이른바 ‘허위사실유포죄’는 없다 -전기통신기본법 제47조 제1항의 해석 및 위헌론- (The Interpretation of and Constitutional Criticism on the So-called “Crime of Spreading False Information by Telecommunication Equipment”)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 민주주의법학연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 민주법학 / 39호 / 47 ~ 92페이지
· 저자명 : 송기춘

초록

인터넷 사이트에 미네르바라는 필명으로 경제분석에 관한 글을 쓰던 한 네티즌이 전기통신기본법 제47조 제1항 위반으로 2008년말 구속되었고 현재 재판이 진행중이다. 그 동안의 검찰의 해석과 법원 판례는 이 조항을 이른바 “허위사실유포죄”라고 보고 있다. 그러나 이 조항은 “공익을 해할 목적으로 전기통신설비에 의하여 공연히 허위의 통신을 한 자”를 처벌한다고 규정하고 있을 뿐 허위사실을 유포하는 통신행위를 처벌한다고는 규정하지 않는다.
이 글은 이 조항이 위헌이며, 이 조항을 허위사실유포죄로 공공연히 해석ㆍ적용하는 것은 아래와 같은 이유로 법률을 왜곡하는 것이고 합헌적으로 해석을 하더라도 중대한 공익의 침해를 목적으로 전기통신설비 자체를 이용하여 허위명의의 통신을 공공연히 하여 증대한 공익에 명백하고 현존하는 위험을 초래한 경우에 한정되어야 한다는 것을 논증하기 위하여 집필되었다.
첫째, ‘허위의 통신’은 통신내용이 허위인 것을 처벌하고자 한 것이 아니다. 통신이라 하여 그 내용이 허위라고 다른 경우보다 더 특별히 취급되어야 할 이유는 없으며, 여기의 허위의 통신이라 함은 명의를 허위로 한 통신을 말한다.
둘째, 전화나 인터넷을 위한 컴퓨터는 ‘전기통신설비’에 해당하지 않으며, 이들의 사용은 전기통신서비스의 이용일 뿐 ‘전기통신설비에 의한’ 통신에 해당하지 않는다. ‘전기통신설비에 의하여’ 허위의 통신을 한 것을 특별히 처벌하는 이유는 전기통신설비 자체의 이용을 통제하고자 하는 것이다. 전기통신업무에 종사하는 자의 범죄가 가중처벌되는 이유도 여기에 있다.
셋째, 공익을 해할 목적은 그 내용이 모호하고 추상적이어서 거의 모든 행위에 인정할 수 있는 목적으로 전락할 수도 있다. 죄형법정주의의 명확성의 원칙에 반하며, 특히 표현의 자유에 관련되는 구절이므로 합헌성을 인정하기 위해서는 더욱 특별히 엄격한 심사기준에 의하여야 한다.

영어초록

A blogger called ‘Minerva’, well-known for the articles of his economic analysis and prediction of Korean economy, was arrested and charged for his alleged action to spread the false information by the telecommunication equipment last year. He was accused of posting an article, which asserted that the Finance Department ordered the 7 major corporations to stop buying U. S. dollars in order to support the Korean won. The Finance Department denied this and the prosecutors argued that his posting of the article contravened the article of ‘Crime of Spreading False Information by Telecommunication Equipment.’
There had been several cases involved with provision(Article 47 Section 1) of the Basic Act on Telecommunication. It provides that “Whoever makes false telecommunication publicly using telecommunication equipment with the intent to impair the public interest shall be punished by 5 or less years of imprisonment or 50 million or less won fine.” However, it doesn’t provide that “Whoever spreads the false information to the public using telecommunication services with the intent to impair the public interest shall be punished by 5 or less years of imprisonment or 50 million or less won fine.” Nevertheless, the prosecutors and judges usually interpret this article to charge those who post articles on the internet sites that spread false information to the public. But I think this interpretation is absolutely wrong for the following reasons:

1. Nobody shall be punished only for telling a lie or spreading false information, except when it is provided by specific clauses, such as fraud, perjury, etc. According to the interpretation of the courts, the act to spread false information to impair the public interest shall not be punished if it is spread by other means than telecommunication equipment. It makes no sense that only the act by telecommunication equipment is punished.
2. The act that shall be punished is the ‘false telecommunication’ which means the fabrication of the name of telecommunication who originates and terminates, not the spread of false information.
3. The ‘telecommunication equipment’ means equipment, other than the equipment on customer premises, such as the telephone, personal computer to originate, route or terminate telecommunications, which is used by a carrier to provide telecommunication services. To communicate with others by telephone or personal computer is just the use of telecommunication services, not the telecommunication by the ‘telecommunication equipment.’ Spreading false information through internet can’t be construed as the false telecommunication by ‘telecommunication equipment.’
4. The meaning of ‘with the intent of impairing the public interest’ can’t be clearly understood because the phrase uses the words with vague meaning. It is unconstitutional if the article that makes certain action a crime includes in it the abstract words whose meaning can hardly be pinned down. It is null and void for its vagueness.

As a matter of fact, the blogger “Minerva” was arrested illegally because he had no intention of impairing the public interest, and the facts he referred to were not false. His posting of the articles on the internet to criticize the government is not the false telecommunication. And it was done not by the ‘telecommunication equipment’ but just by the use of internet services. It is the case of persecution on the anti-government speech by intentional distort and mis-interpretation of the article.

참고자료

· 없음