internet news and media, some may say the influence of broadcasting is becoming weaker than it used to be; however, the social responsibility of broadcasting to provide a forum for public discussion for the sake of the democratic decision-making process is still important. Recently, legal litigations concerning the Fairness Deliberation of Broadcasting have been gradually increasing, and these conflicts contain numerous legal issues regarding the Administrative Litigation Act. However, there seem to be many research findings on the Administrative Litigation Act with regard to the Fairness Deliberation issues. Therefore, this article aims to propose solutions for some problems of the current Fairness Deliberation system with regard to the Administrative Litigation Act and to review ways to enhance the credibility of the Fairness Deliberation of broadcasting. There are several issues of the Administrative Litigation Act in regard to the Fairness Deliberation process. Some of the questions that have arisen are listed here. Is the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), which has a deliberation authority, an administrative regulatory agency? Is the KCSC’s re-deliberation of precedent deliberation dispositions regarded as special administrative appeals? Is judicial review of amorphous concepts such as Fairness possible? Is the obligation of broadcasting the full text of matters decided by the KCSC recognized as the disposition? Related to those issues, the current Fairness Deliberation system has been criticized in that the deliberation agency (KCSC) is organized without guarantees of political independence from the imbalance of member composition, and citizen acceptability about the deliberations is low because current Fairness standards are too vague. In order to resolve these problems, this article proposes improvement measures on three points of view: organizing the deliberation agency’s members proportionately, considering change of the Fairness deliberation regulation system to a self-regulation system, and analyzing the administrative court judgments concerning the Fairness deliberation cases. First, to guarantee political independence of the KCSC, the KCSC’s legal status as an administrative regulatory agency must be clarified. Also, for political neutrality and impartiality, it is important to grant the administrative branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch equal rights of recommendation of KCSC members. Second, to settle the problems caused by vagueness of the Fairness standards as amorphous concepts, it is necessary to abolish the Fairness deliberation provisions of the current Broadcasting Act and reorganize the regulatory system as a self-regulation system. The self-regulation system can achieve more effective and efficient outcomes than a government-regulation system because it can facilitate audience participation by a precautionary measuring system. Third, it is important to enhance the social acceptability of fair broadcasting by analyzing and specifying recent administrative court rulings concerning Fairness deliberation cases. Such an examination will help establish reasonable Fairness deliberation standards. This study is expected to motivate more advanced studies about enhancement measures of the validity and acceptability of the Broadcasting Deliberation system, by analyzing court judgements that involve legal issues of the Administrative Litigation Act and by establishing specific legal standards.

우리 대법원은 2003. 7. 8. 선고 2002다64384 판결을 시작으로 공직자의 도덕성, 청렴성에 관한 보도의 경우에는 그 보도가 ‘악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격’이 아닌 한 쉽게 책임을 추궁하여서는 아니된다는 새로운 판단 기준을 제시하였다. 하지만 ‘악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격’이라는 표현을 둘러싸고 학계에서는 논의가 서로 대립되고 있는 가운데 대법원이 그 법적 의미를 명확히 밝히지 않은 상태여서 혼란이 더욱 가중되고 있는 실정이다. 지금까지 누적된 판례에서 알 수 있듯이 대법원은 공직자, 정치인, 언론사 등으로 대상을 한정해 ‘현저한 상당성’ 법리를 적용하고 있으며, 이를 두고 독자적 위법성조각사유의 탄생으로 이해하는 유력한 견해가 제기되기도 한다. 하지만 ‘현저한 상당성’ 법리가 공적 존재의 유형화를 통해 제한된 대상에만 적용되는 위법성조각사유로 이해된다면 이는 비례적 법익형량이라는 헌법원리가 추구하는 개별적 사안에서의 기본권 법익의 최적실현이라는 과제를 훼손하는 결과를 가져오게 될 것이다. 따라서 대법원의 ‘현저한 상당성’ 법리는 공적 사안에 관한 구체적 비례형량 과정에서 활용될 수 있는 하나의 잠정적 해석지침으로 이해하여야 하며, 새로운 판단기준을 적용함에 있어서 최종 귀착점은 헌법상 최고의 원리이자 해석원칙인 인간의 존엄성이라는 가치라고 할 것이다.

The supreme court suggested a new judgement standard on July 8, 2003, starting with the judgement of Sentence 2002다64384 that reporting on the morality or integrity of public officials shall not be easily asked for the responsibility unless ‘a malicious or highly improper attack.’ However, there has been academic dispute around the expression of ‘a malicious or highly improper attack,’ and the Supreme Court has not clearly revealed the legal meaning, which aggravates the confusion. In order to resolve the dissonance of basic rights regarding the so-called contradiction of general personal rights and freedom of speech, principals such as those of Rechtgut indicate sentence applying principle of proportion came up with the very existence of basic rights and principal of constitutional state, the constitutional principal. The principle of proportionality involves object legitimacy, suitability and necessity of means, and balance of Rechtgut; the court requires evaluation in each stage of basic right conflicts in concrete case. In particular, the process of sentencing in cases related to press activity, such as the cause of exemption of Article 310 of the Criminal Code, is on the rise as a problem of application of the principle of proportion. It is suspicious that the supreme court has strived to concentrate on ‘considerableness’ of the demonstration connected to the authenticity but has been inadvertent in applying the 'public benefit' of Article 310 of the Criminal Code by acknowledging public benefit of the report in most processes of balancing personal rights and freedom of speech. Since the Constitutional Court emphasizes the need for differentiating judgement of standards related to public matters in 2000, and the Supreme Court introduced coverage of ‘uncertain judging standard’ and ‘a malicious or highly improper attack’ in the process of accepting such a proposal, we are now facing another problem with interpretation and meaning of 'notable considerableness,' though we recognize the need to introduce a differentiated judgement standard related to public matters or public figures. The Supreme Court is applying ‘noticeable considerableness’ on restricted subjects such as public officials, politicians, or journalists, and there are influential opinions that understand this as the introduction of an independent cause of exemption. However, if the principle of ‘noticeable considerableness’ is understood as a cause of exemption applied only to subjects restricted through formalization of public figures, this may damage the task of optimal realization for the benefit and protection of the law for basic rights in individual cases in which a constitutional principle is pursued as a proportional balancing test. Therefore, the supreme court’s legal principle of ‘noticeably considerableness’ is a potential interpretation guideline in the process of specific proportional balancing of public cases, and the ultimate conclusion in applying the new judgement standard may be the value of human dignity as the highest principle and interpretational principle in the constitution.