电子信息离岸扣押搜查立法完善方向述评

Soohan Lee, Gyeo-Cheol Lim
{"title":"电子信息离岸扣押搜查立法完善方向述评","authors":"Soohan Lee, Gyeo-Cheol Lim","doi":"10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, the exchange of information is mostly done through electronic media. The utilization of services that store data in the network is also increasing. This changed modern lifestyle led to a change in the form of evidence, and most of the evidence existed in the form of electronic information. Not only can digital evidence be digitized and stored, but it can also occur the possibility that the information is stored on overseas servers. The term “Offshore seizure and search” refers to a seizure and search method in which an investigative agency accesses an overseas server using the account information of the investigative agency or designated place to secure relevant evidence when it finds out the account ID and password of an investigated person's overseas server. There are various discussions on the procedural legality, such as the Seoul High Court making different rulings on these methods of seizure and search. The current Criminal Procedure Act regulates digital evidence through the proviso to Articles 106 (3) and 4 and 114 (1), but offshore seizure and search are only indirectly regulated through Article 120. The “necessary disposition” of Article 120 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows offshore seizure and search procedures, and the law takes “opening or opening a gun,” but there is disagreement on whether accessing an overseas server and obtaining digital information can be seen as a similar procedure. As such, the current Criminal Procedure Act was revised as digital evidence increased, but there is a limit to properly regulate evidence in a rapidly changing modern network environment. As previously confirmed, the Supreme Court seems to be trying to resolve the blind spots of the Criminal Procedure Act by establishing strict legal principles on the procedure while affirming offshore seizure and search through precedents. In the case of the United States and Germany, the institutional basis for offshore seizure and search is established through the revision of the law, while regulating its restrictions to explore the truth and minimize infringement of basic rights. The Korean Supreme Court is also developing the law of offshore seizure and search through the 2020 14654 and 2022 1452 rulings, but it will be difficult to secure legal justification for the collection of electronic information evidence that will gradually diversify only with the expanded interpretation of Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to stipulate procedural regulations through the specification of offshore seizure and search requirements. Since seizure and search are procedures that limit the basic rights of private persons, it is believed that the procedures and requirements stipulated by law will not contradict general principles of criminal law, such as the principle of due process, compulsory disposition, or prohibition of analogical interpretation. As the Supreme Court of Korea also establishes legal principles to protect the seized through rulings, it is necessary to stipulate these legal principles to protect the basic rights of the seized from excessive infringement. International legal cooperation should also be strengthened. Since the world, such as the Cyber Crime Convention, has some consensus to jointly respond to cybercrime, efforts should be made to give legal grounds not only for domestic law but also for international law, such as signing separate investigation cooperation agreements. If the law is revised to establish domestic legal regulations for offshore seizure and search procedures as a follow-up to the recent ratification of the Cyber Crime Convention, the stability of our criminal procedure law can be improved by giving legitimacy to remote seizure and search procedures.","PeriodicalId":430360,"journal":{"name":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","volume":"12 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review on the Direction of Legislative Improvement of Electronic Information Offshore Seizure and Search\",\"authors\":\"Soohan Lee, Gyeo-Cheol Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today, the exchange of information is mostly done through electronic media. The utilization of services that store data in the network is also increasing. This changed modern lifestyle led to a change in the form of evidence, and most of the evidence existed in the form of electronic information. Not only can digital evidence be digitized and stored, but it can also occur the possibility that the information is stored on overseas servers. The term “Offshore seizure and search” refers to a seizure and search method in which an investigative agency accesses an overseas server using the account information of the investigative agency or designated place to secure relevant evidence when it finds out the account ID and password of an investigated person's overseas server. There are various discussions on the procedural legality, such as the Seoul High Court making different rulings on these methods of seizure and search. The current Criminal Procedure Act regulates digital evidence through the proviso to Articles 106 (3) and 4 and 114 (1), but offshore seizure and search are only indirectly regulated through Article 120. The “necessary disposition” of Article 120 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows offshore seizure and search procedures, and the law takes “opening or opening a gun,” but there is disagreement on whether accessing an overseas server and obtaining digital information can be seen as a similar procedure. As such, the current Criminal Procedure Act was revised as digital evidence increased, but there is a limit to properly regulate evidence in a rapidly changing modern network environment. As previously confirmed, the Supreme Court seems to be trying to resolve the blind spots of the Criminal Procedure Act by establishing strict legal principles on the procedure while affirming offshore seizure and search through precedents. In the case of the United States and Germany, the institutional basis for offshore seizure and search is established through the revision of the law, while regulating its restrictions to explore the truth and minimize infringement of basic rights. The Korean Supreme Court is also developing the law of offshore seizure and search through the 2020 14654 and 2022 1452 rulings, but it will be difficult to secure legal