압수수색상 관련성의 실무상 문제점

Abstract

The relevance has been provided as an additional requirement for search and seizure by the Criminal Procedure Act, which took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2012. The requirement that seized articles shall be deemed to be relevant to the accused[charged] case makes general searches under warrants impossible and prevents the seizure of things irrelevant to the case under a warrant. And it becomes a very important issue because it is directly connected with the exclusionary rule. The relevance means the likeliness of having the probative value. The value includes not only the direct and indirect evidence but also the circumstantial one. And the legally seized evidence can be admissible, if relevant, as an evidence of the crimes which is not described under a warrant, except as otherwise provided by law. The recent rulings of the Supreme Court of Korea decided the meaning of charged person formally by limiting the scope of relevance to the crimes that were committed by or were connected with only the person described under a warrant. And the rulings used the relevance as a tool to restrict the legally seized evidence relevant to one crime under a warrant from being used as an evidence for another. But if the seizure of evidence is legal, all relevant evidence is admissible to any other case. Thus, they will impose a inappropriate and substantial burden upon the administration of the criminal justice process. As the investigation is moving forward, the full picture of the crime will be revealed. Therefore, the discussion and interpretation of the relevance rule should be made through considering the truth-finding function of the criminal justice process, all kinds of evidence, various situations of gathering it, and the practical costs of those rulings.