• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.6 no.5
• /
• pp.207-217
• /
• 2015

A Study on Problem of Impeachment Evidence in Criminal Proceedings for Employ by the Convergence Meaning of impeachment evidence in criminal proceedings is liking the spread of the branches moment. The first, there is to set limits of impeachment evidence. The amicable solution is to accept moving flexibly. In a concrete way must to make away with a constituent element unlawfulness. The second, problem a return to probative force exist. This problem agree in principle to resolve an issue for the testimony of an eyewitness. The third, how to admit that institution of criminal investigation after the testimony of an eyewitness exist. This attendant conditions are to eliminate illegality for the authenticity in he testimony of an eyewitness and for the observe due process. Therefore, we must observe due process without illegality to solve the problem for the convergence.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.13
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2007

The criminal procedure is based upon two ideal values, or 'speedy trial and economy of litigation' and 'finding truth and guarantee of human rights', which are conflicting each other. The so called summary trial system, a simplified procedure through which a judge handles clearly obvious and minor offences in a quick and efficient manner, has its essential purpose of termination lawsuits promptly and freeing suspects or defendants from criminal procedure at the earliest possible moment. But its excessive emphasis on this purport is very likely to result in insufficient examination and inadequate protection of suspects' or defendants' rights. Therefore, the summary trial system needs a variety of safeguards to prevent these feasible - but undesirable - effects. From this point of view, we should objectively review the current summary trial system. The main object of this study is to investigate what problems the system has both in institution and in practice, and to suggest legal measures, including the abolition of it, to improve the simplified procedure. In conclusion, the summary trial system should be maintained because it has still more merits than faults. And these defects will be able to be overcome by reform measures ; for example, the introduction of the right to opt between the summary procedure and the formal trial, the abolition of detention and so on.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.137-145
• /
• 2013

The most important thing in the trial reveal the truth regardess of civil trial or criminal trial. The criminal procedure should be amended to guarantee victims the right to attend court hearings, to receive information about the progress of their case. But the new Criminal Procedure Law 2007 stipulated merely reading right of investigation records after prosecution while reading and printing rights prior to prosecution were not legislated. All sections of the criminal justice process must ensure that the process of dealing with the offender should not increase the distress or add to the problems of victims of crime in secondary victimisation. Reading and printing rights of prior to prosecution should be stipulated at earliest to protect the criminal victims and to prevent the secondary victimisation, The purpose of this study is to practically protect the right of the victims on the criminal procedures.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.863-872
• /
• 2017

Digital material transferred to the court for litigation shall be disposed by the procedure in the court records management regulations and the digital material collected by the investigator in order to prove the suspect's allegation shall be disposed by the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Regulation No.876(digital material's regulation of collection, examine and management). the court ordered the disposal of digital material that is the subject of litigation based on the related laws when criminal lawsuits and civil lawsuits are finalized. however, there is no specific procedure to enforce the disposal order of the court, and the enforcement order stipulates that the enforcement agent is not a professional officer who has proven expertise but a related public official. there is a problem in the enforcement of digital material that the court ordered to disposal because it is not specified. therefore, this is paper proposes a procedure for effectively enforcing the court's order to revoke digital material.

• Proceedings of the Korea Information Processing Society Conference
• /
• 2004.05a
• /
• pp.1149-1152
• /
• 2004

컴퓨터가 현대 생활의 필수 도구로 자리잡으면서 컴퓨터를 매개로 이루어지는 범죄행위에 대하여 법적인 처벌 문제가 중요하게 대두되고 있다. 컴퓨터범죄를 형사적으로 처벌하기 위하여는 디지털증거의 증거능력과 증명력이 인정되어야만 한다. 하지만 디지털증거는 그 특성상 조작, 손상, 멸실의 우려가 높다. 디지털증거가 형사소송법상 유효한 증거로서의 증거능력을 인정 받기 위하여는 데이터의 변형 없이 수집하고 때로는 손상된 디지털 증거를 복구하여 원본과 동일하게 복사하여 정확히 분석한 후 제출되어야 한다. 이와 관련된 학문 전반을 컴퓨터포렌식이라고 하는데 국내법 혹은 국제법적으로 유효한 절차 및 수단에 따라 관련 증거들을 수집하여 함은 물론이고 과학적인 논거들로 입증하는 것이 또한 매우 중요하다. 현재 국내법상 디지털증거에 관한 입법이 없으므로 일반적인 증거증력에 관한 규정과 일부 판례를 차용하여 증거능력과 증명력을 갖춘 컴퓨터포렌식 절차를 제안 한다.

• Review of KIISC
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.81-91
• /
• 2008

디지털 매체의 증가로 인해 범죄의 상당한 부분이 디지털매체로 이루어지고 있다. 따라서 디지털 증거는 수사, 재판 과정에서 그 중요도가 점차 증가하고 있다. 그러나 형사소송법은 증거의 일반적인 규정만 하고 있을 뿐 디지털 증거에 관해서는 따로 규정하고 있지 않다. 또한 디지털 포렌식 절차에 대한 대부분의 연구는 범죄수사의 시간의 흐름에 따른 연구만 이루어질 뿐, 궁극적으로 법정에서 증거로 사용되기 위해 어떠한 절차를 따라야 하는지에 대한 연구는 이루어지지 않고 있다. 따라서, 현행 증거법에 맞게 디지털 포렌식 절차를 연구할 필요가 있다. 본 논문에서는 현행 증거법의 내용을 분석하고 현행 증거법에 적합한 디지털 포렌식 절차를 소개한다.

