사생활의 비밀과 자유의 보호 범위 -인터넷 상의 길거리 사진 촬영·제공으로 인한 사생활 침해와 관련하여-

The discussion about the privacy had been triggered since the article written by Warren and Brandeis, the right was built in the Constitutions in many countries. By the way the scope of privacy is expanding rapidly on the based on the fact that the era of information society emerged. Thus it is well accepted that we had better regulate the act to make public of revealed and neutral information such as address as well as the privacy considered as secrecy in itself. However, it is true that the scope of privacy that we should protect is expanded according to the range of the right of privacy, it is also inevitable true that we should secure pubic interest by regulating and limiting the right of privacy. So we are not able to put an emphasis on the value of the right of privacy setting aside public interest. What is mattered is the street view supplied by various Internet Portal such as Google Inc. these days. Many Internet Portal is providing such street view service in our country, it is high probable that many disputes will be brought about due to the service concerning with the violation of privacy. Nevertheless, as we have no criterion to solve such problems, we are obliged to get specific criterion for that problem. Therefore, this article presuppose the situation of conflict between the Internet Portal and private person to argue that his or her right of privacy is violated as the situation of conflict of fundamental right. In general, it is necessary to invoke the method called the principle of weighing(balancing) and the principle of practical concordance(praktische Konkordanz) for the purpose of solving the problem. And based on the case Boring v. Google Inc. and several cases decided by korean Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, this article suggested the criterion ‘legitimate concern of the public’ to decide whether the concerned place is the opened or closed place. More specifically, the criterion ‘highly offensive in terms of a reasonable person’ was suggested as well. But as it is true that the criterion ‘a reasonable person’ is vague in order to solve various specific problems, it is suggested that we are asked to consider whether the street view service is highly offensive in terms of the concerned person based on the opinion of general public. Of course, since it is unavoidable to postulate that the Internet Portals willingly protect the right of privacy in providing the street view service, the article suggested comprehensive plans.