엔터테인먼트 산업에 수반되는 형사법적 문제점 - 연예기획사 사건을 중심으로 - = Criminal Legal Issues in the Entertainment Industry

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 2009, Stars Entertainment CEO Jong-seung Kim forced serving alcohol and Sex Services. In 2019, YG Entertainment's singer Seungri provided Sex Services. The commonality between the two cases is that the entertainment agency commercialized the female sex, and attempted unfair competition through Sex Services, such as appearing and attracting investments. Most domestic entertainment companies are common in that they convert women into sex products.
There is a socially unfavorable view of the behavior of sexual commodification. These social criticisms cause psychological discomfort for those who participate in sexual commodification. This psychological discomfort can be resolved through rationalization as a defense mechanism of the self. Through rationalization, as you overcome the discomfort in your inner mind about sexual commercialization and work on it, you gradually get used to it.
If you try hard to rationalize while doing sex commercialization, you will be very familiar with rationalization without having an ethical resistance to sexual commercialization at an increasingly higher level. As rationalization works more and more smoothly, emotional reactions disappear and only rational thinking remains. When you reach this stage of Intellectualization, you can force sex services in a situation where there is no emotional response. If we are immersed in the commercialization of female sex, the normative consciousness in our mind that not to do sex services disappears. In that respect, domestic entertainment companies have a common risk.
By doing sex services, it is unfair competition to have your celebrities appear on broadcasts, attract investments, make media outlets write favorable articles, and let investigative agencies dominate the case when a case arises. The rules for bribery do not apply to the rest of these, except for bribes to investigative agencies. Instead, there is a possibility that Article 357 of the Criminal Code will be applied, and it is clear that a request for contribution or inducement of investment, etc., constitutes an “unfair solicitation”.
However, whether sex services are'property benefits' is problematic for interpretation. According to the current prostitution punishment law, the act of providing sex opportunities in exchange for money and goods is subject to punishment. However, nevertheless, the Supreme Court condemned the act of not paying the price while having sex by cheating on paying such a price as a fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Code. According to the legal and economic concept of property, which is the position of the precedent, all economic benefits except criminal interests are property. Therefore, according to this concept, it would be difficult to recognize the property for the provision of services called prostitution. Nevertheless, seeing prostitution services as a property benefit means that the Supreme Court is not seriously aware of the criminality of prostitution. It may be a bit confusing because there are prestigious penalties, but it is reasonable to view sex services as a property benefit. Therefore, doing unfair solicitation and doing sex services in return is a crime.
The act of unfair solicitation violates the fairness of job performance in the private sector. Even if it is not the job of a public official, fairness should be ensured for jobs performed by institutions with strong publicity, such as schools and labor unions. This is because, even if they are not state institutions, these institutions with strong publicity have a strong influence on members of society. Entertainment agencies also have strong publicity. It is an organization that sells products to the general public and has a psychological impact on many people. In this way, the Unfair Solicitation Prohibition Act was enacted in order to prevent people who handle business with strong publicity regardless of public and private sectors from losing the fairness of their job performance by receiving illegal solicitations or receiving money and goods on a regular basis. In order to prevent unfair competition from entertainment companies, I think that executives and employees of entertainment companies should also be included in the subject of the Unfair Solicitation Prohibition Act.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2016
• 2 김성돈, "형법각론" 성균관대학교출판부 2009
• 3 김성천, "형법각론" 도서출판 소진 2017
• 4 김일수, "형법각론" 박영사 2001
• 5 손동권, "형법각론" 율곡출판사 2004
• 6 박상기, "형법각론" 박영사 2008
• 7 배종대, "형법각론" 홍문사 2008
• 8 오영근, "형법각론" 박영사 2009
• 9 박영숙, "한국인의 방어기제 - 속담과 이화방어기제검사를 중심으로 -" (3) : 1993
• 10 조지프 버고, "마음의 문을 닫고 숨어버린 나에게 – 나의 복잡한심리를 이해하는 방어기제 수업" 더퀘스트 2019
• 11 박충선, "대학생의 광고에 반영된 성상품화에 대한 사회적 인식과 소비주의 셩향과의 관계" 대한가정학회 42 (42): 79-90, 2004
• 12 박찬욱, "괴로움, 어디서 오는가" 운주사 2016
• 13 이승훈, "공정경쟁, 공정거래, 그리고 경쟁법" 한국산업조직학회 21 (21): 1-18, 2013
• 14 김상인, "경청과 공감 그리고 진단" 한국전인교육개발원 2009
• 15 전현민, "MMPI 프로파일 유형들에 따른 자아방어기제의 특성" 한국심리학회 14 (14): 1995