공익신고자보호법 상 공익침해행위에 대한 입법론 및 유추적용 -대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2019두61052 판결을 중심으로-

After the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act enacted on March 29, 2011 as the need for the compensation arose to protect public interest reporters against any unfavorable measures likely being given when workers at private sector other than public organizations found and reported the internal corruptions or illegal acts infringing public interest, and to promote public interest reports, it has been in effect since September 29, 2011, while developing through six times of revisions up to now. As for which public interest reports are the subject of the protection or the compensation under the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act, the second clause of Article 2 of the same Act stipulates that it is the act to report a fact that any "public interest infringement" has occurred or is likely to occur, so that it is important what "the public interest infringement" is, and the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act takes the positive system, which regards the infringement against "the laws prescribed in the annexed list" as the public interest infringement. However, it is questionable whether or not the compensation should be paid by analogical application of the compensation clause in the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act on the grounds that it is basically based on the same fact as the infringement against public interest infringement-related laws, when any recovery of national income occurred due to infringement of other laws based on the same fact as such act, even though it does not come under that kind of infringement against "the public interest infringement-related laws" prescribed in the annex list to the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act. From the reporter's point of view, it is difficult to know about what kind of infringement it is before the public interest report is done, and the reporter may regard that it should be against fairness if the compensation depends on whether or not the report comes under an infringement against "the public interest infringement-related laws". However, the compensation system under the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act is a beneficial system introduced particularly for the promotion of public interest report, where it is allowed to let the legislature have a wide range of free will in legislating, and the lawmaker specified the infringement against "public interest infringement-related laws" prescribed in the annex list to the Public Interest Reporter Protection Act as the public interest infringement, that is the subject of public interest report, in consideration of the legal stability and the easiness in interpretation and application of the law, as well as the national acceptance regarding the scope of "the public interest report", and looking into the provisions of the relevant Act in details, it may happen such cases difficult to decide on whether or not they are infringements against other laws based on the same fact relevance as the infringement against public interest infringement-related laws, so that it is believed that expanding the scope of compensation as applied by the analogical interpretation of public interest infringement-related laws like the Seoul Administrative Court Decision No. 2018guhap66340 adjudged on May 23, 2019 as the verdict of the first trial in the relevant case should be refrained.