2021년도 형사소송법 판례 회고
Review of the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper examines the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021. I describe in chapter 1 the issues of the Supreme Court Judgment(2021.11.18. 2016do348 en banc)(hereinafter referred to as the ‘en banc’) and the overall order of review. In Chapter 2, while discussing the en banc in detail, I agree with the conclusion but point out the problem with the argument and suggest an alternative. In other words, when an investigative agency confiscates electronic data from the mobile phone of a suspect arbitrarily submitted by a third party, such as the victim, (1) (method of seizure) the principle of confiscating the output of electronic data related to the facts of the alleged accusation, with the exception of confiscating the electronic data storage medium itself or a copy of the alleged object, (2) (object of seizure) electronic data that is related to the facts of the alleged and has the minimum value to prove it, and (3) (the seizure procedure) appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the procedural rights of the accused, such as guaranteeing the right to participate and issuing a list of the seized electronic data to the accused who is the actual confiscator. In the case of (3) of these, the basis for this is not Article 121, 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather the distinction between the arbitrary submission of the data storage medium and the confiscation of the stored data, and in the latter case a search warrant for seizure is required. Judgments on investigation and prosecution are dealt with in Chapter 3, which dealt with the delay in the execution of the arrest warrant and the unlawfulness of detention, the effect of the seizure and search by the seizure and search warrant that incorrectly marked the accused, the criteria for determining whether the seizure and search warrant had an objective relevance to the facts of the alleged crime, and the judgment that determined whether the abuse of the right to prosecution. Of these, in a case in which a prosecution was filed 4 years after the suspension of prosecution, the first decision by the Supreme Court to explicitly admit abuse of the right to prosecution and sentence the prosecution to be dismissed is meaningful. In Chapter 4, I looked at the Supreme Court decisions concerning the trial proceedings and appeals. The final chapter introduces the judgment on the timing of the disappearance of the parties' capacity of the corporation, the illegality of the entrapment investigation, and the retrial proceedings.
Abstract
This paper examines the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021. I describe in chapter 1 the issues of the Supreme Court Judgment(2021.11.18. 2016do348 en banc)(hereinafter referred to as the ‘en banc’) and the overall order of review. In Chapter 2, while discussing the en banc in detail, I agree with the conclusion but point out the problem with the argument and suggest an alternative. In other words, when an investigative agency confiscates electronic data from the mobile phone of a suspect arbitrarily submitted by a third party, such as the victim, (1) (method of seizure) the principle of confiscating the output of electronic data related to the facts of the alleged accusation, with the exception of confiscating the electronic data storage medium itself or a copy of the alleged object, (2) (object of seizure) electronic data that is related to the facts of the alleged and has the minimum value to prove it, and (3) (the seizure procedure) appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the procedural rights of the accused, such as guaranteeing the right to participate and issuing a list of the seized electronic data to the accused who is the actual confiscator. In the case of (3) of these, the basis for this is not Article 121, 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather the distinction between the arbitrary submission of the data storage medium and the confiscation of the stored data, and in the latter case a search warrant for seizure is required. Judgments on investigation and prosecution are dealt with in Chapter 3, which dealt with the delay in the execution of the arrest warrant and the unlawfulness of detention, the effect of the seizure and search by the seizure and search warrant that incorrectly marked the accused, the criteria for determining whether the seizure and search warrant had an objective relevance to the facts of the alleged crime, and the judgment that determined whether the abuse of the right to prosecution. Of these, in a case in which a prosecution was filed 4 years after the suspension of prosecution, the first decision by the Supreme Court to explicitly admit abuse of the right to prosecution and sentence the prosecution to be dismissed is meaningful. In Chapter 4, I looked at the Supreme Court decisions concerning the trial proceedings and appeals. The final chapter introduces the judgment on the timing of the disappearance of the parties' capacity of the corporation, the illegality of the entrapment investigation, and the retrial proceedings.
참고문헌 (20)
- 백형구, "주석 형사소송법(Ⅱ)" (2009), 한국사법행정학회
- 신동운, "간추린 신형사소송법" (2021), 법문사
- 신양균, "형사소송법상 소송능력에 대한 재검토", 동북아법연구, 14(1), pp.297~336 (2020), 동북아법연구소[DOI]
- 이은모, "형사소송법" (2021), 박영사
- 이주원, "형사소송법" (2019), 박영사
- 이재상, "형사소송법" (2022), 박영사
- 이창현, "형사소송법" (2019), 정독
- 임동규, "형사소송법" (2021), 법문사
- 정승환, "형사소송법" (2018), 박영사
- 정웅석, "신형사소송법" (2021), 박영사
- 디지털증거 압수수색 개선방안에 관한 연구, "사법정책연구원", ~ (2021)
- 강동범, "공소시효의 정지‧연장‧배제와 소급효", 형사법의 신동향, (58), pp.299~331 (2018), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 강동범, "체포현장에서 임의제출한 휴대폰의 압수와 저장정보의 수집", 형사소송 이론과 실무, 13(3), pp.33~60 (2021), 한국형사소송법학회[DOI]
- 김영미, "디지털 증거 압수수색 시 영장 범죄사실과 ‘관련성 있는’ 증거 해석기준과 무관 증거 발견 시 증거 확보 방법 ― 대법원 2018. 4. 26. 선고 2018도2624 판결", 형사판례연구, 28, pp.287~348 (2020), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 김정한, "임의제출물의 압수에 관한 실무적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (68), pp.230~267 (2020), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 김혜정, "누락사건에 대한 추가기소에서 공소권남용의 판단기준", 형사판례연구, 11 (2003)
- 박민우, "피의자 성명 오류와 압수수색영장의 효력", 형사판례연구회 (2021)
- 심희기, "종근당 결정과 가니어스 판결의 정밀비교", 형사판례연구, 25, pp.607~640 (2017), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 이완규, "압수물의 범죄사실과의 관련성과 적법합 압수물의 증거사용 범위", 형사판례연구, 23, pp.535~574 (2015), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 전승수, "디지털 증거 압수절차의 적정성 문제 - 피압수자 참여 범위 및 영장 무관 정보의 압수를 중심으로 -", 형사판례연구, 24, pp.613~643 (2016), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
