정치적 풍자의 자유와 한계에 관한 탐색적 연구−오프라인 공간에 나타난 정치 풍자 판례를 중심으로

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of political satire and the trends of its regulation by analyzing precedents related to political satires in offline spaces. The analysis of 18 precedents in eight cases led to the following findings: first, of the eight cases that resulted in lawsuits, the subject of satire was an artist, social activist, and instructor/researcher in six, one, and one cases, respectively. That is, it was artists that usually did political satire in offline spaces. Of the eight cases, seven and one took place during the administration of Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak, respectively; second, of the eight cases, the medium of satire was a wall/street, official government promotional material, and public space in five, one, and two cases, respectively; third, the object of satire was a voluntary-political celebrity in all eight cases. A president was the object of satire in all the cases; fourth, there was no cases in which the former or incumbent presidents filed the lawsuit for defamation as the object of political satire. In addition, all the lawsuits were filed without a request from the victims that claimed they suffered damage due to the political satire; fifth, political satire-related lawsuits happened in the violation of legal principles such as property damage crimes and misdemeanor punishment acts rather than in the violation of personal rights such as defamation; and finally, of the 18 precedents in eight political satire cases, the person directly involved in the satire won the lawsuit in only five precedents in three cases. The justice department took into consideration the intention of damage and economic utility of property, direct impacts on an election, and whether it was a simple expression of opinions as grounds to limit the freedom of expressive art in satire work.