Privacy protection of seizure and search system

압수수색과 개인정보 보호의 문제

  • Kim, Woon-Gon (Dept.of Maritime Police, Chosun College of Science & Technology)
  • 김운곤 (조선이공대학교 해양경찰과)
  • Received : 2015.04.01
  • Accepted : 2015.04.21
  • Published : 2015.05.30


Bright development of information communication is caused by usabilities and another case to our society. That is, the surveillance which is unlimited to electronic equipment is becoming a transfiguration to a possible society, and there is case that was able to lay in another disasters if manage early error. Be what is living on at traps of surveillance through the Smart phones which a door of domicile is built, and the plane western part chaps, and we who live on in these societies are installed to several places, and closed-circuit cameras (CCTV-Closed Circuit Television) and individual use. On one hand, while the asset value which was special of enterprise for marketing to enterprise became while a collection was easily stored development of information communication and individual information, the early body which would collect illegally was increased, and affair actually very occurred related to this. An investigation agency is endeavored to be considered the digital trace that inquiry is happened by commission act to the how small extent which can take aim at a duty successful of the inquiry whether you can detect in this information society in order to look this up. Therefore, procedures to be essential now became while investigating affair that confiscation search regarding employment trace of a computer or the telephone which delinquent used was procedural, and decisive element became that dividing did success or failure of inquiry whether you can collect the act and deed which was these electronic enemy. By the way, at this time a lot of, in the investigation agencies the case which is performed comprehensively blooms attachment while rummaging, and attachment is trend apprehension to infringe discretion own arbitrary information rising. Therefore, a lot of nation is letting you come into being until language called exile 'cyber' while anxiety is exposed about comprehensive confiscation search of the former information which an investigation agency does. Will review whether or not there is to have to set up confiscation search ambit of electronic information at this respect how.


  1. Anita L. Allen, "Dredging up the past : Life logging, Memory, and Surveillance", 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 2008, p.63.
  2. Viviane Reding, "Privacy matters - Why the EU needs new personal data protection rules", The European Data Protection and Privacy Conference, Brussels, 30 November 2010.
  3. E-today, 2015. 1. 24.
  4. The Constitutional Court, 2005. 7. 21, 2003헌마282.425 Full Bench.
  5. SCP 2014. 7. 24, 2012다49933.
  6. Lee, Chul., "Admissibility of electronic records and Investigation of Computer Crimes(II)", Lawyers Association Journal, Vol.40. No.9, 1991. 9, p.34.
  7. Lee, Eun-Mo.,"The Problems on Investigation for Electronic Records", Criminal Law Review, The Korean Criminal Law Association, Vol.23, 2005. 6, p.158
  8. Lee, Kyung Lyul., "Grundlagende Uberlegungen uber Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme von >> Digital Evidence <<", Sungkyunkwan Law Review, Vol.21 No.2, 2009. 8, p.319.
  9. Oh, Gi Du., Exigent, Search and Seizure of Digital Information of the Revised Criminal Procedure Act, Presentation Paper at Jurisprudence Conference, The Korean Criminal Procedure Law Association, 2012. 2. 17. p.5.
  10. SCP 2007. 12. 13, 2007도7257.
  11. SCP 2001. 3. 23, 2000도486.
  12. Chun, Seung Soo., "A study on search, seizure and admissibility of digital evidence in criminal procedure", Dissertation, Law School, Seoul National University, 2011, p.86.
  13. Cho, Kuk., "Requirements for the Legitimate Warrants for Searches and Seizures of Computer Data", Korean Journal of Criminology, Vol.22 No.1, Korean Association of Criminology, 2010. 7, p.109.
  14. Supra Note 12, pp.109-110.
  15. Supra Note 11, p.85.
  16. SCP 2011. 5. 26, 2009모1190.
  17. Lee, Wan Kyu., "Search and Seizure of the Digital Evidence and the Concept of Relevancy", Lawyers Association Journal, Vol.62 No.11, 2013. 11, pp.100-101.
  18. Supra Note 16, p.101.
  19. United States v. Arnold, 533 F. 3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008).
  20. Peter W. Low/John C. Jeferies, Jr./Curtis A. Bradley, Federal Courts and the Law of Federal-State Relations, 7th Ed., Foundation Press, 2011.
  21. United States v. Antoine Jones, 556 U.S. 2012.
  22. Joshua Dressler/Alan C. Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1: Investigation, Lexis Nexis, 2010, p.68.
  23. United States v. Antoine Jones, 556 U.S. 4 (2012).
  24. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977).