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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2023.2
- 수록면
- 31 - 54 (24page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2023.2.34.1.31
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In these days a mobile phone comes into wide use and many crimes are frequently committed by means of mobile phone. For example many persons are prosecuted because of taking photographs in the subway etc by using a camera of mobile phone. So much evidence of a crime is stored in mobile phone.
The recent Supreme Court decision, 2016 Do 348, ruled on the search and seizure of digital evidence by consent. The Supreme Court"s 2016 Do 348 decision guaranteed the right to information privacy in that it strictly regulated the search and seizure procedures for digital evidence by consent.
The main points of the Supreme Court decision can be summarized as follows.
Firstly, the Supreme Court limited the scope of digital evidence confiscated by consent. In this regard. the Supreme Court ruled that those who consent to search and seizure of digital evidence may limit the scope of digital evidence confiscated. In addition, the Supreme Court stipulated procedures to be followed by investigative agencies in the process of confiscating digital evidence by consent. In addition, the Supreme Court limited the scope of digital evidence confiscated by consent to information related to the alleged crime.
Secondly, where a third party such as a victim, etc., not a criminal suspect, voluntarily submits a data storage medium that the criminal suspect possesses and manages, even if such voluntary submission and resultant seizure of an investigative institution are legal, more restricted interpretation is required in that electronic information specifically and separately related with the facts information.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that when an investigative agency conducts a search and seizure with the consent of the digital evidence submitter. the investigative agency should confiscate digital evidence only for digital evidence related to the fact of the crime. The Supreme Court also ruled that the right to participate should be guaranteed to the seized person in the process.
If electronic information relevant to a suspicion of a crime is found by accident in the process of legally exploring electronic information relevant to facts constituting a suspicion of a crime before a seizure or search of electronic information is completed, an investigative institution should discontinue further exploration thereof, and, only when a warrant of seizure or of search is issued from the court with regard to the facts constituting a separate crime, the investigative institution can legally seize or search such information. Therefore, any evidence acquired by an investigative institution without a warrant of seizure or of search in relation to electronic information beyond the scope of electronic information subject to seizure in a data storage medium voluntarily submitted corresponds to illegally obtained evidence.
The author hope to reflect this legal principles as soon as possible in National Assembly because our country is a Statute Law Country.
The recent Supreme Court decision, 2016 Do 348, ruled on the search and seizure of digital evidence by consent. The Supreme Court"s 2016 Do 348 decision guaranteed the right to information privacy in that it strictly regulated the search and seizure procedures for digital evidence by consent.
The main points of the Supreme Court decision can be summarized as follows.
Firstly, the Supreme Court limited the scope of digital evidence confiscated by consent. In this regard. the Supreme Court ruled that those who consent to search and seizure of digital evidence may limit the scope of digital evidence confiscated. In addition, the Supreme Court stipulated procedures to be followed by investigative agencies in the process of confiscating digital evidence by consent. In addition, the Supreme Court limited the scope of digital evidence confiscated by consent to information related to the alleged crime.
Secondly, where a third party such as a victim, etc., not a criminal suspect, voluntarily submits a data storage medium that the criminal suspect possesses and manages, even if such voluntary submission and resultant seizure of an investigative institution are legal, more restricted interpretation is required in that electronic information specifically and separately related with the facts information.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that when an investigative agency conducts a search and seizure with the consent of the digital evidence submitter. the investigative agency should confiscate digital evidence only for digital evidence related to the fact of the crime. The Supreme Court also ruled that the right to participate should be guaranteed to the seized person in the process.
If electronic information relevant to a suspicion of a crime is found by accident in the process of legally exploring electronic information relevant to facts constituting a suspicion of a crime before a seizure or search of electronic information is completed, an investigative institution should discontinue further exploration thereof, and, only when a warrant of seizure or of search is issued from the court with regard to the facts constituting a separate crime, the investigative institution can legally seize or search such information. Therefore, any evidence acquired by an investigative institution without a warrant of seizure or of search in relation to electronic information beyond the scope of electronic information subject to seizure in a data storage medium voluntarily submitted corresponds to illegally obtained evidence.
The author hope to reflect this legal principles as soon as possible in National Assembly because our country is a Statute Law Country.
목차
Ⅰ. 대상 판결 (대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결)
Ⅱ. 문제의 제기
Ⅲ. 임의제출된 전자정보의 범위
Ⅳ. 제3자 임의제출의 적법성 여부
Ⅴ. 관련성 원칙과 참여권 법리가 임의제출 압수 절차에도 적용되는지 여부
Ⅵ. 유사사례(불법 촬영범죄)에서의 판례 동향
Ⅶ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
디지털증거에 대한 압수 · 수색에 있어서 대상과 종료시점
법학연구
2017 .11
-
디지털 증거 압수절차의 적정성 문제 - 피압수자 참여 범위 및 영장 무관 정보의 압수를 중심으로 -
형사판례연구
2016 .01
-
전자정보 역외 압수･수색의 입법 개선 방향에 대한 소고
원광법학
2023 .03
-
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
2020 .01
-
‘유동적 위법’ 개념을 통한 영장, 임의제출에 의한 디지털 증거의 압수수색과 증거능력의 이해
사법
2020 .01
-
전자정보에 대한 압수·수색의 참여권, 실질적 피압수자의 개념의 등장과 흐름 - 대법원 2023. 9. 18. 선고 2022도7453 판례과 관련하여 -
아주법학
2024 .02
-
전자정보의 압수·수색에 관한 특례법안에 대한 검토
형사법의 신동향
2024 .09
-
디지털증거의 압수·수색과 절차적 진실 -대법원 2015.07.16 선고 2011모1839 전원합의체 결정 -
형사법연구
2016 .01
-
형사절차에서 전자정보의 탐색 및 압수
비교형사법연구
2023 .01
-
디지털 증거의 증거능력에 관한 대법원 판례 분석 - 위법수집증거와 증거능력을 중심으로 -
디지털포렌식연구
2019 .03
-
디지털 증거의 압수·수색 과정에서 원격 참여를 통한 참여권 보장
치안정책연구
2020 .01
-
디지털 증거의 압수·수색절차에 관한 판례 연구 : 대법원 2015. 7. 16.자 2011모1839 전원합의체 결정을 중심으로
중앙법학
2017 .06
-
디지털 증거 압수․수색에서 참여권 보장
법이론실무연구
2025 .02
-
미국에서의 정보저장매체의 압수·수색에 관한 연구
법학연구
2015 .01
-
정보저장매체의 임의제출과 참여권 - 대법원 2022. 1. 27. 선고 2021도11170 판결 -
법학연구
2023 .09
-
2007년 이후 형사소송법 주요 판례의 동향 ― 수사절차와 증거에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 ―
형사판례연구
2017 .01
-
수사절차상 압수·수색규정에 대한 비판적 검토
비교형사법연구
2015 .01
-
전자정보의 압수수색절차에서 참여권의 범위와 한계 - 대법원 2015. 7. 16.자 2011모1839 전원합의체 결정을 중심으로 -
법조
2015 .01
-
정보저장매체 등을 외부로 반출한 이후의 절차에서 피압수자의 참여권을 둘러싼 실무상 쟁점과 해석론
영남법학
2015 .01
-
정보저장매체 등의 압수 · 수색에서 참여권
저스티스
2015 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0