• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.18
• /
• pp.281-315
• /
• 2008

This paper reviews recent records issues surrounding former president Roh Moo-Hyun's private possession of the copies of the presidential records in Korea. While the former president transferred his records to the National Archives of Korea, he copied his electronic presidential records and kept them in his house after the term. His retention of the "records copies" arouse critical records issues and criminal charges. In this paper, I examined the definition of presidential records and legal status of records copies, authenticity of electronic copies of public records in public and private records systems, nature and scope of presidential privilege of access to his records, and most importantly, political neutrality of national archives. I examined these issues comparing with foreign experience, especially that of the United States which has the Presidential Records Act like Korea. All issues are examined in the professional spirit of archives principles and archives ethics. Legal status of the electronic copies of presidential records is not firmly established and the criminal charge seems groundless. However, it is against public archives principles and ethics that private former president privately possesses and manages private information and national security information held in the electronic copies of the presidential records. Presidential Records Act of Korea provides an effective tool to protect the presidential records for 15 years and it should be respected. It is time to consolidate the public records management institutions in Korea, not to disintegrate them.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.211-244
• /
• 2007

Article 17 and 18 of the Korean Constitution respectively prescribe the violation of individual's right to privacy and the secrecy of wire communication. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act which is conducted within the ambit of laws or pursuant to accepted business practices or which does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable. In 1999, the Constitutional Court held that media reports on public matters of public figures must be given strong constitutional protection, and treated differently from reports on private matters of private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. This study analyzes the issue of media liability for publication of illegally intercepted wire communication by a third person. Particularly, it reviews Seoul High Court's ruling on 'X-file scandal' which disclosed intercepted wire communications between notable public figures regarding a slush fund for a presidential candidate. In the light of this analysis, the study concludes that the media reporting of the intercepted communication does not violate social norms of Article 20, and therefore it is entitled to a constitutional privilege.