대상 판결 사안은 판사의 날인만 누락된 압수수색 영장으로 압수한 증거물이 위법수집증거가 아니라고 판시한 사안이다. 위법하게 수집한 증거배제의 기준은 실질적 적법절차 원칙이 구현될 수 있도록 그 방향이 설정되어야 한다. 실질적 적법절차 원칙은 국가가 형벌권을 집행함에 있어서 피의자, 피고인 뿐만 아니라 범죄 피해자의 기본권을 보장하고, 국민 모두의 적법절차에 의한 형벌권 실현의 기대 및 신뢰를 보호하는 것이다. 따라서 수사기관의 위법행위를 판단함에 있어서 그것이 객관적으로 그리고 주관적으로 위법한지를 신중하게 검토하여야 한다. 객관적 위법성에 있어서 위법성의 경중을 고려하고 적법성 판단에 관한 수사기관의 재량을 합리적인 범위 내에서 인정하고, 주관적 위법성에 있어서 수사기관의 위법행위에 대한 의도 및 과실 정도를 고려해야 한다. 또한 위법성의 경중은 위반한 절차규정의 국민의 법익 내지 기본권 침해 정도에 따라 판단할 수 있다. 이러한 측면에서 대상 판결은 타당하다. 대상 판결사안에서 판사의 날인만이 누락된 압수수색 영장으로 압수한 것은 증거를 배제할 정도로 위법성이 중하다고 볼 수 없다. 판사의 서명, 간인, 자필 기재가 모두 존재하고 날인만이 누락된 것으로 법원이 수사기관에 압수수색권한을 부여했음을 외부적으로 충분히 표시해주었고 그렇게 충분히 인식가능하였다. 뿐만 아니라 법관의 날인이 누락된 영장에 의한 압수수색이 압수물의 이해관계인의 기본권을 침해한 것도 없고 디지털 증거의 압수수색과 관련한 선별적 사본 압수의 원칙 및 피압수자의 참여권 보장도 모두 준수되었다. 또한 위법성을 초래한 과실도 수사기관이 아닌 사법부 영역에 있으며, 영장의 외관상 유효하다고 믿은 수사기관의 판단이 합리적이고 의도적으로 위법행위를 감수하였다고 보기 어렵다.
위법수집증거배제의 기준에 관한 대법원 판례와 학계의 풍부한 논의가 지속적으로 전개되어 실무계에 좀더 명확한 지침을 제공함으로써 실체진실 발견과 실질적 적법절차 원칙이 이상적으로 조화되는 형사사법을 고대한다.
The issue of the ruling was to determine that the evidence seized by a search warrant, which was missing only seal of the judge, was not an illegal collection. The criteria for the exclusion of evidence collected illegally should be established so that the principle of actual due process can be implemented. The principle of actual due process is to guarantee the basic rights of crime victims as well as suspects and defendants and to protect expectations and trust of all people about the execution of punishment by due process. Therefore in judging an investigative agency's misconduct, it should be carefully examined whether it is objectively and subjectively illegal. In objective illegality, the weight of illegality shall be taken into account and the discretion of the investigative agency on the judgment of legality shall be recognized within reasonable limits. In subjective illegality, the intent and degree of negligence of the investigative agency shall be taken into account. In this respect, the ruling is reasonable. The seizure of a search warrant without the judge's seal is not considered to be so illegal as to exclude evidence. There was no problem in recognizing that the court objectively authorized the investigative agency to search and seizure, because the warrant contained all the signatures and handwritten articles of the judge, and only the seal was omitted. In addition, the search and seizure by a warrant with the seal of a judge omitted did not infringe on the basic rights of interested parties and both the principle of confiscation of selective copies and the guarantee of the right of participation of the oppressor were observed in the search and seizure of digital evidence. In addition, the negligence resulting in illegality is in the jurisdiction of the judiciary, not the investigative agency, and the judgment of the investigative agency, which believed that the warrant was valid on the surface, is reasonable.
The issue of the ruling was to determine that the evidence seized by a search warrant, which was missing only seal of the judge, was not an illegal collection. The criteria for the exclusion of evidence collected illegally should be established so that the principle of actual due process can be implemented. The principle of actual due process is to guarantee the basic rights of crime victims as well as suspects and defendants and to protect expectations and trust of all people about the execution of punishment by due process. Therefore in judging an investigative agency's misconduct, it should be carefully examined whether it is objectively and subjectively illegal. In objective illegality, the weight of illegality shall be taken into account and the discretion of the investigative agency on the judgment of legality shall be recognized within reasonable limits. In subjective illegality, the intent and degree of negligence of the investigative agency shall be taken into account. In this respect, the ruling is reasonable. The seizure of a search warrant without the judge's seal is not considered to be so illegal as to exclude evidence. There was no problem in recognizing that the court objectively authorized the investigative agency to search and seizure, because the warrant contained all the signatures and handwritten articles of the judge, and only the seal was omitted. In addition, the search and seizure by a warrant with the seal of a judge omitted did not infringe on the basic rights of interested parties and both the principle of confiscation of selective copies and the guarantee of the right of participation of the oppressor were observed in the search and seizure of digital evidence. In addition, the negligence resulting in illegality is in the jurisdiction of the judiciary, not the investigative agency, and the judgment of the investigative agency, which believed that the warrant was valid on the surface, is reasonable.
