디지털 증거의 압수수색에 관한 쟁점별 해석과 통제방안 -개정 형사소송법을 중심으로- (The Paper on Interpretation of Key Issues and Regulation in Collecting Digital Evidence)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 단국대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 37권 / 3호 / 129 ~ 168페이지
· 저자명 : 이흔재

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음