• Review of KIISC
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.44-53
• /
• 2016

본 논문에서는 그동안 축적된 디지털 증거 관련 판례를 분석하여 디지털 증거가 법정에서 유효하게 사용될 수 있는 증거 능력 요건을 검토하였다. 법정에 제출된 디지털 증거가 증거능력을 인정받기 위해서는 다음과 같은 요건을 충족해야 한다. 첫 번째 요건으로서 적법하게 수집된 증거이어야 한다. 영장주의에 위반하거나, 압수수색절차에 피압수자의 참여권을 보장하지 않은 경우에는 증거의 증거능력이 인정되지 않는다. 또한 그동안 논란이 되었던 별건정보도 앞서 살펴본바와 같이 대법원이 제시한 요건을 충족해야 한다. 두 번째 요건으로는 법정에 제출된 디지털 증거의 진정성이 인정되어야 한다. 대법원은 디지털 증거의 진정성이 인정되기 위해서는 무결성과 동일성, 신뢰성이 인정되어야 한다고 판시한바 있다. 세 번째 요건으로 법정에 제출된 증거가 전문증거인 경우에는 당사자의 동의가 없는 한 전문법칙의 예외에 해당되어야 한다. 2016년 5월 형사소송법 제313조가 개정되기 전에는 법정에 제출된 디지털 증거를 진술자가 진정성립을 부인하는 경우, 해당 문서가 업무상 필요로 작성한 통상문서나 기타 특히 신용할 만한 정황에 의하여 작성된 문서에 해당되지 않는 한 증거능력을 인정받을 수 없었다. 그러나 형사소송법 제313조 제2항의 개정으로 인하여 이제는 진술자가 진정성립을 부인하는 경우에도 "과학적 분석결과에 기초한 디지털 포렌식 자료, 감정 등 객관적 방법"에 의해 성립의 진정을 인정받을 수 있다. 과학적 분석결과에 기초한 디지털 포렌식 자료, 감정 등 객관적 방법에 대한 구체적인 내용은 앞으로 판례를 통해 정립해 나아가야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.11 no.9
• /
• pp.13-20
• /
• 2013

It was just over 20 years ago that the victim who had been seen as the forgotten man in criminal justice system for a long time started to participate in criminal proceedings and state his opinion. Other countries such as America and Japan provide crime victims with the opportunity to state freely about facts of damage as well as their opinions in criminal proceedings at present. However, Korea gives the victim the right of statement as a witness, though the statement of crime victim's opinion is the constitutional right. That is, as crime victims are not free from perjury they cannot actively state their views. Meanwhile, if the freedom of crime victims' statement is guaranteed in law and victims can state opinions with their own voice, victims' statement of opinion will help the victims treat and relieve their psychological damages. For these reasons, it is desirable that Korea, like the U.S. and Japan, gives crime victims the right to state their opinion without fear of perjury in criminal proceedings not as witnesses but as the aggrieved party.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.18 no.5
• /
• pp.446-454
• /
• 2012

This study discusses effective extraterritorial application of criminal Law outside the territorial sea. The paper focuses on the factual differences between vessels and cars which justify the varying standard. Thus, warrantless searches and safety inspection need to be validated because of the exigent circumstances of the sea. Warrantless searches at sea may also be justified based on border search exception. These theories in U. S. law will be helpful for legislation and law enforcement related to the Korean Coast Guard's mission. The paper also discusses Korean Coast Guard's Act's newly enacted provisions concerning search, arrest and hot pursuit.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.46
• /
• pp.113-140
• /
• 2016

Right to counsel means a defendant has a right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers), and if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in criminal law and constitutional law etc. First, any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel. When a criminal defendant is unable to secure counsel by his own efforts, the State shall assign counsel for the defendant as prescribed by act in article 12(4) of the constitutional law. Second, the defense counsel or a person who desires to be a defense counsel may have an interview with the defendant or the suspect who is placed under physical restraint, deliver or receive any documents or things and have any doctor examine and treat the defendant or the suspect in article 34 of the criminal law. Nonetheless, problems about guarantee of the rights to counsel to the national security violators like spy terrorist and etc will be important for Koreans to consider. That is because national security violators's cases are qualitatively different from general criminal offense's cases and historically, lawyer obstruct a investigation in the process of examination of a suspect for national security violators. Therefore, this study suggest a way that a restriction the rights to counsel with an attorney in cases of the national security violators. To this end, in this paper, I touch on restriction of right to counsel during interrogation in the England and Germany etc in comparison to that of Korea and review Korea's Supreme Court decision and Constitution Court decision to understand the prospective and trends for Korean investigation procedure improvement.