Earticle

이 글은 정보기본권에 관한 선행연구를 바탕으로 정보기본권의 개념과 구체적 내용(유형),그러한 기본권 신설 주장의 배경과 필요성, 다른 나라 헌법 등 비교법적 고찰, 기존의 헌법개정안의 고찰을 통하여 당해 기본권의 신설 여부와 신설 방안 제시를 목적으로 한다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위하여 우선 정보기본권의 개념과 기존에 제시된 정보기본권의 구체적 내용(유형)을 검토한 후 개인정보권, 알 권리, 정보문화 향유와 정보격차 해소, 정보보안권 네 가지로 범주화하고(Ⅱ), 각 항목별로 그 도입 주장의 배경, 개념과 내용, 그 실현 구조, 다른 나라 헌법 등 비교법적 고찰, 기존 헌법개정안의 고찰을 통하여 당해 기본권의 신설이 필요한지, 새로운 헌법에 어떤 방식으로 신설되는 것이 타당한지 제시하였다(Ⅲ). 이러한 검토를 통하여 (ⅰ) 정보기본권에는 표현의 자유, 알 권리(정보접근권, 정보공개청구권), 개인정보권, 정보보안권, 정보문화 향유와 정보격차 해소, 정보재산권 등 기존에 주장되던 여러 기본권이 포함된다, (ⅱ) 기존 기본권의 보호범위 등을 고려하면 이러한 기본권 중 개인정보권, 알 권리(정보접근권, 정보공개청구권), 정보보안권은 기본권 형식으로신설하는 것이 타당하다, (ⅲ) 2018년 현재를 기준으로 정보문화 향유와 정보격차 해소에관한 내용은 국가목표조항으로 규정하되, 시간이 좀 더 흐른 후에 기본권 형식으로 전환을 검토하는 것이 타당하다고 결론지었다.

A debate on amending the constitution of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Constitution”) is in full swing. The current Constitution was revised without anticipating the intensification of the information society triggered by the changes in the media environment and the development of digital technology as follows: the descents of traditional media such as newspapers and magazines; changes in news consumption style centered on Internet portals; the rise of Internet media such as newspapers, personalized news using personal information, targeted advertisements, etc. For this reason, many scholars majored in constitutional law has argued that it should be reflected in the revision of the Constitution considering the changed information environment. Given the deepened information society, the necessity of revising these constitutions has been strengthened. As a result, various revisions including the revision of the Constitution proposed by President Moon Jae-in in 2018 are responding to such needs through the establishment of fundamental rights on information. In the meantime, various opinions have been suggested about how to add fundamental rights on information in revising the Constitution. It was difficult for the Korean society to find a good example because the information environment was ahead of any other society in the world. Therefore, the comparative legal methodology that the Korean Constitution mainly depends on was not useful in establishing fundamental rights on information. There is a need to establish a fundamental right to meet the new information environment and media environment. This article aims to suggest alternatives to establish a new fundamental right on information and how to express them if they are revised in Korea. To accomplish this purpose, this paper examined the concept of fundamental right on information as well as the concrete contents (type) of the fundamental right on information previously presented, and categorized them into four: personal information right, right to know, enjoyment of information culture and resolution of digital divide, and information security right (Ⅱ). In each case, a background of the adoption claim, a concept and contents, a realization structure, comparative legal considerations, such as the constitution of other countries, and revisions to the Constitution were examined (Ⅲ). Through these reviews, this paper suggests that the right of personal information, right to know (right to access information, and right to disclose information), and the right of information security should be established in the form of a fundamental rights clause. In addition, the contents of the enjoyment of information culture and the resolution of the digital divide are defined in the national target clause. However, because of the significant time that has passed, this paper suggests that the clause’s conversion into a fundamental right clause should be reviewed. In particular, this paper proposes to establish the right of personal information as follows: “Everyone has the right to self-information.” Secondly, the right to know is suggested to be established as follows: “Everyone has the right to access and obtain information that is generally accessible,” and “Everyone may claim to the public the disclosure of information that is generally accessible.” Third, the enjoyment of information culture and resolution of the digital divide are suggested to be established as follows: “The State shall endeavor to ensure that all citizens enjoy the information culture,” and “The State shall endeavor to ensure to solve the digital divide.” Finally, the right of information security is proposed to be established as follows: “Everyone has the right to a confidential, flawless, and reliable information system, sas well as an information and communications network.” If the question of the appropriateness of the so-called 1987 system is solved by amending the Constitution, it is essential that not only the constitution and the operation of the national institution but also the maintenance of fundamental rights in line with social change are necessary. Moreover, the establishment of information fundamental rights already mentioned is one of the core contents. Those who directly participate in the revision of the Constitution should bear this point in mind.

