초록/요약

This paper examines the case regarding whether the right to the voice is infringed when the contents of the call are secretly recorded and reproduced in a media report. (1) Regarding the concept of the right to the voice, the judgment of Seoul High Court stated that “everyone has the right not to have his or her voice recorded, reproduced, broadcast, duplicated, or distributed without permission.” In Germany, on the other hand, “the right to the spoken words” is recognized. Considering that the right to the voice is personality right, and the reason for protecting this right is for the free development of personality and protection of human dignity, it is reasonable to view that protection of the content of speech is also included in the content of this right. However, since the concept of “voice” means only the voice of a person, it is desirable to use the term “the right to the spoken words” rather than the term “right to the voice” to refer to the right that includes protection of the content of speech. (2) According to the contents of the Communications Secret Protection Act and Korean case law, even if one party to a telephone conversation recorded the call without the other party’s knowledge, it does not constitute wiretapping of telecommunications, and therefore does not violate the Communications Secret Protection Act. However, recording spoken words without the consent of the person speaking is an act of infringing on the person’s right to self-determination of the voice, so it should be regarded as an infringement of the right to the voice or the right to the spoken words. (3) The importance of freedom of expression should be taken into account when the infringement of personality rights by media reports is an issue. In the case of infringement of personality rights due to reporting on matters of legitimate public concern, it is desirable to deny the illegality unless the contents and methods of expression are unfair. The report in question in this case can be said to be about a matter that is of legitimate public concern. The contents of the plaintiff’s phone call reproduced in the report explains the situation related to the suspicion of wiretapping, and it is difficult to see that the contents and methods of expression are particularly unfair. In addition, Seoul High Court judged that the plaintiff, who was then in the position of the head of KBS press bureau, could be regarded as a public figure. Putting these points together, it should be considered that it is not illegal to report the contents of the defendant’s phone call in this case.