查封搜查令审前制度的引入述评

Oung-Seok Jeong
{"title":"查封搜查令审前制度的引入述评","authors":"Oung-Seok Jeong","doi":"10.34222/kdps.2023.15.1.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The court administration seems to be pushing to revise the criminal procedure rules in a way that allows the court to interrogate suspects and other related parties before issuing a search warrant. For the reason for the revision, seizure and search of electronic information are highly likely to infringe on privacy, freedom, and self-determination of information due to the nature of electronic information, so it is necessary to improve seizure and search practice in order to comply with the principle of screening and ensure the parties' participation in the procedure. Of course, it is difficult to denigrate the intention of the amendment to strengthen the protection of the basic rights of the people by strictly regulating the excessive seizure and search of investigative agencies. However, even if only the world's most advanced human rights protection system is collected and incorporated into our legislation, it would be difficult to evaluate it as a truly reasonable system if it excessively hinders the discovery of the truth or the legitimate purpose of the investigation procedure. \nBesides, the purpose of the revision of the Criminal Procedure Rules is not simply to regulate the seizure and search warrant issuance procedures of district court judges, but to restrict the seizure and search procedures more strictly than originally planned. The revision may not seem to directly infringe on the basic rights of suspects or detainees, but it is difficult to conclude that if a warrant is issued by proceeding with a new procedure, it may result in infringement of the basic rights of suspects or detainees according to an unscheduled procedure. \nIn the 70th year of the Criminal Procedure Act, the constitutional consciousness that the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea lies with the people and all power comes from the people, is not the only issue of how to protect the people from state power (freedom from state) but now it is time to discuss and legislate. In other words, it is time to discuss victim-centered justice, which focuses on “minimizing misfortune” rather than “maximizing happiness,” aside from the question of how to control the fear of expanding public power. This is because as long as state power is viewed only as an infringer, it is difficult to prevent infringement of citizens who have to live under the flood of crimes every day. Now that the dictatorship has come to an end, I think it is time to “change the idea of looking at the country.” \nIn the end, while thoroughly guaranteeing the personal rights of suspects through the interrogation system(warrant substantive examination system) before arrest, it should be rejected to condemn or downplay the role(criminal investigation and prosecution) of investigative agencies for crime victims. This is why criminal proceedings should be centered on the two core values of “maintenance of the public interest of society” and “guarantee of individual human rights of citizens”.","PeriodicalId":384688,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Review on the Introduction of the Pre-Interrogation System for Seizure and Search Warrants\",\"authors\":\"Oung-Seok Jeong\",\"doi\":\"10.34222/kdps.2023.15.1.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The court administration seems to be pushing to revise the criminal procedure rules in a way that allows the court to interrogate suspects and other related parties before issuing a search warrant. For the reason for the revision, seizure and search of electronic information are highly likely to infringe on privacy, freedom, and self-determination of information due to the nature of electronic information, so it is necessary to improve seizure and search practice in order to comply with the principle of screening and ensure the parties' participation in the procedure. Of course, it is difficult to denigrate the intention of the amendment to strengthen the protection of the basic rights of the people by strictly regulating the excessive seizure and search of investigative agencies. However, even if only the world's most advanced human rights protection system is collected and incorporated into our legislation, it would be difficult to evaluate it as a truly reasonable system if it excessively hinders the discovery of the truth or the legitimate purpose of the investigation procedure. \\nBesides, the purpose of the revision of the Criminal Procedure Rules is not simply to regulate the seizure and search warrant issuance procedures of district court judges, but to restrict the seizure and search procedures more strictly than originally planned. The revision may not seem to directly infringe on the basic rights of suspects or detainees, but it is difficult to conclude that if a warrant is issued by proceeding with a new procedure, it may result in infringement of the basic rights of suspects or detainees according to an unscheduled procedure. \\nIn the 70th year of the Criminal Procedure Act, the constitutional consciousness that the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea lies with the people and all power comes from the