우리는 과학기술ㆍ정보통신의 발달로 새로운 헌법 현상으로써 제4차 산업혁명이라는 패러다임 전환을 목격하고 있다. 제4차 산업혁명은 데이터 기반 혁신 시대를 초래할 것으로 예상됨에 따라 기존의 법과 제도 특히 헌법적 차원의 기본권까지 재검토해야 할 필요성이 커지고 있다. 현재 우리 사회는 빅데이터 활용을 중심으로 하는 정보의 산업적 활용을 위한 구체적인 제도적 장치를 만들자는 움직임과 이에 반대하는 개인정보보호법 강화의 움직임이 충돌하고 있다. 이와 같은 사회적 이슈의 대립은 헌법적 차원에서 정보기본권 논의에 대한 관심을 불러일으키고 있으며 최근의 개헌 움직임에도 영향을 주고 있다. 본 연구에서는 정보기본권을 데이터를 기반으로 재구성하려고 한다. 데이터 기반의 정보기본권에서도 기존에 논의되었던 정보의 자유, 평등, 재산권 논의가 유효하다. 그러나 빅데이터 기반의 알고리즘이 일상화되는 데이터 기반 경제에서는 정보의 자유나 평등 보다는 재산권 논의가 핵심 영역으로 떠오를 것으로 예상된다. 개개인이 데이터에 자유롭게 접근할 수 있는 것도 중요하고 정보의 불평등과 격차가 발생하지 않게 하는 것도 중요하지만 결국은 이 모든 것이 궁극적으로 데이터를 어떤 내용의 재산권으로 만들 것인지와 연결되기 때문이다. 데이터 플랫폼을 독점하는 사업자와 그 플랫폼에 정보를 제공하는 개인이 어떻게 이익을 공유할 수 있는지가 데이터 기반 경제에 핵심이 될 것이다. 데이터의 생산자이자 제공자인 개인의 데이터 소유권이 어떻게 확립되느냐에 따라 ‘데이터 기본권’의 기본적인 내용이 결정될 가능성이 크다.

We are witnessing the paradigm shift of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a new constitutional phenomenon because of the development of science and technology, as well as information and communication. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution is expected to lead to the era of data-based innovation, there is a growing need to review the basic rights from existing laws and institutions, especially on the constitutional level. Our society is currently confronted with the movement to make concrete institutional devices for the industrial application of information centered on the use of big data and the move to strengthen the privacy protection law against it. This confrontation of social issues has raised interest in the discussion of fundamental information rights on the constitutional level and has also influenced the recent move to amend the constitution. In this study, we try to reconstruct basic information rights based on data. In this regard, the previous discussion of the freedom of information, equality, and property rights is still effective. However, in a data-driven economy where big data-based algorithms are commonplace, property rights are expected to become key issues rather than the domain of the freedom of information and equality. It is also important for individuals to have free access to data, and ensure that information inequalities and gaps do not arise. All of this ultimately leads to determining the content that should be subject to property right. The manner through which data platform proprietors and individuals who provide information to that platform could share the benefits will be the key to the data-driven economy. It is highly possible that the basic contents of “data basic rights” will be decided depending on how the data ownership of the producer and provider of the data is established.

저작인격권은 다음과 같은 단계를 거치면서 진화했다고 보인다. 첫째, 그리스ㆍ로마 시대에서는 저작자의 명예와 평판을 보호해야 한다는 당대의 사회 분위기 속에서 저작인격권과의 관련성을 찾아볼 수 있다. 둘째, 르네상스 시기에 와서, 창작자로서의 저자의 지위에 대한 인식이 높아지고 이러한 관점에서 저자에게 출판통제권을 주어야 한다는 개념이 생겨나게 된다. 셋째, 19세기 전반기에 프랑스 법원이 오늘날 저작인격권에 해당하는 구체적 권리에 대한 판결을 통해 현대적 저작인격권 개념을 구체화하게 된다. 넷째, 19세기 독일에서 법학자의 이론 및 판례를 통해 저작인격권 개념이 정착되고, 1901년 및 1907년 법률조문에 저작인격권 관련 조항이 포함된다. 다섯째, 이탈리아는 1925년 저작인격권을 조문화하고, 자국의 법률조항을 로마에서 개최된 베른협약 개정안에 반영하려고 시도한다. 1928년 수정 베른협약에 성명표시권 및 동일성유지권 조항이 추가되어 저작인격권은 마침내 국제적인 차원에서 뿌리를 내리게 된다.

