예술과 형법의 상호형성관계 - 예술비평으로서 형법의 역할과 과제 -
Mutual Formation of Arts and Criminal Law
이상돈(고려대학교)
68호, 357~384쪽
초록
형법이 예술을 규제할 때 형법은 예술에 외재적인 권력이 아니라 내재적인 구성요소가 된다. 형법은 숭고미를 지향하는 순수욕망을 생성시키는 예술의 내부적 요소가 된다. 다른 한편 예술성은 형법을 형성하는 요소가 된다. 즉, 예술비평에 귀 기울이고, 그에 따라 유연하게 합법과 불법을 정해감으로써 형법은 미학적 정의를 더 충실히 실현할 수 있다. 형법은 예술성의 판단이 분명하기 어려운 사안에서는 시민자유우선원칙(in dubio pro libertate)을 적용함으로써 비례성원칙에 침전되어 있는 기하학적 조형미라는 미학적 가치를 추구해야 한다. 또한 예술작품의 음란성이나 이적성이 형법적 통제의 대상이 되기 위해서는 예술작품이 사회적 유해성을 초래하는 조건들(예: 인터넷 일반 공개, 미성년자 관람 허용 등)이 충족되었어야 한다. 또한 형법은 예술성의 높낮이에 대한 열린 판단과 함께 기소유예, 선고유예, 집행유예 등의 다양한 절차법적 장치로써 예술작품의 통제를 완화하여야 한다. 하지만 예술을 통제하는 형법의 정당성은 예술작품이 상징적으로 위태화시키는 사회윤리가 아니라 형법적 통제를 통해 예술작품의 예술성이 고양된다는 데에 있다. 형법은 예술작품에 대한 자신의 통제가 예술성에 미치는 영향에 대한 개방된 고려를 통해 예술작품의 예술성과 형법의 정당성을 동시에 높이는 지점에 대한 지속적인 성찰의 과제를 갖고 있다.
Abstract
Criminal law when regulating art becomes inherent component of art rather than power extrinsic to it. When the artist's aesthetic desire risks criminal penalties while engaging in his art work, such desire becomes pure art as in Jacques Lacan's philosophy and such art has bigger possibility of achieving sublime beauty. In other words, criminal law becomes internal component of art which creates pure desire that pursues sublime beauty. Such sublime beauty is realized in art works itself structurally, or in artist's personal life. On the other hand, artistry becomes a constituent of criminal law. Criminal law which judges the legality of artistry by weighing it against obscenity or enemy-benefiting characteristics, is prone to realizing power rather than justice. That is because artistry can always be overturned, and artistry can only be described in myriad steps of height, not in terms of whether it exists or not. However, criminal law decides whether artistry exists or not, and constrainedly links the decision to the dual code of legal, and illegal. This being so, ‘balancing of interest’ way of thinking which is dominant in criminal regulation on works of art should be discarded and attentive listening to the criticism of artistry should be adopted instead. When criminal law listens attentively to criticism of art and decides legality according to it, aesthetic justice can be more fully realized. In this sense, art criticism becomes constituent of art regulating criminal law. Criminal law that takes in art criticism should take introspective manner in cases where decision of aesthetic is unclear. Such introspective manner is expressed by application of ‘in dubio pro libertate’ principle. This principle's proportional element, in being geometric formative beauty which is an aesthetic value, realizes aesthetic values as introvert values of criminal law. In addition, in order for the obscenity or enemy benefiting elements of an art work to be the subject of criminal regulation, the subject art work should satisfy the conditions that is needed to stigmatize an art work as a social hazard (eg. open to public on Internet, viewing allowance to minors, etc.). Also, criminal law should make open decisions on height of aesthetics and alleviate the regulation on art works through various procedural instruments such as stay of prosecution, suspended sentence, and probation. However the legitimacy of the criminal regulation of art lays not in the social ethics which is symbolically endangered by art works, but in the uplift of art work's artistry that come about via criminal regulation of art. Criminal law should continuously introspect on the point where art work's artistry and criminal law's legitimacy can both be heightened through open consideration of the effect criminal regulation over art work has on artistry.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구원
- 분류:
- 법학