명예의 보호와 형사처벌제도의 폐지론과 유지론 : PD수첩 광우병보도 수사에 즈음하여

박경신 서강대학교 법학연구소 2009 서강법학 Vol.11 No.1

In June 2009, producers and writers of MBC were indicted for producing a documentary on the susceptibility of American beef to mad cow diseases. The crime they were charged was defamation of the government officers who declared the U.S. beef 'safe' and tried to import it into Korea. Can one's mere disagreement with the government position on a scientific issue be considered defamatory against the government? Given the latitude given to people of all civilized countries in criticizing "public officers" and "public figures", can a defamation charge stick? Putting aside these two questions, there still remains the question: Why is the prosecutor attempting this ludicrous indictment? Many governments of the world seem to think that criminal defamation by nature becomes the legal venue through which the heads of the state use the prosecutors to suppress the voices critical of them. For this reason, they are decriminalizing defamation and many international human rights NGOs are welcoming and calling for such change. PD Diary case clearly shows the very danger which has become the reason for the decriminalizing trend. The prosecutors investigated this case for over one year and has not identified a single intentional falsity in the documentary, an element of criminal defamation. In this article, the author evaluates various arguments for or against abolition of criminal defamation. The author concludes that the most convincing argument for decriminalzation is that the government must be readily available for critique and monitoring by the people, and when the government itself becomes the administrator of the defamation discipline, such critique and monitoring will be chilled, and if not chilled, it will be subjected to a trumped-up charge, as PD Diary case is.

성매매에 대한 금지주의적 여성주의와 성노동론 여성주의의 대립과 화해가능성

박경신 ( Park Kyung Shin ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2018 고려법학 Vol.0 No.90

여성주의 이론은 개별성매매행위를 성착취 및 성차별로 보아 성매수자를 처벌하되 그 착취와 차별의 피해자는 면책하자는 금지주의적 여성주의 캠프와 사회적 성차별의 피해자인 성노동자들의 안전과 복지를 위해 이들의 자율성을 인정해주기 위해서는 성매수자도 처벌해서는 안된다는 ‘성노동론’ 여성주의로 나뉘어져 있다. 이 분열을 회복하는 방법 중의 하나는 사회적 인과관계와 개인적 인과관계를 구분하고 금지주의적 여성주의 입장을 2014년 유럽의회 결의와 2006년 헌법재판소 결정에 표창된 경험주의적인 것으로 재해석하는 것이다. 즉 자발적 성매매가 사회적 성차별의 결과물이라고 할지라도 개인적인 가해-피해의 관계가 성립되지 않을 수도 있음을 인정하되 자발적 성매매의 합법화는 강제적 성매매나 성차별적 인식의 확산을 부추길 수 있음을 인정한다면, 성노동자들의 복지와 안전이라는 법익과 강제적 성매매나 성차별의 잠재적 피해 예방이라는 법익을 실증적으로 형량하여 최적화된 해법을 찾아갈 수 있다. A debate between two feminist camps are raging around the world on the issue of whether to fully decriminalize prostitution or punish purchasers while sparing women the victims of sexual discrimination, which is the very reason both feminist camps cite as the reasons for condemning prostitution. The fight intensified while in 2014 European Parliament resolved to call all member States for adoption of the Swedish model and around the same time Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International sided with sex workers who have demanded de-stigmatization by decriminalization.Prohibitionist feminist camp sees prostitution as sexual exploitation and discrimination against women while sex work feminist camp wants to recognize full autonomy of sex workers whom they recognize as the victims of social discrimination.This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the two camps and explores the possibility of reconciliation. To summarize, what I would call the prohibitionist feminist camp’s proposal for the Swedish model is vulnerable to deontological attacks. Firstly, the fact that women are socially forced into prostitution by job discrimination does not necessarily justify treating women’s voluntary choice not operative while men’s action operative, thereby holding women not accountable and yet men accountable for their respective actions, especially when accountability takes the form of criminal punishment. It is not just prostitution that women were forced into: There are many other low level jobs into which men crowded women away from their high paying jobs, but criminalizing just male customers will be non-sensical. One makes wonder whether the abolitinist feminist position is based upon some presumed specificity of women’s sexuality such as passivity. Secondly, such model loses consistency when applied to the rare narratives of male prostitutes and female customers. Thirdly, the model ignores the fact that women’s choices can be voluntary in which case there is no reason for condemning the act, and yet customers are burdened with criminal punishment, whose burden women have to shoulder also.On the other hand, the ‘sex work’ camp’s argument turns a blind eye to the fact that forced prostitution feeds on voluntary prostitution. Fully voluntary prostitutes, whose agency the ‘sex work’ camp cherishes, do not represent the majority of prostitutes.One way to resolve the deadlock is to see the difference between social causation and individual causation, and to reinterpret the prohibitionist feminist call for a Swedish model as not based on individual causation but social consequentialism, especially how full decriminalization makes the environment ripe for enlargement of sex industry which will unavoidably involved forced prostitution as warned by 2006 Korean Constitutional Court’s decision and 2014 European Parliament resolution. Under this reinterpretation, the two camps recognize valid voluntary sex work though socially caused where the perpetrator-victim dichotomy may not exist but at the same time recognize the possible negative impact of full decriminalization on forced prostitution and gender bias, and settle the issue of sex purchasers by empirically weighing the competing interests of the welfare and safety of sex workers and the potential victims of forced prostitution and society-wide gender bias.

