전자거래가 활성화되기 위해서는 전자문서의 활용과 그 법적 효과가 분명하여야 할 것이다. 이와 관련한 법적 효과에 대해 “전자거래기본법”과 그 개정안은 일반문서와 법적으로 동등하게 취급해야 할 것을 규정함으로써 이에 대비하고 있다. 하지만 구체적인 문제는 결국 민사소송상 전자문서를 증거로써 어떻게 취급하느냐에 귀결된다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 일반문서가 민사소송에서 어떠한 방법과 절차를 통해 증거로 채택되는지를 확인하고 이것이 전자문서에 어떻게 적용되는 지를 고찰하는 것은 의미 있는 작업이라고 생각된다. 우리나라 민사소송법이 “자유심증주의”에 의존하여 법관의 직관과 판단에 따라 증거의 채택여부가 결정되는 구조를 갖고 있다. 이에 비해 미국은 소송법을 통해 법관의 직관과 판단을 최소화하고 구체적으로 법정 요건에 따라 증거로 채택하는 “법정증거주의”에 따른다. 미국 증거법상 일반문서와 전자문서가 증거로써 어떻게 채택되는 지를 우리의 것과 비교 분석함으로써 “자유심증주의”에 의존하고 있는 우리나라 민사소송법에 좀 더 논의되어야 할 부분이 무엇인지를 살펴보고자 한다. 또한 소송법과 증거법의 체계가 전혀 다른 두 국가의 법을 비교함으로써 UNCITRAL의 “전자계약협약”이 어떻게 규율되고 어떠한 논의가 필요하였는지를 간접적으로 알릴 수 있다는 점이 본 논문의 연구 성과라고 볼 수 있다.

DESIGNIN AND OPERATION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM APPLYING COMPUTER FORENSICS AND ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATION Digital evidence will be used as a term, which means the electronic form of information which is necessary to confirm or prove the factum of all kinds of behaviors committed through the devices which have data processing ability including computer. It is expected that there will be the increase of legal conflicts surrounding electronic commerce activities as well as the increase of cyber crimes, as the number of Internet users are getting bigger. In order to solve the problems of conflicts derived from electronic commerce, the factum of electronic commerce activities must be confirmed. In order to confirm the factum of electronic commerce activities, the evidence is prerequisite. Almost all evidences relating to the electronic commerce activities exist in digital form. For the reason that the digital evidence can be easily damaged and changed, special management is required to collect, analyze, and preserve the digital evidence. In order to meet this requirement, this study proposes a basic model of digital evidence management system applying computer forensics and electronic authentication.

As the interception of communications infringe the close part of the privacy and the degree of the infringement is very serious, the law of protecting the secrecy of communications limits the group of crimes which can be the cause of the interception. As the result, the purpose of the limitation could not be achieved if the materials of evidence would not be restricted to use in investigation and prosecution only for the crimes within the limited group. We could admit the provision §12(1) of the law of protecting the secrecy of communications reasonable, which restrict the scope of the use of the evidence obtained by the interception of the communications. But the indentification materials of electronic communications includes only the names, the telephone numbers of the parties of the communication, the times fo the communication. It does not include the contents of the communications. The degree of the infringement could be said relatively minor and the law does not limit the scope of the crime which could be the cause of the request for the identification materials. Therefore, there would be no reason to limit the scope of the use of the evidence obtained by the request issued by the court. Nevertheless, the provision §13-5 of the law of protecting the secrecy of communications provides that the provision §12(1) which restrict the use of the evidence obtained by the interception apply correspondingly to the indentification materials of electronic communications. From the point of view of legislation, the provision §13-5 could be said inappropriate and should be eliminated in the future.