‘온라인상 악성민원’ 규제에 대한 시론적 헌법 연구 ― 미국 선거사무관리관계자 등 보호입법을 중심으로 ―

Traditional forms of malicious complaints primarily involved threats, verbal abuse, and repeated grievances. However, in the modern online environment, new types of issues such as “doxing” (sharing personal information) and “target marking” have emerged. In response, many government departments, municipalities, and public agencies in South Korea have implemented measures to anonymize public officials' names and contact information. However, these measures raise concerns about potentially undermining constitutional rights, such as the public's right to petition and the principle of transparent administration. Under Article 7 of the Constitution, public officials are recognized as servants of the entire people. As a result, their fundamental rights as individuals may be significantly restricted while performing their duties. Nevertheless, through the provisions of Article 7(2) ensuring the protection of their status, public officials can advocate for improved working conditions. This includes safeguarding basic rights such as personal dignity, privacy, and the right to control their personal information. Online malicious complaints, characterized by their rapid spread and wide distribution, can hinder public officials from serving the entire population as intended. Instead, such complaints often reduce them to serving specific individuals with malicious intent. These actions not only violate the health and privacy of public officials but also obstruct the sustainable and stable performance of their duties. This study examines international legislative examples to propose ways to balance the fundamental rights of public officials with the public's right to petition. In the United States, laws have been enacted to prohibit the dissemination of personal information and cyber harassment targeting public officials, including election officials, election administrators, law enforcement officers, and their families. Australia provides legal grounds to ensure the health and safety of public officials during their duties. Similarly, in Japan, the Governor of Tokyo is drafting a declarative ordinance aimed at effectively addressing all forms of harassment by citizens against local government employees. In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act addresses repetitive and harassing complaints while providing detailed guidelines to prevent abuse of the law. Meanwhile, Germany imposes stricter penalties for defamation targeting politicians in their public capacities, and the United States balances freedom of expression and protection for public officials through active defamation lawsuits. In South Korea, despite the rising social concern over malicious complaints, there is still a lack of fundamental solutions, such as explicit legislation to protect the safety and health of public officials. Although the Information and Communications Network Act prohibits the distribution of information that invades privacy, it lacks legal grounds to address the act of disseminating personal information unless secondary damage occurs. Furthermore, the defamation provisions under the Criminal Act exclude liability if the facts are true and serve the public interest, making it difficult to protect the honor and privacy of individual public officials effectively. South Korea should take inspiration from the legislative examples of the United States, Australia, Japan, and the UK to establish a comprehensive legal framework that prevents malicious complaints against public officials, both offline and online. By doing so, it will improve working conditions for public officials, uphold the institutional guarantees of the career civil service system under the Constitution, and foster the continued development of democracy and the rule of law.