RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      논 문 : 인터넷 비방 행위의 보편주의(Ubiquitatstheorie) 적용론 -형법상 비방 요건과 관련하여- = A Study on the Principle of Ubiquity in Internet Defamation as Slander

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101741733

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      According to the Korean Criminal Act and Public Official Election Act, the Internet Defamation as Slander could be punished. Thus, a person who defames the national flag or the national emblem should be punished. Also any person who slanders a candidate (including pre-candidate), his spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, siblings by pointing out any fact openly should be punished. In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation might be treated as a crime. Even in some common law countries and several american states there are criminal libel laws. Moreover in the chinese criminal act, internet defamation as slander is directly regulated as a crime. The phenomenon of internet crimes is somewhat specipic, it occurs all the same time and appears at every places in the world. It is ubiquitous. The so-called principle of ubiquity is more prevalent than any other theories in applicating criminal law against the distance crime. Nowadays there are two different opinions as to whether the principle should be restricted or extended. The former seems to be reasonable in retrospective of the german criminal law theory, though, it could not be accepted according to the Korean Criminal Act. Therefore it``s proper for the principle to be less restrictively applicated. The grounds are as follows: Firstly, the Korean Criminal Act is different from the german one. Secondly, the national sovereignty and protectionism must be thoroughly acknowledged on the viewpoint of jurisdictional principles following after the article 2 of the Korean Criminal Act. Thirdly, in de lege lata the opinion for restriction against the principle of ubiquity is not proper, because we must abide by the article 2 of the korean criminal code which does not obviously regulate the principle of ubiquity. The strong opinion for restriction against the principle might be resulted in negating the principle of ubiquity.
      번역하기

      According to the Korean Criminal Act and Public Official Election Act, the Internet Defamation as Slander could be punished. Thus, a person who defames the national flag or the national emblem should be punished. Also any person who slanders a candida...

      According to the Korean Criminal Act and Public Official Election Act, the Internet Defamation as Slander could be punished. Thus, a person who defames the national flag or the national emblem should be punished. Also any person who slanders a candidate (including pre-candidate), his spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, siblings by pointing out any fact openly should be punished. In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation might be treated as a crime. Even in some common law countries and several american states there are criminal libel laws. Moreover in the chinese criminal act, internet defamation as slander is directly regulated as a crime. The phenomenon of internet crimes is somewhat specipic, it occurs all the same time and appears at every places in the world. It is ubiquitous. The so-called principle of ubiquity is more prevalent than any other theories in applicating criminal law against the distance crime. Nowadays there are two different opinions as to whether the principle should be restricted or extended. The former seems to be reasonable in retrospective of the german criminal law theory, though, it could not be accepted according to the Korean Criminal Act. Therefore it``s proper for the principle to be less restrictively applicated. The grounds are as follows: Firstly, the Korean Criminal Act is different from the german one. Secondly, the national sovereignty and protectionism must be thoroughly acknowledged on the viewpoint of jurisdictional principles following after the article 2 of the Korean Criminal Act. Thirdly, in de lege lata the opinion for restriction against the principle of ubiquity is not proper, because we must abide by the article 2 of the korean criminal code which does not obviously regulate the principle of ubiquity. The strong opinion for restriction against the principle might be resulted in negating the principle of ubiquity.

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