역외 압수·수색 수사에 관한 한일 최고법원판례 비교연구 = Comparative Study of Supreme Court Cases in Korea and Japan on Trans-border Seizure and Search Investigations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Due to the development of Internet technology, it is not unfamiliar that crime-related information is stored on overseas servers. There was a Supreme Court ruling in 2017 against the seizure and search of these overseas servers. According to our Supreme Court, the seizure and search of parts related to the alleged crime is carried out within the minimum range necessary for smooth and proper execution of the seizure and search warrants, and physical coercion recognized as justifiable in terms of social norms. It is permitted as an act of disposition, and it is said that it falls under the necessary disposition stipulated in Article 120 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This affirms the seizure and search of remote locations, saying that even if the storage medium in the remote location is outside the country, the situation will not be different. However, if the effect of a seizure/search warrant issued in Korea permits execution on an overseas server, ① that the effect of the domestic warrant will extend to overseas; ② The fact that it exceeds the scope of the expected compulsory disposition of material and causes interference with the right of defense, ③ In the case of an overseas server, it is difficult to accurately specify an exact specification is likely to infringe.
On the other hand, in 2021, the Supreme Court of Japan issued a ruling allowing remote seizures and searches abroad. In the case of Korea and Japan, there is a difference due to the seriousness of the crime, so it is difficult to compare and review on the same line. In this study, the necessity of offshore seizure and search in Korea and the content of legislative arguments regarding offshore seizure and search are reviewed, and the necessary matters for Korean legislation are presented from the current Japanese legislation, Choi Jae-rei and the February 1, 3, year decision. wanted to In the revision of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act in 2011, remote access was introduced as a stipulated regulation. Afterwards, in the case dealt with by the Japan Supreme Court's decision on February 1, 3, Reiwa, the investigators took note that, in accordance with Article 32 of the European Treaty on the Prevention of Cybercrime, remote access can be conducted with the voluntary consent of the suspects. It proceeded by requesting arbitrary consent from the suspects. However, in the decision made on February 1, 3, Lee Wa, the suspects and related persons came as part of a compulsory disposition, and that was the issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Japan divided the issues into whether there was voluntary consent and whether remote seizures and searches were permissible, and a judicial decision was made. In the end, the Supreme Court of Japan holds that even if arbitrariness is denied, it is legal as a compulsory investigation, and the contents of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act allow remote seizure and search not only domestically but also overseas. It was judged that offshore seizures and searches could be permitted on a limited basis (limited to the Contracting States of the European Convention on the Prevention of Cybercrime).
