압수수색에 있어서 ‘필요한 처분’의 의미와 해석 ― 일본, 미국과의 비교법적 검토를 중심으로 ― = Meaning and interpretation of ‘necessary disposition’ in search and seizure ― Focusing on comparative legal review with Japan and the United States ―

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 120 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code outlines the execution and necessary disposition of search and seizure warrants. Paragraph 1 states that the execution of a search and seizure warrant may include opening the premises or other necessary dispositions. Paragraph 2 allows for the same disposition to be made on the seized goods. Article 219 applies to the execution of warrants by investigative agencies. However, the concept of ‘other necessary disposition’ can be ambiguous and abstract, which may cause difficulties in interpretation and doubts about the meaning of the above provisions.
In this article, I examine the meaning and interpretation of the necessary disposition provision in relation to the execution of search and seizure warrants. In the past, the provisions only confirmed the use of physical force by investigative agencies to achieve the purpose of seizure. However, with the development of technology, these provisions are now being used as a basis for the exercise of tangible force or other disposition to achieve the purpose of seizure for complex events occurring at the scene of the seizure. This trend is developing in practice and case law.
In certain situations, taking photographs to accompany a search, entering a dwelling before executing a search warrant, developing seized film, and accessing usernames and passwords lawfully obtained during a remote search of electronic information may be considered discretionary searches or intermediate measures between discretionary searches and compulsory dispositions. These measures are less intrusive on fundamental rights and may therefore be included in the required disposition. However, the detention in a hospital under a forced urination warrant constitutes a form of coercion. Therefore, a separate warrant should be devised for this purpose.
The necessary disposition acknowledges the investigating authority's discretion regarding the circumstances preceding, during, and following the execution of a search warrant, but not the search itself. Its practical significance lies in determining whether the violation of fundamental rights can be linked to the illegality of the evidence obtained by the search warrant and constitute illegally obtained evidence in cases of gross deviation or abuse of discretion.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 나기업, "형사절차에서 검증, 감정 및 ‘필요한 처분’의 개념" (58) : 2021

2 전승수, "형사절차상 디지털 증거의 압수수색 및 증거능력에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2011

3 권오병, "형사소송법" 일신사 1972

4 노정환, "현행 압수･수색제도에 대한 비판적 고찰-실무상 문제점을 중심으로-" 2010

5 조광훈, "압수･수색영장의 집행절차에서 기타 ‘필요한 처분’의 의미와 한계" 31 (31): 2020

6 김기두, "신형사소송법" 박영사 1970

7 정대용 ; 김기범 ; 이상진, "수색 대상 컴퓨터를 이용한 원격 압수수색의 쟁점과 입법론" 2016

8 이성기, "미국의 체포･수색･압수제도의 이해-위법수집증거배제법칙과 명확성 원칙의 관점에서" 11 (11): 2011

9 김정헌, "강제수사실무절차론" 박영사 2023

10 辻本典央, "捜索差押令状の呈示のない住居等への立入-最決平成14年10月4日 刑集56巻 8号507頁" 53 (53): 2005

11 古田佑紀, "強制処分における実力行使の範囲" 34 (34): 1985

12 馬場俊行, "在宅被疑者に対する強制採尿令状(捜索差押許可状)による同被疑者の採尿場所への強制連行について" 37 (37): 1984

13 松田龍彦, "合衆国最高裁の Knock and announce(来意告知)法理の位置づけについての考察" 32 (32): 2021

14 佐藤文哉, "刑事訴訟法判例百選" 有斐閣 1986

15 Ellina Onisciuc, "Forced Catheterization: A Method of Substance Testing That Shocks the Conscience Should Be Disallowed In Its Entirety" 65 : 2020

16 Wayne R. LaFave, "Criminal Procedure" 2007