The concept of moral rights in the Copyright Act lies at the point where copyright and personality rights meet. A work of art embodies the personality of the author. The concept of moral rights emerged through evolution, and the present form reflects such beginning. This paper explores the historical origins of moral rights of an author, and seeks a primary reflection on the legal transformation appropriate to the modern society. This paper also aims to provide a starting point for resolving the following questions. First, how are moral rights accepted as a category of personality rights even though they are rights related to work? Second, why are moral rights emphasized in the Copyright Act of the continental law system rather than of the common law system? Third, why are copyrights divided into economic rights and moral rights? Moral rights seem to have evolved through the following steps. First, in the Greek Roman period, we can find the relation with personality rights in the contemporary society atmosphere that protects the honor and reputation of the author. Second, in the middle ages of the West, the perception that creation belongs to God was deeply rooted, and therefore, there was no active discussion of the personal interests of the author. Third, in the Renaissance period, the recognition an author as the creator became more prominent. Therefore, the concept of the authors publishing control and related legislation were accepted. Fourth, in the first half of the 19th century, the French court embodies the concept of moral right that corresponds to modern moral rights. The term “droit moral,” which refers to moral rights, was first used in France in the 1870s. Fifth, in the 19th century, the concept of moral rights was established through the precedents in courts and theories of legal scholars in Germany. In 1901 and 1907, the provisions of the moral right of the author were added to the laws. Later, Germany used the term “Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht” to refer to moral rights. Sixth, Italy actively included moral rights in 1925 in its domestic law and attempted to incorporate its legal provisions into the Bern Convention amendment held in Rome. The 1928 revision of the Berne Convention has included the provision of the moral rights of the author. Therefore, moral rights finally became rooted at the international level. It is reasonable to regard the precedents of France in the first half of the 19th century as the historical origins of the concept of moral rights because they dealt with legal issues that are in line with the widely used moral rights at present. They clearly states that this right remains with the author even when economic rights are transferred. In particular, the court precedent of 1845 represented moral rights in a well-organized manner. The study of the historical origins of moral rights leaves the following implications. First, the notion of moral rights is hidden somewhere in Korean history, which emphasizes the scholars honor, a topic that can be researched in the future. Second, in accordance with the historical origin of moral rights, the Korean terminology of “personal rights of work” is not aligned with the copyright world. As with Germany or Japan, the “personal rights of author” is considered more proper. Third, there is a need to reflect on whether the moral rights concept formed in the 19th century environment, which is distant to the environment of the modern Internet and digital technology, still works.