성매매특별법에 따른 성제공자 처벌의헌법 상 목적의 정당성― 도덕주의에서 결과주의로의 변천에 즈음하여 ―

박경신 전남대학교 법학연구소 2018 법학논총 Vol.38 No.1

In Korea, prostitution is punished both on the selling side as well as the buying side despite the two recommendations of the Committee on UN Convention to Eradicate all forms of Discrimination Against Women to decriminalize sex workers and the same demand from UN Women. Most recently, the Korean Constitutional Court in 2016 upheld a provision punishing a seller despite the renewed calls for full decriminalization of prostitution by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in 2014, and the call for Swedish model by European Parliament in 2014. As a result, South Korea remains the only member of OECD countries that punishes both sellers and buyers of sex with no geographical limitation. There are two theories of abolishing prostitution: morality and feminist. The Korean courts’ decision seems to be based on the morality because the alternative prohibitionist argument is that prostitution is a result of or an instance of sex discrimination or exploitation but this feminist argument tends to argue for exempting the victims of such exploitation and discrimination from punishment, and therefore is at odds with the Korean constitutional courts’ position. This article reviews 4 different morality-based arguments on which the Korean courts’ decisions have been based. An analysis of the arguments shows that such stance seems to stem from stigmatization of women who have intercourse with multiple men and must be rejected as a constitutional norm in light of the Korean Constitutional Court’s decisions on adultery. Korean Constitutional Court seems to have developed a consequentialist argument of banning voluntary prostitution: that it fosters a moral and industrial environment in which forced prostitution can thrive. It is meaningful that the court departed from the now defunct morality-based argument to a consequentialist one but there is still need for demonstrating why such voluntary prostitutes must be responsible for such indirect effect on third parties at the pain of criminal punishment. 2016년 헌법재판소는 성매매의 성제공자 처벌에 대해 합헌 결정을 내렸다. 이 결정은 주로“성의 상품화”금지를 통한 “건전한 성풍속”보호라는 입법목적을 위해 성매매특별법이 필요하다는 취지였다. 성은 특별하다. 성은 우리 인류를 유지해주는 사랑, 결혼, 출산과 특별한 관계가 있다. 하지만 그렇다고 해서 사랑, 결혼, 출산의 맥락을 동반하지 않은 성을 범죄시해서는안된다는 것은 우리 헌법재판소가 2014년 간통죄 위헌결정에서 밝힌 바 있다. 대가와 결부되어 있다고 해서 성행위가 불법화되어야 한다는 주장은 결혼, 돌봄노동등 경제적 행위와 결부된 다른 여러 가지 활동과 비교해도 설득력이 부족하다. 도리어대가를 통헤 성을 제공하는 여성은 많은 상대를 대상으로 성행위를 할 것이라는 추정과 이와 같은 여성에 대한 편견이 도덕주의적 성매매금지론의 기저에 있지 않은지 살펴볼 일이다. 이와 같은 분석은 위헌성 분석에서 과잉금지원칙 상의 목적의 정당성 분석에 관계한다. 그러나 2016년 헌법재판소의 결정과 2006년 결정을 살펴보면 반드시 성매매특별법의 목적을 반드시 ‘건전한 성풍속’으로 규정하여 합헌을 선언했는지를 불분명하다. 2006 년 헌법재판소는 자발적 성매매가 성산업 전체를 활성화시키고 성산업은 특히 우리나라에서 폭력 위계 등을 동반한 강제성매매를 포함하기 때문에 이 강제성매매를 위축하기 위해서는 자발적 성매매도 규제되어야 한다는 새로운 결과주의적 이론을 정립하였다. 2016년 헌법재판소는 이를 더 발전시켜 자발적 성제공자에도 확장적용하며 자발적성제공자도 다른 여성들의 안전을 위협하는 강제적 성매매를 포함하는 성산업에 기여하므로 역시 처벌되어야 한다고 하였다. 그럼에도 불구하고 헌법재판소의 결과주의적 판단 역시 과잉금지원칙에 어긋난다. 왜냐하면 결과주의적인 입장에서 살펴보더라도 그 결과를 차단하는 방법으로서 성제공자까지 처벌하는 것은 법익의 비례성 및 침해의 최소성을 위배하기 때문이다.