디지털증거의 압수·수색과 절차적 진실

• 영문명: A Case for Due Process in the Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence
• 발행기관: 한국형사법학회
• 저자명: 이정민(Lee Jung Min)
• 간행물 정보: 『형사법연구』형사법연구 제28권 제3호, 149~173쪽, 전체 25쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2016.09.30

국문 초록

형사소송에서 실체적 진실은 과연 발견될 수 있는지에 대한 의문이 남아 있다. 실체적 진실발견은 다가갈 수 있을 것 같지만, 어쩌면 비현실적인 의미의 지향인 것이다. 이러한 비현실적 지향을 위해 형사사법의 기능적 효율성을 위해 지켜져야 할 압수·수색의 원칙을 훼손해서는 안된다. 본 대상 결정과 같이 별도의 범죄혐의와 관련된 전자정보를 우연히 발견하게 된 경우라면 수사기관으로서는 더 이상 추가탐색을 중단하고, 법원으로부터 별도의 범죄혐의에 대한 압수·수색영장을 발부받아야 하고, 피압수자의 참여권을 보장하여야 한다. 즉 디지털 증거의 탐색과 출력과정은 압수·수색의 일환이므로, 전 과정에서 참여권이 인정되어야 한다. 그리고 결정과 같이 우연히 발견한 별건 디지털증거에 대해서 발견 즉시 더 이상의 탐색을 멈추고 새로운 영장을 발부받아야만 적법한 압수가 된다. 더 나아가 절차적 진실을 구성하기 위해 관련자에 대한 고지제도의 정착과 디지털증거 압수·수색에 대한 가이드라인 마련과 신속한 환부절차의 보장이 함께 이루어져야 할 것이다. 그것이 비록 비효율적일지라도, 절차적 진실을 보장하는 길이며, 이러한 절차적 진실이야말로 실체적 진실로 다가갈 수 있는 발판이 된다. 형법이 “열사람의 범인을 놓치는 한이 있더라도 한 사람의 무고한 자를 처벌해서는 안된다.”라는 비효율적인 격언을 숭배하듯이, 입법자가 마련한 영장주의는 입법자의 개정이 없는 한 지켜져야 하는 원칙이다.

영문 초록

The validity of evidence resulting from substantial truth and procedural truth, and the conflict between these truths is an issue generating substantial discussion in Korea, particularly with reference to the increase in the search and seizure of digital evidence. In the last 6 years, claims of the infringement of human rights when being arrested have increased significantly, resulting in a decrease in the number of arrests made, and an increase in the search and seizure of evidence so as to ensure that any arrests made are just. With technological advances being made every day, and technology becoming an ever more prominent part of everyday life, it is natural that digital evidence and data is more important now than it has ever been in the past. On a number of occasions in recent years, during the search and seizure of digital data, prosecutors have unintentionally identified or discovered evidence of a second crime outside of that being investigated. Following the tenets of substantial truth, the evidence might be argued to be valid in a resulting investigation of the second crime. On the other hand, according to procedural truth, and as has been ruled in the Supreme Court, such evidence has been deemed to be inadmissible in court due to a lack of a warrant for the investigation of that specific crime at the time the evidence was found. In line with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the discovery of such evidence during an investigation has the potential to not only hinder an investigation of the second crime, but also derail the original investigation due to an, albeit unintentionally, illegal and unwarranted search. The participation of a lawyer from the company being investigated in the seizure and search procedure of electronic information or information storage devices is an issue worthy of discussion in developing fairer and more effective procedures for both those investigating and being investigated. Having an in-house lawyer present and participating in the seizure of data might ensure that correct procedures are followed, and that searches remain within the boundaries of the warrant issued for the seizure. This paper also argues that such participation is not only necessary for the original seizure of data, but also for the creation of any copies of the data being made throughout the investigation, so as to ensure the legality of any seizure and analysis of data. A previous investigation found that the majority of in-house lawyers in companies were not well-informed of the correct procedure to be followed in the case of the seizure of data from their company; thus, often leading to the absence of participation which lies at the heart of this issue. In South Korea, the issue of urgency in the seizure of data relating to a crime has also been raised as the reason for the regular omission of participation. While urgency may certainly play a factor in the effective seizure of data, a Supreme Court judge declared, last year, that any seizure of data requires a warrant specific to the crime to which the data relates. It should be noted, that the prosecution has decried this decision, arguing that the application for a second warrant would counter the effectiveness of urgent data collection and allow those subject to the seizure of the newly found evidence to cover it up or get rid of it before the new warrant is approved. This paper argues for the need for the development and creation of clear guidelines related to the procedures to be followed by in-house lawyers in the event of a seizure of data, and to expressly inform companies about said guidelines so as to ensure the timely, effective, and legal seizure of data in all cases.

목차

국문초록

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 대법원 결정내용 분석

Ⅲ. 디지털 증거에 대한 압수·수색절차와 증거능력

Ⅳ. 절차적 진실을 구성하기 위한 절차규정 마련

Ⅴ. 결론

참고문헌

Abstract

키워드

디지털증거 압수· 수색 절차적 진실 영장 피압수자 참여 Digital Evidence Search and Seizure Due Process Participating in the seizure of data Warrant