미국, 프랑스 대선 등에서 벌어진 가짜뉴스 캠 페인은 가짜뉴스의 정치적 의사 결정 왜곡 가능 성을 보여준다. 특히 인터넷 환경의 발달로 인해 가짜뉴스의 전파성과 신뢰성이 높아지고 있다는 점은 가짜뉴스의 규제 필요성을 강조한다. 그런데 가짜뉴스를 규제하기 위해서는 무엇이 가짜뉴스인지를 확정할 수 있어야 하는데, 이 가 짜뉴스의 정의에 대하여 아직 견해가 일치하지 않고 있다. 그리고 헌법 제21조에 따라 표현의 자유와 조화를 이루고 비례의 원칙에 부합하는 대응수단을 채택할 필요가 있다. 현행 법제하에서는 정보통신망법, 공직선거법, 언론중재법, 민⋅형법 등에서 가짜뉴스 생성자를 규제하고, 정보통신 서비스 제공자에 대하여도 일 부 가짜뉴스 유통을 막도록 의무를 부여한다. 뿐 만 아니라 가짜뉴스의 규제에 대하여 여러 입법 안들이 상정되어 있다. 그러나 지나치게 형벌이나 행정권에 의존하고, 정보통신서비스 제공자에게 과도한 의무를 부여한다는 비판도 있다. 세계 각 국에서도 가짜뉴스 규제에 대한 여러 제도를 두 고 있으나, 대체로 과도한 규제를 도입한 법제에 대하여는 여러 위헌성에 대한 비판이나 판단이 내려지고 있다. 결국 가짜뉴스는 법률에 따른 규제와 자율규제 모두를 통해 제어해야 한다. 규제적 방안으로는 경제적 이익 박탈이 가장 중요하다. 자율규제의 경우 객관적인 기관을 통한 팩트체크, 가짜뉴스 배제 알고리즘 적용 인터넷 사업자에 대한 지원, 미디어 리터러시 교육 등이 필요하다. 21대 국회 에서 이러한 논의들이 일부 진행되고 있는 점은 고무적이며, 가짜뉴스의 폐해 방지와 표현의 자유 보호간 균형을 찾으려는 노력이 계속 시도되어야 할 것이다.

In the case of Fictitious Declaration of Intention in Collusion, an formal agreement between the parties was made, which is why the record related to these contents being filled out at the register may not be seen as a false entry and not be considered as having committed a crime in false entry in officially authenticated original deed. However, what matter in false entry in officially authenticated original deed are not the actual facts but “facts on rights and duties”. Thus, it is right to judge false entry not only on the existence of the legal acts or the literal meaning of the authentic deed they caused but also on the legal effectiveness. Therefore, making government official to fill out an authentic deed by affecting as if the fictitious declaration of Intention in Collusion is an effective legal action, which is not, can not be but called an false entry, regardless of existence of appearance. Admitting private autonomy doesn’t mean allowing declaring ineffective legal action as if it had legal force and recoring fake facts on the authentic deed.

Anyone who defames another by publicly alleging facts can be punished, even though the facts are true. Because In korean criminal law there are the article, “A person who defames another by publicly alleging facts shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won(Art. 307 (1))”. Furthermore, “A person who defames another by publicly alleging false facts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding ten million won(Art. 307 (2))”. But If the facts alleged under Article 307 (1) are true and solely for the public interest, the act shall not be punishable(Art. 310). However, there is no rule about the unsettled facts(It’s not sure whether the publicly alleging facts is true or false). In practice, this cases are applied to Art. 307 (2). And the practice deal with the unsettled facts in the field of a mistake of face. But in Art. 307 (2) the “fale facts” is a element of a crime, so that the unsettled facts should be applied not to Art. 307 (2), but Art. 307 (1). Otherwise, the unsettled facts can make misunderstand to the public by the guilty or not guilty of a judge. Because if the judge found the defendant guilty, then the unsetlled fact turn to be a true fact in spite of not proving of the fact. But if the judge found the defendant not guilty, then the unsettled fact turn to be a false fact. Therefore, if a judge can not prove the truth of the unsettled fact, then the Art. 307 (1) must be applied.

The Supreme Court of Korea convicted Jung Bong-Ju, a former National Assembly member(United New Democratic Party) on the charge of violating Article 250, Section 2 of the Public Office Election Law on December 22, 2012. The Conviction and Imprisonment of Jung Bong-Ju who is one of the 4 hosts of the popular podcast “I'm a Weasel(Naneun Ggomsuda)” drew public attention, and this leads to the heated social discussion about freedom of expression. Moreover, the problem is raised that the crime of disseminating false information under the existing provision(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) result in the excessive restrictions on freedom of political expression. In order to solve this problem legislatively, “the partial amendment bill of the Public Office Election Law” was proposed on January 9, 2012. In such a high profile situation that public attention has focused on the crime of disseminating false information, it is required to review the criminal justice issues on this judgement of the Supreme Court. This article considers this judgement focusing the constituent elements of the crime of disseminating false information(Article 250, Section2 of the Public Office Election Law) and the burden of proving falsity.