• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.199-239
• /
• 2010

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the claim, on the ground that the first legitimate son should be the "head worshiper" prescribed in the article 1008-3 of the Korean Civil Code and that the corpse belong to the head woshiper, i. e. the head woshiper has a special "limited ownership" over the corpse for the purpose of its burial and worship, adding that a deceased's disposition inter vivos, if any, be only ethically but by no means legally binding others, including the head worshiper of course. Here scrutinized are the historical developments starting from the Roman criminal law of sepulchri violatio(trespass to grave) through the Canon law of the Middle Age and the doctrinal reactions to the challenges of anatomy and surgery to the formation of the "supporting the deceased" theory in Germany as well as the similarities in other european continental countries(Switzerland, Austria and France). The comparative review shows that the right of remaining family could neither be identified as limited "ownership" nor that the controversy over a corpse be solved by exclusively attributing/distributing it to one/some of the descendants. In principle, the question should be approached in the extension of family support.