본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

형사소송에서 디지털증거의 조사방법에 관한 입법론적 고찰-특히 민사소송의 경우와 비교하여-

Legislative study about investigation of Digital evidence in Criminal Procedure - Especially compared with the case of a civil lawsuit -

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Recently, as the frequent use of digital evidence, many researches are underway actively to collection and admissibility of evidence about the Digital evidence. But the way of investigation in court, it seems like not entirely satisfactory. The method of Investigation of digital evidence, must examine definition of the concept of evidence and characteristic of digital evidence. The media independence which is the essential characteristic of digital evidence works very importantly in the "Evidence gathering" stage. But in "Examination of evidence" stage which normally submitted as in the state of already been collected and tied to a particular media to the court,its importance can be weak. Moreover, it is difficult to fix and explain about the Media independence of digital evidence just by the concepts of existing method of evidence and evidential data. So, when identify the specific elements as 'evidential element' which can be the evidence glued with method of evidence, then it can explained that be the evidential ele ment itself. For investigation of digital evidence which glued in various media, these following things will be taken as features. The examination of evidence needs the conversion of evidence which has legibility by using the machinery. The examination of evidence needs the conversion of evidence which has legibility by using the machinery. Even if the digital evidence the examination of evidence for the original, etc. Based on these points, looking under Article 292-3 of the Criminal Procedure Law and the rules under Article 134 of between 7 and 9, the evidence of Digital, Analog and non-electronic are mixed in only one provision, Interpretational confusion has been caused. So, non-electronic evidence absorbs to the Criminal Procedure Law Article 292-2 and retain only retain Electronic evidence on Article 292-3 and keep the separate regulations about digital evidence, It would be desirable. In addition, in the rules, regulate the investigation of original with the output, as well as voice and sound recording tape, etc. like this, regulate all together it seems like more better way.

Abstract

Recently, as the frequent use of digital evidence, many researches are underway actively to collection and admissibility of evidence about the Digital evidence. But the way of investigation in court, it seems like not entirely satisfactory. The method of Investigation of digital evidence, must examine definition of the concept of evidence and characteristic of digital evidence. The media independence which is the essential characteristic of digital evidence works very importantly in the "Evidence gathering" stage. But in "Examination of evidence" stage which normally submitted as in the state of already been collected and tied to a particular media to the court,its importance can be weak. Moreover, it is difficult to fix and explain about the Media independence of digital evidence just by the concepts of existing method of evidence and evidential data. So, when identify the specific elements as 'evidential element' which can be the evidence glued with method of evidence, then it can explained that be the evidential ele ment itself. For investigation of digital evidence which glued in various media, these following things will be taken as features. The examination of evidence needs the conversion of evidence which has legibility by using the machinery. The examination of evidence needs the conversion of evidence which has legibility by using the machinery. Even if the digital evidence the examination of evidence for the original, etc. Based on these points, looking under Article 292-3 of the Criminal Procedure Law and the rules under Article 134 of between 7 and 9, the evidence of Digital, Analog and non-electronic are mixed in only one provision, Interpretational confusion has been caused. So, non-electronic evidence absorbs to the Criminal Procedure Law Article 292-2 and retain only retain Electronic evidence on Article 292-3 and keep the separate regulations about digital evidence, It would be desirable. In addition, in the rules, regulate the investigation of original with the output, as well as voice and sound recording tape, etc. like this, regulate all together it seems like more better way.

참고문헌 (29)

  1. 디지털증거 분석도구에 의한 증거수집절차 및 증거능력 확보방안, "이상진", 한국형사정책연구원, 31~ (2006)
  2. 정병곤, "디지털 증거의 수집과 증거능력에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2011
  3. 이윤제, "디지털증거의 압수ㆍ수색과 증거능력", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 23, pp.171~ (2009)
  4. 이시윤, "신민사소송법 제5판" (2009), 박영사
  5. 이재상, "신형사소송법 제2판" (2008), 박영사
  6. 김정한, "증거재판주의의 의미와 엄격한 증명, 자유로운 증명", 법학논총, 17(1), pp.459~481 (2010), 법학연구원
  7. 권양섭, "디지털 증거의 압수ㆍ수색에 관한 입법론적 연구", 원광법학, 26(1), pp.345~372 (2010), 법학연구소
  8. 조석영, "디지털 정보의 수사방법과 규제원칙", 형사정책, 22(1), pp.75~98 (2010), 한국형사정책학회
  9. 김성룡, "이메일 압수․수색에 관한 독일 연방헌법재판소 결정의 주요 내용과 그 시사점", 법학논고, (32), pp.181~214 (2010), 법학연구원
  10. 권영법, "전자증거의 수집과 증거능력", 인권과 정의, (397), pp.6~18 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  11. 안경옥, "전자적 증거의 수집과 증거능력", 고시계, pp.138~ (2004)
  12. 전명길, "디지털증거의 수집과 증거능력", 법학연구, (41), pp.317~336 (2011), 한국법학회
  13. 김연, "전자문서에 대한 증거조사", IT와 법연구, 3, pp.251~ (2009), 경북대학교 IT와 법 연구소
  14. 한충수, "민사소송에서의 증거조사절차에 있어 몇 가지 문제점 -정보 및 증거수집제도로의 인식 전환을 위한 試論-", 법학논총, 27(2), pp.23~64 (2010), 법학연구소
  15. , 2003, 195~, pp.법원행정처
  16. 이시윤, "민사소송법 신정 4판" (2001), 박영사
  17. 강현중, "민사소송법 제5판", pp.581~ (2002), 박영사
  18. "법원실무제요 민사소송(Ⅲ)", pp.228~ (2005), 법원행정처
  19. 박수희, "전자증거의 수집과 강제수사", 한국공안행정학회보, 16(4), pp.125~154 (2007), 한국공안행정학회
  20. "법원실무제요 형사(Ⅱ)", pp.187~ (2008), 법원행정처
  21. "대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 99도2317 판결", ~ (1999)
  22. "대법원 2001. 3. 23. 선고 2000도486 판결", ~ (2001)
  23. "대법원 2007. 12. 13. 선고 2007도7257 판결", ~ (2007)
  24. "대법원 1989. 3. 14. 선고 88도1399 판결", ~ (1989)
  25. "대법원 2001. 5. 29. 선고 2000도2933 판결", ~ (2001)
  26. 김정한, "실무 형사소송법", pp.490~ (2012), 도서출판 북파일
  27. "대법원 2007. 11. 15. 선고 2007도3061 전원합의체 판결", ~ (2007)
  28. "대법원 2009. 5. 14. 선고 2008도10914 판결", ~ (2009)
  29. "대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009도11401 판결", ~ (2009)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (26건)