Accordingly, based on the precedents of the Supreme Courts of both countries and the academic opinion, the relevant laws in Korea include ① stipulation of offshore seizure and search, ② specification of arbitrariness requirements, ③ response to cases where the location of the server is not specified, ④ comprehensive data on offshore data Legislative considerations such as establishment of seizure/search and control agencies, and efforts to actively join and conclude treaties for effective response to transboundary cybercrime were presented. Through this, in order to effectively respond to transboundary cybercrimes, the legalization of remote seizure and search, which is claimed to be necessary in practice, and the clear scope and control agency are proposed to achieve the purpose of criminal investigation, to p...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이원상, "현행 디지털 증거 수집 관련 법률의 한계" 한국디지털포렌식학회 11 (11): 29-40, 2017
• 2 차종진, "이메일 원격지 압수·수색의 적법성에 관한 소고 - 대법원 2017.11.29. 선고 2017도9747 판결의 비판적 분석 -" 한국비교형사법학회 21 (21): 149-178, 2019
• 3 이정민, "외국계 이메일 계정에 대한 압수・수색의 정당성 – [대상판결1] 서울고등법원 제12부 2017.6.13. 선고 2017노23, [대상판결2] 서울고등법원 제8형사부 2017.7.5. 선고 2017노146 -" 한국비교형사법학회 19 (19): 117-147, 2017
• 4 "서울중앙지방법원 2016. 12. 15. 선고 2016고합538, 558(병합) 판결"
• 5 "서울고등법원 2017. 6. 13. 선고 2017노23 판결"
• 6 정대용 ; 김기범 ; 권헌영 ; 이상진, "디지털 증거의 역외 압수수색에 관한 쟁점과 입법론 - 계정 접속을 통한 해외서버의 원격 압수수색을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 65 (65): 133-182, 2016
• 7 이순옥, "디지털 증거의 역외 압수․수색" 중앙법학회 20 (20): 117-150, 2018
• 8 "대법원 2017. 11. 29. 선고 2017도9747 판결"
• 9 指宿信, "越境捜索を合憲適法とした最高裁判所令和3年2月1日決定ークラウド時代における域外データ取得方法とその課題" 民事法研究会 (92) : 2021
• 10 四方光, "越境リモートアクセスにより収集された証拠の証拠能力とわいせつ動画の投稿を促すサイト管理者の刑事責任" 有斐閣 (491) : 2021
• 11 深野友裕, "警察官が関係者から承諾書を超級するなどして国外に設置されたメールサーバにリモートアクセスした行為に月、関係者が錯誤に陥った可能性があり、任意の承諾があったとはいえないが、令状主義の精神を没却するような重大な違法があるとまではいえないと判断された事例(大阪高等裁判所平成30年9月11日判決・裁判所ウェウブサイト、上告中)" 立花書房 72 (72): 2019
• 12 井上正仁, "裁判例コンメンタルール刑事訴訟法　第1巻" 立花書房 2015
• 13 河上和雄, "注釈刑事訴訟法第2巻" 立花書房 2020
• 14 山田由光, "検証許可状に基づき押収済みのパソコンから海外メールサーバに接続した捜査に重大な違法があるとして証拠能力が排除された事例”" (832) :
• 15 山内由光, "松尾浩也ほか編実例刑事訴訟法Ⅰ" 青森書院 2012
• 16 水谷恭史, "有体物の物理的占有を前提とする現行刑事訴訟法の証拠収集ルールの限界" 民事法研究会 (93) : 2021
• 17 齋藤司, "最高裁判所令和3年2月1日決定の理論と越境捜索ー刑訴法学の観点から" 民事法研究会 (93) : 2021
• 18 "最高裁判所令和3年2月1日　決定"
• 19 "最高裁判所 令和3年2月1日, 平成30(あ)1381 第二小法廷決定(刑集第75巻2号123頁)"
• 20 後藤昭, "新・コンメンタール刑事訴訟法" 日本評論社 2018
• 21 四方光, "押収済みのパソコンから検証許可状に基づき海外メールサーバにリモートアクセスを行った捜査に重大な違法があるとして証拠排除した事例" 成文堂 (58) : 2018
• 22 杉山徳明, "情報処理の高度化等に対処するための刑法等を一部を改正する法律について(下)" 法曹会 64 (64): 2012
• 23 일본법무성, "情報処理の高度化等に対処するための刑法の一部を改正する法律案（閣 法第四二号）（衆議院送付）要旨"
• 24 "大阪高裁平成30年9月11日LEX/DB25449705"
• 25 石井由梨佳, "令和3年2月1日最高裁判所決定ー国際法学からの検討" 民事法研究会 (93) : 2021
• 26 "京都地裁平成29年3月24日LEX/DB25448598"
• 27 川出敏宏, "リモートアクセスの許容性" (37) : 2021
• 28 指宿信, "サイバーすベースにおける証拠収集とデジタル証拠の確保ー2011年改正法案を考える" 日本評論社 84 (84): 2011
• 29 吉戒純一, "【最高裁時の判例】刑事　電磁的記録を保管した記録媒体がサイバー犯罪に関する条約の締約国に所在し同記録を開示する正当な権限を有する者の合法的かつ任意の同意がある場合に国際捜査共助によることなく同記録媒体へのリモートアクセス及び同記録の複写を行うことの許否ほか――最二小決令和3・2・1" 有斐閣 (1562) :
• 30 Nicolai Seitz, "Trans-border Search: A New Perspective in Law Enforcement" 7 : 23-, 2004