온라인 명예훼손과 관련하여 개인의 책임에 초점을 맞추어 먼저 정보통신망법 및 형법상 사실적시 명예훼손죄 폐지의 정당성에 대한 논증을 시도한 후, 사실적시 명예훼손죄 폐지를 전제로 한 다른 구제수단에 대한 재검토를 수행하고자 한다. 온라인 사실적시 명예훼손의 가중처벌은 정보통신망의 특성을 충분히 고려하지 못한 입법이다. 더 나아가 사실적시 명예훼손죄는 헌법적으로 표현의 자유를 침해하는 위헌적인 규정이며 설령 표현의 자유에 대한 침해가 수인 가능한 정도에 이른다 하더라도 비용⋅편익 분석의 방법론을 통하여 살펴본 결과 사실적시 명예훼손을 반드시 형벌로 규율할 필벌성(必罰性)이 없었다. 한편 사실적시 명예훼손죄를 폐지하지 않고 개정하게 된다면 여전히 처벌 가능성이 존재한다는 점에서 표현의 자유 위축효과 감소에 기여할 수 없다. 또한 사실적시 명예훼손에 있어서 사적 영역과 공적 영역을 구별하자는 견해는 또 다른 해석의 혼란을 낳을 소지가 커 형벌에 요구되는 명확성의 원칙에 어긋난다. 다만 온라인 사실적시 명예훼손을 비범죄화가 곧 민법상 불법행위의 성립도 부정하는 것은 아니며, 오히려 민법상 손해배상제도와 금지청구권 등의 제도를 충분히 활용한다면 징벌적 손해배상 제도의 도입 없이도 사실적시 명예훼손죄 폐지의 부작용을 방지할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 한편 정보통신망법상의 비형벌적 구제수단들은 대체로 존치될 필요가 있을 것이나 현재와 같은 형태로는 사실적시 명예훼손죄의 폐지 취지를 몰각시키거나, 행정이 사법의 최종적 판단권을 선취할 위험성이 있다는 점을 지적하며 개선 방향을 제시하였다.

The relevancy of the seized evidence to the charged crime is a very important issue in that it is connected with the exclusionary rule and there is some risk the evidence could be excluded in trial. Therefore it should be interpreted with sufficient consideration with the various situation in which the investigation is carried, diverse kinds of evidences which are gathered for investigating and prosecuting crime. This relevancy means the evidential value for investigation and prosecution, and the evidential value includes not only the direct but also the indirect and the circumstantial. In this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient consideration with the various elements of the relevancy, especially the indirect, supplementary, circumstantial value of evidence. Forethemore, it is inappropriate in this case the court of appeal used the issue of relevancy as a tool to restrict the legally obtained evidence relevant to a certain crime from using evidence for other’s crime and the Supreme Court accepted the result. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the issue of relevancy from that of the extent of the utilization of the legally seized evidence should be made actively and lead to the appropriate interpretation.

Counts in the prosecution schold be specified by crime time, place and methode. It is required not only for defendants to protect their procedual rights but also for courts to limit the scope of the trials. Illegal drug investigations were not generally supported by the crime victim or witness assistance as most of the drug-related crimes were committed in covert. Therefore, effective institution and support of a public action requires the testing for drug use as an essential element in the nation's battle against drug abuse and drug-related crime. Hair analysis for abused drugs has been recognized as a powerful tool to investigate exposure of subjects to these substances. However, it was difficult to estimate precisely the time of drug administration from the position of drug along the hair shaft. Even if the activity is to happen at some unspecified time, the court’s rejection of the case related to unspecified drug abuse may continue to pose significant problems for the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system, which is making it almost impossible for law enforcement agencies operating to bring about significant reductions in the abuse of illegal drug. Hair analysis results have been admitted as scientific evidence of drug use. The unresolved scientific issues should not obstruct the admissibility of strongly positive test results but also may not be explanatory for the entire case, even though specific questions need to be answered and the laboratory results may give strongly positive.