범죄사건에 대한 보도는 사회에서 발생한 범죄사실을 구성원들에게 알리고 범죄에 대한 경각심을 갖게 하며 범죄를 둘러싼 사회 규범에 대한 비판적 토론을 가능하게 하는 공익적 목적을 수행하므로, 원칙적으로 공익성이 인정된다. 특히 최근에 발생한 ‘미투(Me too)’ 사건처럼 차별적 사회구조 및 형사사법구조의 불신 하에서는 사회적 약자인 피해자가 사회적 강자인 가해자를 고발하면서 공정한 재판절차를 촉구하기 위해 언론의 공론 형성 기능 및 감시기능을 이용하기도 한다. 언론은 범죄사건을 보도하면서 단순히 국민의 알 권리만을 충족시키는 것이 아니라 피해자의 권리구제, 권력의 부패 고발 등의 역할을 하기도 하는 것이다. 그러나 위와 같은 범죄사건 보도의 순기능에도 불구하고, 범죄사건 보도는 어떤 보도보다도 피혐의자의 명예ㆍ사생활 등의 인격권 침해, 공정한 재판을 받을 권리 및 무죄추정을 받을 권리를 위협한다는 특징을 갖고 있다. 피해자(고소인)의 주장만을 자극적인 표현으로 정확한 인용 표시 없이 내보내는 보도, 사건과 관련 없는 피혐의자의 전과ㆍ사생활ㆍ성격 및 평판 등을 편향적으로 편집하여 내보내는 보도, 피혐의자나 주요 참고인의 재판 전후 진술ㆍ자백ㆍ알리바이 등을 내보내는 보도, 수사과정에서 수사기관이 일방적으로 비밀리에 유출하는 수사정보를 내보내는 보도 등은 비록 사실을 적시하였다고 하더라도 피혐의자에 대한 왜곡된 인상을 퍼뜨려 피혐의자의 사회적 가치를 저하시키고, 사생활을 침해하며, 무엇보다 피혐의자가 재판 전에 이미 유죄로 추정되고 자신에 대한 불리한 보도와 보도과정에서 무심코 한 발언 등을 탄핵하기 위한 노력을 하게끔 만든다. 대상판결은 사실을 적시한 범죄사건 보도에 대하여 고소인의 주장만을 여과 없이 보도하여 원고에 대한 왜곡된 인상을 퍼뜨렸다면 명예훼손 책임이 인정된다고 판시하였다. 대상판결이 범죄사건 보도에 대한 새로운 법리를 판시한 것은 아니지만, 오래전부터 지적되어 왔던 무분별한 범죄사건 보도에 대하여 다시 한 번 경종을 울린 것으로 평가할 만하다. 이 평석에서는 위 대상판결을 기초로 하여 ① 범죄사건 보도로 인해 침해되는 법익을 살펴보고, ② 위 보도의 위법성이 조각되어 면책되기 위한 기준들을 침해 법익별로 살펴보았다. 특히 범죄사건 보도에 대하여 그간 우리 사회에서 피해법익으로서 명시적으로 인정되지 아니한 공정한 재판을 받을 권리 및 무죄추정을 받을 권리 위주로 대상판결을 재분석하였고, 그 결과 앞으로 범죄사건 보도에 대해서는 공정한 재판을 받을 권리 및 무죄추정을 받을 권리가 피해법익으로 인정될 가능성 및 기존 명예훼손에 대한 위법성 조각 법리 이외에도 공정한 재판을 받을 권리 및 무죄추정을 받을 권리를 침해하지 아니하기 위하여 특히 주의하여야 할 기준을 새로 정립하여야 할 필요성을 확인하였다.

Media reporting on crimes is, in principle, a recognized public interest because it informs the community members of the crimes taking place therein. It also raises their awareness of the crimes and enables critical discussions on related social norms. In particular, as shown in the recent MeToo phenomena, media reporting and its agenda-setting and monitoring functions are used by crime victims with weak social status in whistle-blowing on the more powerful perpetrators, where discriminatory social structure and distrust in criminal justice system discourage such act. Media not only fulfills people’s right to know but also protects victims’ rights and reveals the power elites’ corruptions. However, these benefits of crime reporting can also threaten the accused’s reputation, privacy, and other personality rights, right to fair trial, and right to the presumption of innocence. Some reports do not cite the inflammatory expressions of the supposed victims or accusers; unfavorably edit the accused’s former offenses, private lives, personalities, and reputation irrelevant to the crime; spread the testimonies, confessions, and alibis of the accused and important witnesses right before or after the trial; or disclose confidential information from investigating authorities to place the accused at a disadvantage. These reports, even if truthful, lowers the social worth of the accused by depicting him/her in false light, infringes his/her privacy, “presumes” him/her guilty, and thereby forces him/her to impeach the unfavorable reports on him/her and self-impeach his/her careless remarks reported in the media. In Korea, libel has always been recognized as the offense that results from illegal acts by the media reporting on crimes. As a result, the right to fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence has not been recognized as a loss of illegal activity. No independent compensation is made for the infringement of the right to fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence, despite the differences in the protection of the right to reputation and the right to fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the requirements that control the standards of reporting on crimes to prevent the infringement of the right to fair trial or the right to the presumption of innocence were not addressed in detail. In the instant case, the court found that the media reported the accuser’s assertions without any filtering and thereby spread distorted images of the plaintiff, which resulted in defamation. The ruling does not announce a new law, but it does send a warning to indiscriminate crime reporting, which has been criticized for a long time. This case also recognizes defamation as a loss of illegal activity, but the case dealt with a crime report before the trial and the immunity requirements mentioned by the case are also necessary to ensure the right to fair trial. With the instant case as an example (1), this paper reviewed, the legal interests infringed by crime reporting (2) and the defenses necessary to exempt crime reporting from liability for such infringement. The author particularly reanalyzes the instant case in terms of the right to fair trial and the presumption of innocence and proposes a new standard of care to be established to avoid their infringement.