디엔에이감식시료의 채취, 관리 및 검색과 영장주의

The third amendment to the DNA Act was in accordance with the constitutional nonconformity of the Constitutional Court for not preparing a procedure for objection to the collection of DNA test samples in the previous DNA Act. However, under the DNA Act, the collection of identification information from DNA detection samples is for the purpose of identification in the event of a future crime, and is for the main purpose of crime prevention and is not an evidence collection activity for criminal investigation purposes in the corresponding criminal case. Nevertheless, it is being criticized for obtaining a court warrant in the same way as in criminal justice procedures for the collection of DNA identification information. It is also criticized for the fact that the DNA Act does not require a warrant for the identification and identification procedures, unlike the court's warrant for the collection of DNA detection samples. Therefore, in this paper, based on the existing discussions on the nature of the DNA identification information collection under the DNA Act, the problems of the warrant system of the Act were examined, and improvement measures were suggested. According to the DNA Act, the 'risk of recidivism' must be specified in the DNA Act as the requirement for collecting DNA detection samples because there must be a 'risk (or possibility) of recidivism' in collecting DNA samples. In addition, in order to ensure the predictability of recidivism, the nature of the DNA Act should be clarified by describing the criteria and methods of judgment, and the procedures should be supplemented to maintain the adequacy and fairness in the collection of DNA detection samples. In particular, even if the exception of warrantism is recognized by the consent of the subject of collection in the collection of DNA detection samples, the request for due process is supplemented by supplementing a procedural device that can guarantee that the consent has been made in a free state.