people, is not the only issue of how to protect the people from state power (freedom from state) but now it is time to discuss and legislate. In other words, it is time to discuss victim-centered justice, which focuses on “minimizing misfortune” rather than “maximizing happiness,” aside from the question of how to control the fear of expanding public power. This is because as long as state power is viewed only as an infringer, it is difficult to prevent infringement of citizens who have to live under the flood of crimes every day. Now that the dictatorship has come to an end, I think it is time to “change the idea of looking at the country.” \\nIn the end, while thoroughly guaranteeing the personal rights of suspects through the interrogation system(warrant substantive examination system) before arrest, it should be rejected to condemn or downplay the role(criminal investigation and prosecution) of investigative agencies for crime victims. This is why criminal proceedings should be centered on the two core values of “maintenance of the public interest of society” and “guarantee of individual human rights of citizens”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":384688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34222/kdps.2023.15.1.23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34222/kdps.2023.15.1.23","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

法院行政部门似乎正在推进修改刑事诉讼规则,允许法院在签发搜查令之前对嫌疑人和其他相关人士进行审问。修改理由是,由于电子信息的性质,对电子信息的查封搜查极有可能侵犯信息的隐私、自由和自决权,因此有必要完善查封搜查实践,以符合筛选原则,保证当事人的程序参与。当然,通过严格限制调查机关的过度搜查,加强对国民基本权利的保护,这是很难诋毁的宗旨。然而,即使只收集世界上最先进的人权保障制度并将其纳入我国的立法,如果它过度阻碍了真相的发现或调查程序的合法目的,就很难评价它是一个真正合理的制度。此外,修改《刑事诉讼规则》的目的不是简单地规范地方法院法官的扣押和搜查令签发程序,而是要比原计划更严格地限制扣押和搜查程序。这一修改似乎没有直接侵犯嫌疑人或被拘留者的基本权利,但很难得出结论,如果按照新的程序发出逮捕令,可能会导致根据未排定的程序侵犯嫌疑人或被拘留者的基本权利。在《刑事诉讼法》颁布70周年之际,“大韩民国的主权属于国民”、“一切权力都来自国民”的宪法意识,已不再是如何保护国民免受国家权力(国家自由)的唯一问题,而是应该讨论和立法的时候了。换句话说,除了如何控制对公共权力扩张的恐惧之外,现在应该讨论以受害者为中心的正义,即关注“不幸最小化”而不是“幸福最大化”。这是因为,只要把国家权力视为侵权者,就很难防止每天都生活在犯罪洪流中的公民的侵权行为。既然独裁统治已经结束,我认为是时候“改变看待这个国家的想法”了。最后,在通过拘捕前的审问制度(拘捕令实质审查制度)彻底保障嫌疑人人身权利的同时,不应谴责或贬低犯罪受害人调查机关的作用(刑事调查和起诉)。因此,刑事诉讼应当围绕“维护社会公共利益”和“保障公民个人人权”这两个核心价值进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critical Review on the Introduction of the Pre-Interrogation System for Seizure and Search Warrants
The court administration seems to be pushing to revise the criminal procedure rules in a way that allows the court to interrogate suspects and other related parties before issuing a search warrant. For the reason for the revision, seizure and search of electronic information are highly likely to infringe on privacy, freedom, and self-determination of information due to the nature of electronic information, so it is necessary to improve seizure and search practice in order to comply with the principle of screening and ensure the parties' participation in the procedure. Of course, it is difficult to denigrate the intention of the amendment to strengthen the protection of the basic rights of the people by strictly regulating the excessive seizure and search of investigative agencies. However, even if only the world's most advanced human rights protection system is collected and incorporated into our legislation, it would be difficult to evaluate it as a truly reasonable system if it excessively hinders the discovery of the truth or the legitimate purpose of the investigation procedure. Besides, the purpose of the revision of the Criminal Procedure Rules is not simply to regulate the seizure and search warrant issuance procedures of district court judges, but to restrict the seizure and search procedures more strictly than originally planned. The revision may not seem to directly infringe on the basic rights of suspects or detainees, but it is difficult to conclude that if a warrant is issued by proceeding with a new procedure, it may result in infringement of the basic rights of suspects or detainees according to an unscheduled procedure. In the 70th year of the Criminal Procedure Act, the constitutional consciousness that the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea lies with the people and all power comes from the people, is not the only issue of how to protect the people from state power (freedom from state) but now it is time to discuss and legislate. In other words, it is time to discuss victim-centered justice, which focuses on “minimizing misfortune” rather than “maximizing happiness,” aside from the question of how to control the fear of expanding public power. This is because as long as state power is viewed only as an infringer, it is difficult to prevent infringement of citizens who have to live under the flood of crimes every day. Now that the dictatorship has come to an end, I think it is time to “change the idea of looking at the country.” In the end, while thoroughly guaranteeing the personal rights of suspects through the interrogation system(warrant substantive examination system) before arrest, it should be rejected to condemn or downplay the role(criminal investigation and prosecution) of investigative agencies for crime victims. This is why criminal proceedings should be centered on the two core values of “maintenance of the public interest of society” and “guarantee of individual human rights of citizens”.
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