수색과 압수의 제한규정에 관한 해석론적 고찰 -일본형사소송법을 참고하여-

Among various criminal legal issues since the martial law declared in December 2024, the purpose of this study is to examine the appropriate interpretation of Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which restricts search and seizure. The compulsory measures restricted by Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act include search in addition to seizure, and the question is whether this provision applies to the search of suspects. The literal interpretation of Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the purpose of the norm to protect military secrets were considered, and the provisions of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure, which are systematically similar to those of South Korea, were compared. The wording of this article on confidential military information does not exclude the search of suspects, and unlike other articles that only restrict seizure, it emphasizes the search by explicitly stating it. Considering that the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure broadly recognizes refusal of consent to include search in addition to explicit seizure, the search in Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reduced to a search preceding seizure, but is interpreted as a restrictive provision regarding the search itself. In the relevant article, if only the relevance of the crime is disclosed, the risk of harm to the national interest is considered, and the judgment is made by the person in charge, not the judiciary. In the relevant article, if only the relevance of the crime is disclosed, the risk of harm to the national interest is considered, and the subject of judgment is not the judiciary but the person in charge of the relevant location. This appears to be intended to hold those responsible politically and administratively responsible for their refusal to consent, rather than judicially. The independence of search is also drawing attention in the recent revision of the Criminal Procedure Act.