새로이 입법화된 디지털 증거의 압수,수색제도에 관한 연구 -특히 추가적 보완입법의 문제- = A Study on the Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence in Amendment Criminal Procedure Acts

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Criminal Procedure Amendment Act was revised in 8 Jury 2011, and will be enforced in 1 January 2012. Its article 106 states that the court can order seizure of any evidence or forfeit only if that evidence or forfeit is believed to be related to crime. In the same context, Article 215 is also revised. It states that seizing evidence in the procedure of investigation is allowed only under the suspicion related to a crime. Under Article 106(3), which is newly added, the information in the digital device must be printed or duplicated instead of seizure of the digital device itself. But, if it turns out impossible or hard to achieve the purpose of seizure, then seizing the memory device itself can be allowed. The main reason of this article is obtaining the data saved in the computer`s memory storage, which can prove the criminal charges, rather than using the computer itself as evidence. Digital evidence or electronic evidence is probative information stored or transmitted in digital form. A party to a court case may use it at trial. Before accepting digital evidence, a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic, if it is hearsay-evidence, and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required. Digital evidence tends to be easily eliminated modified and duplicated. Digital evidence is often attacked for its authenticity due to the ease with which it can be eliminated or modified. Digital evidence is often ruled inadmissible by courts because it was obtained without authorization. The intangible information cannot be viewed in the eyes nor defined in any forms. Evidence may not remain at place where a criminal activity has occurred. It is therefore necessary to have the special knowledge and skills for efficient investigation. This paper states my views regarding additionally needed criminal procedural legislative reforms. First of all, the term ``informaton`` should be included as object of search and seizure in Article 106. Next, it is necessary to impose a duty on digital server to preserve the digital data as object of seizure. Furthermore, search and seizure should be made possible as long as the network is connected to the serve, although the warrant does not specify the place on server. Finally, it is needed to create regulations related to the admissibility of digital evidence under hearsay rules.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 손동권, "형사소송법(개정신판)" 세창출판사 2010

2 조국, "컴퓨터 전자기록에 대한 대물적 강제처분의 해석론적 쟁점" 한국형사정책학회 22 (22): 99-123, 2010

3 노승권, "컴퓨터 데이터 압수수색에 관한 문제" , (111) : 2000

4 탁희성, "전자증거의 압수·수색에 관한 일고찰" 한국형사정책연구원 15 (15): 21-62, 2004

5 권영법, "전자증거의 수집과 증거능력" 대한변호사협회 (397) : 6-18, 2009

6 박수희, "전자증거의 수집과 강제수사" 한국공안행정학회 16 (16): 125-154, 2007

7 노명선, "전자적 증거의 수집과 증거능력에 관한 몇 가지 검토" (16) : 2008

8 김기준, "전자우편에 대한 증거수집과 관련된 문제점" (17) : 2001

9 민영성, "영장주의의 예외인정과 명인법리" 부산대학교 법학연구소 40 (40): 1999

10 김용진, "영미법해설(형사소송)" 박영사 2009

11 조국, "압수·수색의 합법성 기준 재검토" 한국비교형사법학회 5 (5): 29-782, 2003

12 손동권, "수사절차상 긴급 압수·수색 제도와 그에 관한 개선입법론" 법학연구소 46 (46): 9-33, 2011

13 -탁희성, "법정에서의 디지털증거의 허용가능성" (창간) : 2007

14 이태훈, "미국에서의 영장에 의한 구속·수색·압수 1" 32 (32): 1983

15 강지식, "미국 수사기관의 전자우편취득 절차 및 한계" 법무연수원 26 : 2011

16 박종근, "디지털 증거 압수수색과 법제" (18) : 2009

17 조석영, "디지털 증거 압수수색 제도의 제반 문제점" 법무부 형사법제과 2011

18 조석영, "디지털 정보의 수사방법과 규제원칙" 한국형사정책학회 22 (22): 75-98, 2010

19 김기준, "독립적 긴급압수수색제도의 도입 필요성에 대한 고찰" , (15) : 2008

20 조상제, "독립적 긴급 압수수색제도의 도입방안 연구" 법무부 2010

21 -指宿信, "サイバースペースにおける証拠収集とデジタル証拠の確保-2011年改正法案を考える" 83 (83): 2011

22 Rudolphi u.a, "Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 15. Aufl" Alfred Metzner Verlag 1996

23 Roxin, Claus, "Strafverfahrensrecht, 24. Aufl" C.H. Becker'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1993

24 Kühne, Hans-Heiner, "Strafprozesslehre, 7. Aufl" C.F. Mueller Lehr- und Handbuch 2007

25 Peters, Karl, "Strafprozess, 4. Aufl" C.F. Mueller Juristischer Verlag 1985