사이버상의 테러활동의 규제에 관한 연구 - 테러단체 가입선동 및 선전물 게시자의 신원확인을 중심으로 -

In Korea, indirectly through Article 12 (request for incitement to terrorism, urgent deletion of propaganda, etc.) and Article 17 (criminal of formation of a terrorist group, etc.) Paragraph 3 (solicitation and incitement to join a terrorist group) in the 2016 Anti-Terrorism Act. It became possible to regulate cyber-inciting acts. Based on this background, in terms of the regulation of cyber terrorism, in particular, in relation to the incitement to join a terrorist group and the identification of propaganda publishers, which are stipulated in the Korean positive law, the application of the relevant laws to the terrorist activities on the Internet, which is becoming increasingly sophisticated in the world, is really effective. Whether or not it is becoming Sundan was analyzed with a little comparative consideration. First, the 'declaration of membership in a terrorist group' (hereinafter II), followed by 'identification and emergency deletion measures of propaganda members joining a terrorist group' (hereinafter III), were reviewed in order. The conclusion (V) was drawn after considering the introduction' (hereinafter IV). From the comparative point of view, this paper analyzes the problems of the legal system to deal with ① cyber attack ② cyber terrorism ③ incitement to join a terrorist group in Korea’s current positive legal system. Legally, '② incitement to cyber terrorism' and '③ incitement to join a terrorist group' were compared to France, Germany, and the EU, and alternatives were suggested. While Korea is relatively increasingly reliant on the Internet to the extent that it is proud to be a so-called 'Internet powerhouse', the Korean positive law system that supports our counter-terrorism activities in cyberspace, which is lagging behind such rapid social change, as analyzed in this paper, should be rectified promptly. Interpretatively, in the 'Syrian Dani Case', which is the first application of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the appellate court is contrary to the 'praising, encouraging, propaganda and similar acts' punishable by the National Security Act, whereas the Anti-Terrorism Act only takes administrative measures and does not punish them (based on Article 12 (1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act), a limited interpretation was made by adding a 'specific risk' to the interpretation of 'incitement to join' in Article 17 (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Although it is viewed as a logical leap that has not been achieved, it is necessary to revise it so that it is clear that the 'act of incitement to join' itself is a crime in order not to provide an excuse for such an interpretation.