사회법연구 발간현황
pISSN : 1738-1118
사회법연구, Vol.42 (2020)
pp.445~475
[판례평석] 탐사저널리즘의 법적 한계 — 외주제작 PD들이 교도소장의 허가 없이 미결수용자와의 접견 장면을 촬영･녹음한 것이 건조물침입죄에 해당하는가? —
방송사의 4개 주간 탐사프로그램을 제작하는 외주제작 방송 PD 등이 구치소와 교도소에서 수용자들을 접견하는 과정에서 몰래카메라를 사용한 혐의로 주거침입과 공무집행방해 혐의로 기소되었다. 1심 판결 중 세 가지 판결은 유죄로 인정하였으나. 한 가지 판결만 무죄를 선고하였다. 항소심에서는 반대로 세 가지 판결이 무죄를 선고하였고, 한 가지 판결만 유죄를 선고하였다. 유죄 판결의 이유는 몰래카메라 반입이 “위계로 교도관들의 접견 업무를 방해한 행위로 평가할 수 없다”고 하였으나 “건조물침입죄에 해당한다.”고 하였다. 위 네 가지 사건은 모두 대법원에 상고되어 있다. 허가 없이 몰래카메라로 취재한 사건에서 보호법익은 ‘수용자의 프라이버시’가 될 수는 있어도 ‘교도소장의 접견 허가권’이 될 수는 없다. 그리고 접견 불허 관행이 ‘공무집행’이 될 수도 없다. 유럽인권재판소(ECtHR)도 몰래카메라를 사용하여 보험중개인과 인터뷰한 것은 그를 개인적으로 비판하기 위해서가 아니라 특별한 상업적 관행을 비난하기 위해 계획된 것이므로 이들을 유죄로 판단한 것은 표현의 자유를 침해한 것이라 하였다. 교도소장은 국민의 알권리 차원에서 취재에 협조하여야 할 것이며 허가를 전제로 한 취재는 사전검열에 가깝다. 또 공무집행방해가 아니라고 한다면 건조물침입죄에도 해당하지 않을 것이다.
Case Review: The potential limits of explorative journalism — Does secret filming of prisoners without permission of the prison governor constitute housebreaking? —
Four weekly explorative teams of the Munhwa Broadcasting System(MBC) and the Seoul Broadcasting System(SBC) were summoned by the Seoul Nambu(Southern) District Court after the prosecution carried out an investigation into allegations that they had secretly filmed the prisoners during interviews with them in the prisons. Although the prisoner’s face and voice were disguised in the TV broadcast, the prosecutors indicted the journalists for the obstruction of justice and the housebreaking. The fact that the journalists concealed the purpose of interview and secretly filmed the prisoners constitutes the secret invasion in the visiting room and deceptive obstruction of the prison officers’ execution of duties, according to the prosecution. Three of the first single-judge instances convicted the journalists of obstruction of justice(MBC1) and of housebreaking(MBC2, SBS1) and gave penalties of one to three million won. One first single-judge instance(SBS2), however, acquitted of the charge, because the Criminal Administration Act did not include the punishment of any acts of bringing in except for alcohol, cigarettes, cash and checks. The court further held that the ‘entering the prison’ had not been serious enough to endanger the security of the prison. Three of the appellate courts acquitted the journalists of the charges. Only in one case(MBC2), the journalists were found guilty. The court convicted the journalists only of the housebreaking, but not of the obstruction of justice. All of the four cases were brought to the Supreme Court. In the Wallraff/Bild decision of 1984, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany(BVerfG) made clear that the propagation of unlawfully acquired information falls within the protective scope of the freedom of press. The Court also turned to potential limits and the significance of the concerned knowledge in informing the public and for the formation of public opinion. The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR) held in its judgement of 24 February 2015 in the case of Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland that the conviction of four journalists, for having recorded and broadcasted an interview of a private insurance broker without his consent by using a hidden camera, infringed their freedom of expression. The four cases of weekly explorative TV programs had been initiated by the Prison Governors who accused the journalists. In these cases, the benefits and protections of law have to be the ‘privacy of prisoners’, not the ‘public officers’ execution of duties’. Can the prohibition of interview with the prisoners be the ‘public officers’ execution of duties’? Isn’t it the duties of public officers, to cooperate with the journalists in order to realize the right to information of the citizens? If the act of bringing hidden camera into the prison does not constitute the obstruction of justice, the charge of housebreaking has to be acquitted, too.
