임의제출에 의한 수사기관의 전자정보 압수와 관련한 제 문제의 검토 - 대상판례: 대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결 및 대법원 2022. 1. 27. 선고 2021도11170 판결 = The Review of Issues Related to Seizure by Investigative Agency of Electronic Information Voluntarily Submitted - Subject case: Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do348 Decided November 18, 2021; Supreme Court Decision 2021Do11170 Decided January 27, 2022

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As the number of cases of search & seizure of electronic information storage media such as mobile phones by police or other investigative agencies for the purpose of obtaining electronic information increases, various issues arise due to the characteristics of electronic information that are different from those of ordinary seizure and search target.
After issues related to electronic information emerged through the lower court cases, the Supreme Court in 2011 first stipulated that taking out and imaging storage media such as computers at the execution site of search & seizure is only possible when it is unavoidable, and printing and copying only electronic information related to the alleged facts on the spot. so prior to the establishment of Article 106 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it was intended to implement the principle of warrant principle in the process of acquiring electronic information. since then, cases have been accumulated that have resolved issues related. for example, in the process of searching for electronic information, the participation of the confiscated person and the lawyer, and the right to receive a detailed list of the confiscated electronic information are clearly confirmed to ensure the legitimacy of the enforcement procedure, and when other criminal charges discovered by chance in the process of searching for electronic information, a separate search & seizure warrant was required for the seizure of related electronic information.
Meanwhile, investigative agencies have widely used the seizure by voluntary submission(consent seizure) of Article 218 of the Act for obtaining electronic information due to practical conveniences in which a warrant is unnecessary. the problem is that, unlike the example of a warrant, in the case of voluntary submission, the range of electronic information accessible to the investigative agency in the submitted storage medium is not clearly limited, and it is unclear whether procedural devices such as the right to participate in the search for electronic information and the issuance of a detailed list of confiscated electronic information should be equally applied. the main and comparative cases in this article have meaning by resolving the above controversy related to the voluntary submission of electronic information. Article 106 (3) of the Act applies even when voluntary submission is made, so when the intention of the voluntary submitter is not confirmed, seizure is limited to electronic information related to the alleged facts, and the procedures such as the participation of the confiscated person, etc. must be followed.
However, despite series of precedent cases, there are still areas that need to be reviewed. ① If the voluntary submitter expresses his intention to comprehensively submit the electronic information stored in the storage medium, can the investigative agency access the electronic information without restriction beyond its relevance to the alleged fact? in addition, in the case of voluntary submission by a third party who is not the subject of electronic information, ② who has the authority to arbitrarily submit electronic information and who participates in the enforcement process such as electronic information search or to whom is a confiscation list issued? in this case ③ does the investigative agency have to confirm the intention of a separate voluntary submission from the subject of the information or obtain a warrant for seizure in order to search for electronic information? and relating to controversy caused by lower court precedents related to seizure by Article 216, 217 of the Act, ④ in order to confirm the voluntary submission intention, can the investigative agency's duty to notify in advance about the meaning and effect of voluntary submission and its refusal right be acknowledged? In this article, the author proceeded with a discussion centering on the above points in relation to main and comparative cases. in conclusion...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최병각, "휴대폰의 압수와 저장정보의 탐색" 한국비교형사법학회 22 (22): 169-194, 2020

2 신이철, "형사소송법 제218조의 유류물 또는 임의제출물의 압수에 대한 소고" 대검찰청 (67) : 77-115, 2020

3 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2022

4 이주원, "형사소송법" 박영사 2022

5 이순옥, "현행범인 체포 및 임의제출물 압수와 관련한 대법원의 태도에 대한 연구 - 대법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015도13726 판결 -" 중앙법학회 18 (18): 339-372, 2016

6 조기영, "피의자의 동의 없는 혈액 압수의 적법성" 한국형사법학회 23 (23): 261-284, 2011

7 이 철, "컴퓨터범죄의 수사와 전자적 기록의 증거능력(중)" 법조협회 (420) : 1991

8 김태명, "체포현장에서 피의자가 임의제출한 휴대전화기의 압수와 휴대전화기에 저장된 정보의 탐색,수집" 한국경찰법학회 19 (19): 35-64, 2021

9 강동범, "체포현장에서 임의제출한 휴대폰의 압수와 저장정보의 수집" 한국형사소송법학회 13 (13): 33-60, 2021

10 박석훈 ; 함영욱 ; 백승철, "전자증거의 압수수색 및 임의제출 과정에서의 데이터 범위 한정가능성에 대한 고찰" 법조협회 64 (64): 37-56, 2015