justification for the collection of electronic information evidence that will gradually diversify only with the expanded interpretation of Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to stipulate procedural regulations through the specification of offshore seizure and search requirements. Since seizure and search are procedures that limit the basic rights of private persons, it is believed that the procedures and requirements stipulated by law will not contradict general principles of criminal law, such as the principle of due process, compulsory disposition, or prohibition of analogical interpretation. As the Supreme Court of Korea also establishes legal principles to protect the seized through rulings, it is necessary to stipulate these legal principles to protect the basic rights of the seized from excessive infringement. International legal cooperation should also be strengthened. Since the world, such as the Cyber Crime Convention, has some consensus to jointly respond to cybercrime, efforts should be made to give legal grounds not only for domestic law but also for international law, such as signing separate investigation cooperation agreements. If the law is revised to establish domestic legal regulations for offshore seizure and search procedures as a follow-up to the recent ratification of the Cyber Crime Convention, the stability of our criminal procedure law can be improved by giving legitimacy to remote seizure and search procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":430360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute\",\"volume\":\"12 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

今天,信息交换主要是通过电子媒体完成的。在网络中存储数据的业务的利用率也在不断提高。这种现代生活方式的改变导致了证据形式的变化,大多数证据以电子信息的形式存在。数字证据不仅可以被数字化和存储,而且也有可能被存储在海外服务器上。境外查封搜查是指调查机关在掌握被调查对象的海外服务器账号和密码后,利用调查机关的账户信息或指定地点进入海外服务器,以获取相关证据的查封搜查方式。首尔高等法院对扣押和搜查方式做出不同的判决等,对程序合法性的讨论也层出不穷。现行《刑事诉讼法》通过第106(3)条、第4条和第114(1)条的附带条款规定了数字证据,但第120条仅间接规定了离岸扣押和搜查。《刑事诉讼法》第120条第1项规定的“必要处理”允许进行海外扣押和搜查,并规定了“打开或打开枪支”,但对于访问海外服务器和获取数字信息是否可以视为类似的程序,存在分歧。因此,随着数字证据的增加,现行《刑事诉讼法》也进行了修改,但在快速变化的现代网络环境下,对证据进行适当的监管存在局限性。正如此前所确认的那样,大法院通过判例确认海外扣押搜查,并制定严格的程序法律原则,试图解决刑事诉讼法的盲点。在美国和德国的案例中,通过修改法律确立离岸扣押搜查的制度基础,同时规范其限制,以探索真相,最大限度地减少对基本权利的侵犯。大法院也通过2020年的14654和2022年的1452判决制定了“海外扣押搜查法”,但只有扩大对《刑事诉讼法》第120条的解释,电子信息证据的收集才会逐渐多样化,因此很难确定其法律依据。为了解决这些问题,有必要通过对离岸扣押搜查要求的规范来制定程序规定。由于扣押和搜查是限制个人基本权利的程序,因此人们认为,法律规定的程序和要求不会违背刑法的一般原则,例如正当程序原则、强制处理原则或禁止类比解释原则。大法院也通过判决确立了保护被扣押者的法律原则,为了保护被扣押者的基本权利不受过度侵害,有必要对这些法律原则进行规定。加强国际法律合作。既然国际社会对共同应对网络犯罪已经有了一些共识,比如《网络犯罪公约》,那么不仅要在国内法上给予法律依据,也要在国际法上给予法律依据,比如分别签署调查合作协议。如果作为最近批准《网络犯罪公约》的后续措施,修改法律,建立离岸扣押和搜查程序的国内法律规定,可以通过赋予远程扣押和搜查程序合法性,提高我国刑事诉讼法的稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Review on the Direction of Legislative Improvement of Electronic Information Offshore Seizure and Search
Today, the exchange of information is mostly done through electronic media. The utilization of services that store data in the network is also increasing. This changed modern lifestyle led to a change in the form of evidence, and most of the evidence existed in the form of electronic information. Not only can digital evidence be digitized and stored, but it can also occur the possibility that the information is stored on overseas servers. The term “Offshore seizure and search” refers to a seizure and search method in which an investigative agency accesses an overseas server using the account information of the investigative agency or designated place to secure relevant evidence when it finds out the account ID and password of an investigated person's overseas server. There are various discussions on the procedural legality, such as the Seoul High Court making different rulings on these methods of seizure and search. The current Criminal Procedure Act regulates digital evidence through the proviso to Articles 106 (3) and 4 and 114 (1), but offshore seizure and search are only indirectly regulated through Article 120. The “necessary disposition” of Article 120 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows offshore seizure and search procedures, and the law takes “opening or opening a gun,” but there is disagreement on whether accessing an overseas server and obtaining digital information can be seen as a similar procedure. As such, the current Criminal Procedure Act was revised as digital evidence increased, but there is a limit to properly regulate evidence in a rapidly changing modern network environment. As previously confirmed, the Supreme Court seems to be trying to resolve the blind spots of the Criminal Procedure Act by establishing strict legal principles on the procedure while affirming offshore seizure and search through precedents. In the case of the United States and Germany, the institutional basis for offshore seizure and search is established through the revision of the law, while regulating its restrictions to explore the truth and minimize infringement of basic rights. The Korean Supreme Court is also developing the law of offshore seizure and search through the 2020 14654 and 2022 1452 rulings, but it will be difficult to secure legal justification for the collection of electronic information evidence that will gradually diversify only with the expanded interpretation of Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to stipulate procedural regulations through the specification of offshore seizure and search requirements. Since seizure and search are procedures that limit the basic rights of private persons, it is believed that the procedures and requirements stipulated by law will not contradict general principles of criminal law, such as the principle of due process, compulsory disposition, or prohibition of analogical interpretation. As the Supreme Court of Korea also establishes legal principles to protect the seized through rulings, it is necessary to stipulate these legal principles to protect the basic rights of the seized from excessive infringement. International legal cooperation should also be strengthened. Since the world, such as the Cyber Crime Convention, has some consensus to jointly respond to cybercrime, efforts should be made to give legal grounds not only for domestic law but also for international law, such as signing separate investigation cooperation agreements. If the law is revised to establish domestic legal regulations for offshore seizure and search procedures as a follow-up to the recent ratification of the Cyber Crime Convention, the stability of our criminal procedure law can be improved by giving legitimacy to remote seizure and search procedures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信