• 정보보호학회논문지
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.863-872
• /
• 2017

소송을 위해 사법기관으로 이관된 디지털자료는 법원의 기록물관리규정에 명시된 절차에 따라 파기하며, 피의자의 혐의를 입증하기 위해 수사기관이 수집한 디지털자료는 대검예규 제 876호(디지털 증거의 수집 분석 및 관리규정) 또는 경찰청 훈령 제 766호(디지털 증거 수집 및 처리 등에 관한 규칙)에 의거 명시된 절차에 따라 파기한다. 사법기관은 형사소송과 민사소송 확정판결 시 관계법령을 근거로 하여 소송의 쟁점이 되는 디지털자료에 대해 파기명령한다. 하지만 사법기관의 파기명령 시 이를 집행할 수 있는 구체적인 절차가 존재하지 않으며 유일하게 제시된 저작권법 시행령에는 집행주체를 전문성이 검증된 전문집행관이 아닌 관계공무원으로 명시하였고 파기절차나 방법을 디지털자료의 특성을 고려하여 제시하지 않아 사법기관이 파기명령 한 디지털자료 파기 시 문제가 발생하고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 사법기관의 디지털자료 파기명령을 실효적으로 집행할 수 있는 디지털자료 파기명령집행절차를 제시한다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.