디지털 증거의 압수수색에 관한 쟁점별 해석과 통제방안 -개정 형사소송법을 중심으로-
The Paper on Interpretation of Key Issues and Regulation in Collecting Digital Evidence
0
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present research question emerged from the question : "Are there significant disparities between the search and seizure of digital evidence and traditional physical evidence?" Translating search and seizure rules tailored to regulate physical property into rules that regulate digital investigations raises numerous questions. This paper examines the issues of the search and seizure of digital evidence, particularly of controversy about conflict of interest between the right to privacy and the purpose of investigation. As sources of evidence, computers can contain an incomprehensible amount and variety of data, which commingles many innocent documents with a much smaller number of documents that contain evidence of a crime. Today, many computers generally have storage capacities of one terabyte, which could hold an amount of text roughly equal to the amount of information contained in the academic library building, if computer users are filling these drive with more information than they did before. Therefore, the restriction on the search and seizure in digital evidence is needed for minimal invasion of privacy rights. In order to achieve this purpose, two regulation theory is discussed ; one is Ex Ante regulation of computer search and seizure, the other is Ex Post control of that. The author contends that Ex Post regulation is more efficient than Ex Ante regulation to balance between privacy interest and investigation. Ex Ante control tends to overly restrict the efficiency of investigation by comparison with Ex Post regulation. On the other hand, Ex Post regulation can suppress admissibility of evidence if the inspection of digital evidence is beyond the scope of issuing warrant and provide the right to participate to the parties related to the crime in computer forensic process. Moreover, it can rest on prosecutor in a trial the burden of proof if defendant challenges admissibility of evidence.
Abstract
The present research question emerged from the question : "Are there significant disparities between the search and seizure of digital evidence and traditional physical evidence?" Translating search and seizure rules tailored to regulate physical property into rules that regulate digital investigations raises numerous questions. This paper examines the issues of the search and seizure of digital evidence, particularly of controversy about conflict of interest between the right to privacy and the purpose of investigation. As sources of evidence, computers can contain an incomprehensible amount and variety of data, which commingles many innocent documents with a much smaller number of documents that contain evidence of a crime. Today, many computers generally have storage capacities of one terabyte, which could hold an amount of text roughly equal to the amount of information contained in the academic library building, if computer users are filling these drive with more information than they did before. Therefore, the restriction on the search and seizure in digital evidence is needed for minimal invasion of privacy rights. In order to achieve this purpose, two regulation theory is discussed ; one is Ex Ante regulation of computer search and seizure, the other is Ex Post control of that. The author contends that Ex Post regulation is more efficient than Ex Ante regulation to balance between privacy interest and investigation. Ex Ante control tends to overly restrict the efficiency of investigation by comparison with Ex Post regulation. On the other hand, Ex Post regulation can suppress admissibility of evidence if the inspection of digital evidence is beyond the scope of issuing warrant and provide the right to participate to the parties related to the crime in computer forensic process. Moreover, it can rest on prosecutor in a trial the burden of proof if defendant challenges admissibility of evidence.
참고문헌 (34)
- 신동운, "형사소송법" (2007), 법문사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 법문사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2009), 박영사
- 이규안, "과학수사를 위한 디지털 포렌식" (2011), GS인터비전
- 허영, "한국헌법론" (2012), 박영사
- Israel, "Crimianl Procedure and the Constitution" (2012)
- Graf, "StPO Beck'scher Online-Kommentar" (2013), C.H.Beck
- 平良木登規男, "일본형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
- 권영법, "위법수집증거배제의 기준설정에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2011
- 박경신, "E-메일 압수수색의 제문제와 관련 법률개정안들에 대한 평가", 법학연구, 13(2), pp.265~314 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박용철, "컴퓨터 압수, 수색의 문제점", 형사법연구, 20(2), pp.129~148 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 백승주, "미국의 압수수색영장 일부기각 및 압수방법 제한에 관한 실무연구- 디지털 증거를 중심으로 -", 법조, 62(7), pp.181~250 (2013), 법조협회
- 이완규, "디지털 증거의 압수수색과 관련성 개념의 해석", 한국형사소송법학회 춘계학술대회 (2013), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이경열, "디지털정보 관련 증거의 압수·수색 규정의 도입방안 연구", 홍익법학, 13(3), pp.483~521 (2012), 법학연구소
- 이훈동, "컴퓨터관련범죄와 형사절차, In 형사법학의 과제와 전망 : 성시탁교수 회갑기념논문집" (1993)
- 전승수, "디지털 정보에 대한 압수수색영장의 집행- 대법원 2011. 5. 26.자 2009모1190 결정 -", 법조, 61(7), pp.237~276 (2012), 법조협회[DOI]
- 조국, "압수·수색의 합법성 기준 재검토", 비교형사법연구, 5(2-1), pp.29~782 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 조국, "컴퓨터 전자기록에 대한 대물적 강제처분의 해석론적 쟁점", 형사정책, 22(1), pp.99~123 (2010), 한국형사정책학회
- 조석영, "디지털 정보의 수사방법과 규제원칙", 형사정책, 22(1), pp.75~98 (2010), 한국형사정책학회
- 최희경, "프라이버시권리의 변천", 법조, 53(12), pp.83~111 (2004), 법조협회
- 형사절차상 digital evidence에 관한 연구 - 압수, 수색을 중심으로-, "탁희성", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2002)
- 정보사회에서의 범죄에 대한 수사와 재판, 정보사회에 대비한 일반법연구(Ⅱ), "하태훈", 정보통신정책연구원, ~ (1988)
- Jed Rubenfeld, "The Right of Privacy", Harv. L. Rev, 102, pp.737~ (1988)
- Paul Ohm, "Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, and the Power of Magistrate Judge", Va. L. Rev. In Brief, 97, pp.1~ (2011)
- Orin S. Kerr, "Digital Evidence And The New Crimanal Procedure", Col. L.Rev, 105, pp.279~ (2005)
- Orin S. Kerr, "Search Warrants in an Era of Digital Evidence", Miss. L. J, 75, pp.5~ (2005)
- Orin S. Kerr, "Ex Ante Regulation of Computer Search and Seizure", Va. L. Rew, 96, pp.1241~ (2010)
- Raphael Winick, "Searchs And Seizures Of Computers And Computer Data", Harv. J. L & Tech, 8 (1994)
- Samangha Trepel, "Digital Search, General Warrants, And The Case For The Courts", Yale J. L. & Tech, 10, pp.120~ (2007)
- Susan W. Brenner, "Computer Searches and Seizures : Some Unresolved Issues", Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev, 8, pp.39~ (2002)
- Warren, "The Right to Privacy", Harv. L. Rev, 4, pp.193~ (1890)
- H. Marshall Jarret, "Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations" (2009)
- ｢사이버수사 및 디지털 증거수집 운영실태｣에 관한 2012년도 국가인권위원회 인권상황 실태조사 연구용역 보고서, , 국가인권위원회, ~ (2012)
- "디지털 증거 수집의 문제점과 개선방안", 공청회 자료 (2010), 법제도개혁특별위원회