압수수색 대상의 특정성에 관한 비판적 검토

Abstract

A mandatory investigation should strictly be controlled as it has an aspect of violating others' basic rights. For this purpose, Sec. 12 of the Korean Constitution stipulates the principle of warrant and the proviso of sec. 199 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides the principle of legal disposition. The enhancement of human rights consciousness and the new change of judicial environment, hearing-centrism, have increased the importance of material evidence instead of the existing practice dependent on testimony-based evidence, and lastly the Supreme Court tends to emphasize procedural justification further by accepting the law of excluding illegally collected evidence. For this reason, the particularity of the object of seizure and search is emphasized in the process of seizure and search that is widely used as the investigative technique by the investigative agency. This is interpreted as the will to realize the idea of criminal procedure through the harmonization of the finding of substantive truth and the suspect's human rights by minimizing the violation of the suspect's human right though both of them may be important. If the object for seizure and search in investigative practice is not specified, the seizure and search warrant is rejected for reason of the lack of statement, and the phenomenon of getting the capacity for evidence denied occurs due to procedural illegality though seizure and search is conducted through the issuance of the warrant. Therefore, the investigative agency should specifically and individually specify the object to be seized and the place to be searched when the investigative agency applies for the seizure and search warrant. Therefore, this study attempted to secure the efficiency of investigation and contribute to the protection of the individual's human rights through the examination of the significance of the particularity for the object of seizure and search in relation to the application of the seizure and search warrant, the case that the seizured object and the place to be searched are specified(Especially, the case that the address in the resident registration card and the actual address are inconsistent, whether the address of the third party has specificity, the method of specification in case the place of search is the collective building, the case that the licence plate number cannot be specified when an attempt is made to search the car of the suspect but the seizure and search warrant is applied for, and the like).