11 이숙연, "전자정보에 대한 압수수색과 기본권, 그리고 영장주의에 관하여 - 대법원 2011모1190 결정에 대한 평석을 중심으로 한 연구 -" 한국헌법학회 18 (18): 1-44, 2012

12 최윤정, "전자정보 압수수색에 적용되는 영장주의 원칙과 그 예외에 관한 법적 검토 - 휴대폰 등 모바일 기기를 중심으로 -" 한국법학원 153 : 110-144, 2016

13 이은모, "전자적 정보에 관한 수사상의 문제점" 한국형사법학회 (23) : 156-175, 2005

14 김정한, "임의제출물의 압수에 관한 실무적 고찰" 대검찰청 (68) : 230-267, 2020

15 박용철, "임의제출물 제도의 개선방안-휴대전화1)를 중심으로" 법학연구소 23 (23): 1-31, 2022

16 안성조, "임의제출물 압수에서 ‘임의성’ 요건 - 자백배제법칙과 미란다 판결의 함의" 한국형사법학회 33 (33): 39-90, 2021

17 장석준, "임의제출된 정보저장매체에 저장된 전자정보의 증거능력" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 815-855, 2022

18 전치홍, "임의제출된 정보 저장매체에 대한 적법한 압수수색 절차" 한국형사정책학회 34 (34): 167-202, 2022

19 김혁돈, "영장없는 압수수색과 관련한 대법원의 태도에 대한 고찰" 법학연구원 (50) : 129-156, 2015

20 정웅석, "신형사소송법" 박영사 2021

21 황성민, "스마트폰에 대한 긴급압수⋅수색의 효력 범위에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 44 (44): 71-92, 2020

22 김형준, "수사기관의 혈액압수" 고시연구사 31 (31): 2004

23 "사법연감" 법원행정처 2021

24 "법원실무제요 형사(Ⅰ)" 법원행정처 2014

25 김영규, "미국 연방대법원의 “휴대폰에 저장된 개인정보 보호”에 대한 판결의 의의 - 피체포자의 휴대폰에 저장된 정보의 영장 없는 수색 제한에 관한 RILEY 판결을 중심으로" 한국형사법무정책연구원 25 (25): 1-40, 2014

26 전승수, "디지털 정보에 대한 압수수색영장의 집행- 대법원 2011. 5. 26.자 2009모1190 결정 -" 법조협회 61 (61): 237-276, 2012

27 원혜욱, "과학적 수사방법에 의한 증거수집- 전자증거의 압수·수색을 중심으로 -" 한국비교형사법학회 5 (5): 7-190, 2003

28 "경찰통계연보"

29 신동운, "간추린 형사소송법" 법문사 2021

30 緑大輔, "逮捕に伴う電子機器の内容確認と法的規律 Riley 判決を契機として" 15 (15): 2016

31 靑柳文雄, "註釋 刑事訴訟法 (一)" 立花書房 1981

32 森本直子, "被逮捕者の携帶電話の搜索と令狀の必要性 -Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473(2014)" 早稲田大学 比較法研究所 49 (49): 345-, 2015

33 松尾浩也, "條解 刑事訴訟法 新版增補版" 弘文堂 2001

34 酒卷匡, "搜索·差押とそれに伴う処分" 36 (36): 1997

35 伊舟俊彦, "實例 搜索·差押えの実際" 立花書房 2014

36 井上弘通, "增補 令狀基本問題 下" 一粒社刊 1998

37 池田修, "刑事訴訟法講義" 東京大學出版会 2012

38 平木正洋, "刑事訴訟法 判例百選" 2011

39 宇藤崇, "刑事訴訟法 判例百選" 2017

40 村瀨均, "刑事訴訟法 判例百選" 2005

41 安村勉, "刑事訴訟法 判例百選" 2017

42 白取祐司, "刑事訴訟法" 日本評論社 2015

43 田口守一, "刑事訴訟法" 弘文堂 2017

44 田宮裕, "刑事訴訟法" 有斐閣 2001

45 安富潔, "刑事訴訟法" 三省堂 2013

46 緑大輔, "刑事手続上の対物的処分における権利·利益の帰属と強制処分性" 51 (51): 2012

47 三浦正晴, "令狀請求の実際101問" 立花書房 2005

48 杉原降之, "令状に関する理論と実務 II" 2012

49 玉本將之, "令状に関する理論と実務 II" 2012