• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.634-644
• /
• 2021

Despite the increased social demand for strengthening the punishment for ghost surgery in Korea, the governmental management is very passive compared to other offenses of medical law, and the punishment for ghost surgery is insufficient, so that medical malpractices are continuously occurring. A plastic surgeon who posted the names of clinics performing ghost surgery and the number of deaths on the internet bulletin board, was charged with the violation of the Information Telecommunication Act(defamation). Thus, this study aimed to present the legal/institutional issues and implications of defamation by the release of ghost surgery, by initially examining the charged case after posting the contents showing the death of patients by ghost surgery in clinics on the internet bulletin board. This study aimed to understand how strictly the court approached the ghost surgery in the aspect of public interest, and also to understand the judgment standard of punishment for defamation by investigating the publicly alleging facts and public interest by the disclosure of ghost surgery. Moreover, this study aims to provide the basic data necessary for guaranteeing the national health right by arousing attention to ghost surgery.

• Venture DIGEST
• /
• s.135
• /
• pp.38-39
• /
• 2009

지난 호에는 부정적인 언론사 오보의 경우에 명예훼손의 판단기준은 어떠하며 피해자들에게 어떤 권리와 절차가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 요약하면 공익적이지 못한 보도(진실 여부와 상관없이), 공익적이지만 진실하지 못한 보도, 공익적이지만 언론의 주의의무(상당성)를 다하지 못한 보도는 손해배상책임을 지는 불법적 보도이며, 손해배상 정정보도 등 보도로 인한 피해 구제를 법원보다 간편하고 신속하게 받을 수 있는 기관으로 언론중재위원회(이하 중재위)가 있다는 것이다. 이번 호에는 이어서 포털 뉴스 및 근거 없는 게시글에 대해서 대응하는 방법과 최근에 나온 판례에 대해 설명하고자 한다.

• 가정의 벗
• /
• v.36 no.4 s.416
• /
• pp.19-19
• /
• 2003

• Digital Contents
• /
• no.9 s.100
• /
• pp.36-43
• /
• 2001

명예에 관한 죄는 사람의 사회적 인격성을 침해하는 범죄로서 보호법익은 '명예'이다. 명예는 인간의 존엄성을 바탕으로 사람이 사회적, 윤리적, 정신적으로 당연히 누려야할 인격적 가치를 말한다. 이는 크게 외적명예, 내적명예, 명예감정으로 나눌 수 있는데, 외적명예는 사람의 인격가치에 대한 사회적 평가를 의미한다. 내적명예는 사람의 고유한 인격가치로서 사람이 출생과 함께 갖게 되는 윤리적 사회적인 인격적 가치제를 말한다. 명예감정은 자기의 인격가치에 대한 자신의 주관적 평가를 말한다.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.150-191
• /
• 2007

Defamation lawsuits of public figures against media have been an issue since Roh government set in. Dissension between the government and media has probably acted as the key factor on this problem. Accordingly, arguments on the defamation lawsuits of public figures occurred the political issues such as opposition between the Progressive and the Conservative Parties or between the ins and the outs and showed the limits to suggest an appropriate judgment or solution. This study will analyze how the court makes its judgement on their rights and the limits by understanding the characteristic and the problem of defamation lawsuits made by senior government officials including a politician, the government, the president, and etc. As results, the defamation lawsuits of politicians and senior government officials showed specially noteworthy matters in salvation (damage suits), the amount claimed, court costs, ratio of winning lawsuits, and etc. The result on the tendency of the court decision showed the following matters in confusion: it holds the media responsible for the burden of proof by applying the inappropriate criterion; The applied laws, especially in the inferior court decision, do not show the consistency of the burden of proof between the misconception/ intention (malice)/ accident/ purpose of slander on the legal principles of public figures. Therefore, this study suggests the court to apply an appropriate law, let alone regulating the Anti-SLAPP law, so that it curtails the rights of public figures; limits the salvation of damage suit; and protects the right only in the case of false accusation by applying the existing law of "the Protection of the Deceased's Defamation Law." In order to dissolve the confusion when applying the laws on the public figures, the study insists the court to positively apply the Constitutional Court made criterion on "people" and "content." The study also insists to distinguish "intention(malice)," "accident," and "purpose of slander" and variant sorts of the burden of proof should be applied to each.

• Korean Deer Journal
• /
• v.7 no.1 s.39
• /
• pp.48-48
• /
• 2002

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.140-167
• /
• 2008

This study analyzes the legal reasoning of Seoul Central District Court, which imposed legal liability on portals for posting defamatory user replies to news articles, written and provided by the news media, onto their 'News Windows'. Saddling portals with the burden of verifying the facts associated in news articles and imposing the legal obligation as a publisher entail a grave risk of impairment of free flow of information and freedom of expression. Of course, it would ultimately result in tightening up private censorship of information which the Constitution does not allow, and funker keep portals from posting even news articles in which expressed views and opinions are lawful. When judging whether portals should assume liability fur libelous user replies to news articles, it is necessary to distinguish the territory under the direct authority of portals from cafes and bulletin boards managed by third parties. In addition, imposing legal liability above the level of common carrier should be limited to the cases; when portals arbitrarily change the contents of news articles or when the articles portals changed contain libelous contents. Even if those conditions are met, the altered contents should obviously constitute libel. Only in the presence of proof that portals knew the illegality of news articles and did not take proper steps including deleting those replies, should portals not be considered as an accomplice. Nor should portals take responsibility for users' defamatory replies for those reasons.

• 치위협보
• /
• s.97
• /
• pp.1-16
• /
• 2005

• 치위협보
• /
• s.95
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2005

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.29-49
• /
• 2010

Various opinions are expressed about the Internet Regulation. Some people argue that it is impossible to control because of the technical characteristics of Internet, while other people argue that it is easy to control. Recently in Korea, a move to reinforce the Internet Regulation through the extension of cyber real-name system is emerging, whereas the concern for its excessive infringement of the Freedom of Expression is increasing. This paper was intended to draw a reasonable direction for Internet Regulation in our society. And accordingly this paper tried to suggest a desirable direction of Internet Control in the future and to draw a criterion for domestic court judgement by analyzing cases of cyber defamation so far. The result of this study proposed that the Freedom for Expression be widely secured in the case of cyber defamation of criticism and political comments upon public officials and that the legitimacy and effectiveness of Internet Regulation be ensured. This result of study is expected to help establish the direction and principle of Internet Regulation in the future around Korea Communications Commission and Korea Communications Standards Commission.