지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The search and seizure of data stored or processed in computer system are the most important means of obtaining evidence in the investigation of computer-related crime cases. In most cases, the relevant data could be found on movable and tangible carriers, such as magnetic or optical discs. In some specific cases, the data may not even have a permanent embodiment in a corporeal data carrier.
With respect to the investigation of computer data permanently stored on a corporeal data carrier, the widespread limitation of the coercive power to the search and seizure of corporeal objects relevant to the proceedings or to finding the truth does not pose serious problems, since the rights to seize and to inspect the corporeal data carrier or the central processing unit also includes the right to copy or inspect the data. However, the application of the traditional powers of search and seizure might cause problems when data are not permanently stored on a corporeal data carrier. In these instances, it is questionable whether pure data or information can be regarded as an object in a sense of criminal procedure law. Because most traditional provisions were created in accordance with tangible property and were not especially designed for intangibles and for the legal demands of computerized information society.
Particularly, unavoidable problems rise with respect to search and seizure in computer networks. As far as computer networks are concerned, it is questionable whether and to what extent the right to search and seize a specific computer installation includes the right to search database accessible by this installation but situated in other premises.
Therefore, the attempts has been made to identify the boundary as well as to give answer to the loopholes in the search and seizure field by proper legislative amendments. As an analogous application of criminal procedure law is impossible, it is required that law should be amended to cover the specific needs of computer and network based investigations.
In many countries including Korea, there still remains debate about the search and seizure of electronic evidence ; whether data per se can be the subject of search and seizure ; whether the relevant statute only apply to the data carrier itself. Yet, some countries, new measures have been created, such as expedited preservation of data to ensure that traditional measures of collection - for instance, the search and seizure - remain in the volatile technological environment. The Council of Europe have taken the flexible approach of using the old notions "search and seizure" as well as the new notions of "access and copying"
Most of all, the probability of huge private data collections, in connection with effective powers of search and seizure, can create the danger of an intensive intrusion of the state into the citizen's privacy should be kept in mind.
With respect to the investigation of computer data permanently stored on a corporeal data carrier, the widespread limitation of the coercive power to the search and seizure of corporeal objects relevant to the proceedings or to finding the truth does not pose serious problems, since the rights to seize and to inspect the corporeal data carrier or the central processing unit also includes the right to copy or inspect the data. However, the application of the traditional powers of search and seizure might cause problems when data are not permanently stored on a corporeal data carrier. In these instances, it is questionable whether pure data or information can be regarded as an object in a sense of criminal procedure law. Because most traditional provisions were created in accordance with tangible property and were not especially designed for intangibles and for the legal demands of computerized information society.
Particularly, unavoidable problems rise with respect to search and seizure in computer networks. As far as computer networks are concerned, it is questionable whether and to what extent the right to search and seize a specific computer installation includes the right to search database accessible by this installation but situated in other premises.
Therefore, the attempts has been made to identify the boundary as well as to give answer to the loopholes in the search and seizure field by proper legislative amendments. As an analogous application of criminal procedure law is impossible, it is required that law should be amended to cover the specific needs of computer and network based investigations.
In many countries including Korea, there still remains debate about the search and seizure of electronic evidence ; whether data per se can be the subject of search and seizure ; whether the relevant statute only apply to the data carrier itself. Yet, some countries, new measures have been created, such as expedited preservation of data to ensure that traditional measures of collection - for instance, the search and seizure - remain in the volatile technological environment. The Council of Europe have taken the flexible approach of using the old notions "search and seizure" as well as the new notions of "access and copying"
Most of all, the probability of huge private data collections, in connection with effective powers of search and seizure, can create the danger of an intensive intrusion of the state into the citizen's privacy should be kept in mind.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 전자증거의 개념
Ⅲ. 형사소송법상 전자증거의 압수·수색의 가능성과 필요성
Ⅳ. 전자증거의 압수ㆍ수색에 관한 주요논점
Ⅴ. 전자증거의 압수ㆍ수색에 관한 외국의 태도
Ⅵ. 전자증거의 압수ㆍ수색을 위한 입법론적 제언
Ⅶ. 맺음말
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
컴퓨터 압수, 수색의 문제점
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
디지털증거에 대한 압수 · 수색에 있어서 대상과 종료시점
법학연구
2017 .11
-
디지털증거의 압수·수색과 절차적 진실 -대법원 2015.07.16 선고 2011모1839 전원합의체 결정 -
형사법연구
2016 .01
-
전자적 정보에 관한 수사상의 문제점
형사법연구
2005 .01
-
수사절차상 압수·수색규정에 대한 비판적 검토
비교형사법연구
2015 .01
-
디지털 증거의 압수 · 수색에 대한 문제점과 개선방안- 형사소송법 제106조 제3항을 중심으로 -
형사법연구
2013 .01
-
수사상 강제채뇨에 관한 비판적 고찰
법학연구
2010 .11
-
수사기관의 압수수색영장 집행절차와 제한 규정
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
디지털 증거의 압수·수색절차에 관한 판례 연구 : 대법원 2015. 7. 16.자 2011모1839 전원합의체 결정을 중심으로
중앙법학
2017 .06
-
사이버 포렌식, 디지털 증거, 사이버 공간, 압수ㆍ수색, 사이버 범죄
원광법학
2012 .01
-
압수 · 수색에 있어서 개별처분취소의 가부와 별건증거발견에 관한 검토
법학연구
2018 .12
-
압수 · 수색에 관한 비판적 고찰과 입법적 개선방안
한국경찰학회보
2015 .01
-
디지털 증거의 압수․수색에 관한 소고
법과 정책연구
2018 .01
-
디지털 증거의 압수 · 수색절차상 문제점과 개선방안
법학연구
2013 .09
-
디지털 증거 압수·수색 집행과 관련한 문제점 고찰 : 대법원 2011.5.26. 자 2009모1190 결정(준항고 기각결정에 대한 재항고)
범죄수사학연구
2015 .12
-
디지털증거 압수수색절차에서의 ‘관련성’의 문제
형사정책연구
2015 .06
-
전자정보의 압수⋅수색에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2011.5.26. 선고 2009모1190 결정－
외법논집
2012 .01
-
시스템관리자 상대 압수 · 수색영장 제시의 문제점과 개선 방안
범죄수사학연구
2020 .06
-
압수·수색영장 집행단계에서의 문제점 검토
경찰학연구
2010 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003968725