LEGAL Proposal for Digital Evidence Seizure and Admissibility in KOREA
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Today, the digital revolution has completely changed all areas of society, and the evidence of crime has also become digitalized. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the success or failure of investigation to reveal the truth depends on how digital evidence is secured and recognized. In this way, our society is rapidly changing into a digital society, but the law has not been completely restored, and it maintains the analog legal system of the past. In other words, the provision related to digital evidence is only Article 106(3), (4) and (313) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, these few words alone cannot solve all the problems related to digital evidence. This study is based on the evaluation of the problems of Article 106(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and recently revised Articles 313 and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the purpose is to present a new legislative alternative. Current deficiencies in the acceptability of digital evidence should be addressed through amendments to the law. First of all, the digital evidence corresponding to the specialization is subject to the existing special law, so there are certain limitations on the ability of evidence. However, there are exceptions to the special law, I believe that it is reasonable to allow valuable evidence that is essential to substantiate the fact. And any digital evidence that does not contain a statement should be able to acknowledge evidence capability only if it is proven authentic to establish the truth and credibility of the data. That is, errors in systems and software, and authenticity requirements to ensure the reliability of digital evidence exposed to the risk of unauthorized access, has proven that there has been no such error or danger. The accuracy and reliability of the system and the procedures are mainly presented as such authenticity verification methods. However, more specific requirements for the authenticity of digital evidence should be laid out in a manner that is based on technical standards established by experts, but can be easily applied to legal judgments
Abstract
Today, the digital revolution has completely changed all areas of society, and the evidence of crime has also become digitalized. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the success or failure of investigation to reveal the truth depends on how digital evidence is secured and recognized. In this way, our society is rapidly changing into a digital society, but the law has not been completely restored, and it maintains the analog legal system of the past. In other words, the provision related to digital evidence is only Article 106(3), (4) and (313) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, these few words alone cannot solve all the problems related to digital evidence. This study is based on the evaluation of the problems of Article 106(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and recently revised Articles 313 and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the purpose is to present a new legislative alternative. Current deficiencies in the acceptability of digital evidence should be addressed through amendments to the law. First of all, the digital evidence corresponding to the specialization is subject to the existing special law, so there are certain limitations on the ability of evidence. However, there are exceptions to the special law, I believe that it is reasonable to allow valuable evidence that is essential to substantiate the fact. And any digital evidence that does not contain a statement should be able to acknowledge evidence capability only if it is proven authentic to establish the truth and credibility of the data. That is, errors in systems and software, and authenticity requirements to ensure the reliability of digital evidence exposed to the risk of unauthorized access, has proven that there has been no such error or danger. The accuracy and reliability of the system and the procedures are mainly presented as such authenticity verification methods. However, more specific requirements for the authenticity of digital evidence should be laid out in a manner that is based on technical standards established by experts, but can be easily applied to legal judgments
참고문헌 (11)
- Jeong BG, "A Study on the Collection and Ad-missibility of Digital Evidence", Doctoral, pp.2012
- 손동권, "새로이 입법화된 디지털 증거의 압수·수색제도에 관한 연구 - 특히 추가적 보완입법의 문제 -", 형사정책, 23(2), pp.325~349 (2011), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 이주원, "디지털 증거에 대한 압수수색제도의 개선", 안암법학, (37), pp.151~199 (2012), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 이은모, "전자적 정보에 관한 수사상의 문제점", 형사법연구, (23), pp.156~175 (2005), 한국형사법학회
- 조광훈, "개정 형사소송법 제313조의 합리적 해석방향 - 특히 제313조 제2항의 ‘객관적 방법’을 중심으로 -", 법조, 66(1), pp.220~271 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 노명선, "개정 형사소송법 제313조의 해석과 입법 개선", 법조, 65(9), pp.5~38 (2016), 법조협회[DOI]
- 김종호, "디지털 포렌식(Digital Forensic)의 원리와 소송에서의 증거평가 방식", 경희법학, 52(1), pp.103~156 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Lee SY, "Handling and Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Criminal Procedure", Doctoral, pp.2011
- 노명선, "디지털 증거의 압수ㆍ수색에 관한 판례 동향과 비교법적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (43), pp.139~194 (2014), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 박웅신, "디지털 증거 압수시 참여권 및 별건정보 압수에 관한 연구 - 안보범죄에 대한 적용을 중심으로 -", 치안정책연구, 30(3), pp.261~294 (2016), 치안정책연구소[DOI]
- Park MW, "A Study on the Due Process of Law in Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence", Doctoral, pp.2016