국회의원이 국회 외에서 행한 직무 관련 발언의 명예훼손 인정 여부에 관한 공법적 판단 기준 - 대법원 2025.6.26. 선고 2022다242649 판례를 중심으로 -

초록

Statements and votes cast by a member of the National Assembly in the course of their duties within the Assembly are protected by the parliamentary immunity granted under Article 45 of the Constitution. However, whether parliamentary immunity applies in the same way as it does to statements made inside the Assembly when liability for defamation arises from statements related to official duties made outside the Assembly—such as in media interviews, broadcast appearances, or external lectures—is a separate issue. While there is no problem if official statements made outside the Assembly fall within the scope of parliamentary immunity protection, the issue arises as to how to apply liability for defamation regarding such statements if they are not covered by such immunity. As members of an institution representing the people, members of the National Assembly perform constitutional functions such as monitoring state affairs, criticizing the government, and raising public suspicions. Furthermore, unlike appointed public officials, members of the National Assembly are permitted to raise campaign contributions and freely express their political views without being restricted by location. Therefore, even if the conclusion remains the same that remarks made by a member of the National Assembly outside the Assembly regarding their duties constitute defamation, judging the matter by applying the same standards as those applied to ordinary private individuals is a separate issue in terms of constitutional legitimacy and democratic representation, compared to reaching a conclusion through detailed criteria that consider the member's constitutional status and official functions. The subject judgment is significant in that it established a balance between the freedom of political expression and the plaintiff's right to reputation by acknowledging liability for defamation regarding the problematic portion of the remarks made by the defendant, Ahn 00. However, it has limitations in that it failed to concretize and systematize the official remarks of a National Assembly member as elements of public law review, thereby leaving them in a gray area. Furthermore, existing studies are limited in that they treated the scope of parliamentary immunity, grounds for excluding illegality in defamation, the theory of public figures, and the political freedom of public officials as separate issues. This paper is not intended to advocate for protecting official remarks made by a National Assembly member outside the National Assembly through parliamentary immunity. Rather, this paper is significant in that it seeks to complement the limitations of prior research by linking the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation with the constitutional freedom of the press regarding official remarks made by a National Assembly member outside the National Assembly, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Based on this awareness of the issue, this paper examines whether the parliamentary immunity under Article 45 of the Constitution applies to official statements made by a member of the National Assembly outside the National Assembly, using the Supreme Court's decision 2022da242649 decided on June 26, 2025, as the subject. Subsequently, in cases where parliamentary immunity does not apply, this paper will concretize the principle of proportionality based on freedom of the press—a public law standard for determining the liability of a member of the National Assembly for defamation—by linking it with grounds for justification of illegality in defamation. To this end, the relevance of the relevant facts to public affairs, the constitutional status and relevance to official duties of the speaker, the verifiability of the materials, the assertiveness of the expression, the public status of the victim, and the degree of damage must be considered comprehensively. These specific standards further solidify the reason why the Supreme Court took issue with only the 3rd and 10th statements, while not raising any particular issues regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th statements of the defendant, National Assembly member Ahn 00.

키워드