현행 온라인서비스제공자의 불법촬영물 유통방지의무에 대한 검토 - 독일과 미국의 법규와 비교하여

In the case of illegal filming crimes, illegal filming alone causes victims to feel sexual shame and their personal rights are violated, but what is even more serious is the distribution and consumption of the filmed footage. The development of the Internet and platforms is helping to spread the damage caused by the distribution and consumption of illegally filmed videos, and is being used as a tool. Ultimately, the distribution or consumption of these illegally filmed videos inevitably takes place through online service providers who provide services such as Internet access, website hosting, search engines, and electronic bulletin board systems to Internet users. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether online service providers can be held legally responsible for distributing illegal videos. It is time to expand the discussion on the responsibilities of online service providers beyond the issue of online copyright infringement to the obligation to prevent the distribution of illegally filmed videos. After the Nth Room case, there have been changes in line with the needs and trends of the times, such as new legislation and policies related to digital sex crimes, but the current laws and precedents are still insufficient. In particular, according to the current law, the response to illegally filmed videos takes a dual structure of deliberation by the Korea Communications Standards Commission and technical and managerial measures to prevent distribution by online service providers. However, there is a need to develop a unified management system that can solve this all at once. Additionally, it is time to change our perception of indemnification and move away from legal principles that limit the liability of online service providers. This is because convenience cannot take precedence over morality. In addition, it is necessary to consider imposing direct restrictions on the operation of online service providers' sites. This is because the freedom of expression of Internet users cannot be considered higher than the personal rights of victims of illegally filmed videos. Lastly, considering the minimization of the side effects of digital sex crimes, especially the damage caused by the distribution of illegal videos, it is time to consider whether it is time to upgrade the ‘right to be forgotten’ to a personal right, a constitutional right that is absolutely guaranteed. This is because it is another important value for victims.