학술논문

중국 법원의 증거조사권과 공민의 통신비밀권 간 충돌과 균형
The Conflict and Balance Between the Court's Power of Investigation and the Citizens' Right of Communication Secrets
Document Type
Article
Text
Source
중국법연구, 11/30/2018, Vol. 36, p. 157-180
Subject
중국
증거조사권
통신비밀권
권력(권리)충돌
권력(권리) 균형
China
The Power of Investigation
The Right of Communication Secrets
Conflict of Powers (Rights)
Balance of Powers (Rights)
中国
调查取证权
通信秘密权
权力(权利)冲突
权力(权利)平衡
Language
한국어(KOR)
ISSN
1738-7051
Abstract
伴随着科学技术水平的飞跃发展,各类电子信息在当代社会中的作用 日益突显. 在司法实践中,通过电子信息特别是通信信息获取当事人的身 份信息和财产信息日益成为人民法院调查取证的重要渠道. 然而,中国法 院在调查当事人的通信信息过程中,电信部门常常以公民享有通信秘密 权且系由宪法确认和保障为理由,拒绝提供案件当事人的通信信息. 为 此,法院行使调查取证权与电信部门以保护公民通信秘密权为由抵制法 院调查取证权的矛盾时有发生. 目前,法院调查取证权和公民通信秘密权的冲突在《宪法》、《民事 诉讼法》及其解释、《典型条例》等立法中予以体显. 而法院和电信部门 在理解和适用这些立法时又各执一词,互不相让. 法院调查取证权和公民 通信秘密权冲突的实质是公权力和私权利的矛盾、实体性权利和程序性 权利保障的冲突、当事人主义和职权主义的冲突、不同部门价值取向的 冲突. 文章在对法院调查取证权和公民通信秘密权界定的基础上,分析了法 院调查取证权和公民通信秘密权两者在立法中的冲突,并对冲突的实质 进行分析后,提出了平衡冲突的办法. 平衡法院调查取证权和公民通信秘 密权冲突的办法是肯定调查取证权和通信秘密权的同时,对通信秘密区 分用户信息、通信活动信息和通信内容信息,并对不同类型的通信秘密 予以不同程度的保护和限制,并明确调查取证权对不同类型通信秘密行 使权力的边界. 对于公民用户信息,法院可以依据职权进行调查,对于通 信活动信息,法院可以依据当事人申请并在符合一定条件的情况下进行 调查;对于通信内容信息,法院不能行使调查取证权.
With the rapid development of science and technology, various electronic information plays an increasingly prominent role in modern society. In judicial practice, obtaining the identity information and property information of the parties through electronic information, especially communication information, has become an important channel for courts in China to investigate and collect evidence. However, in the process of investigating evidence of the parties' communication information, the telecommunication department often refuses to provide the parties' communication information on the grounds that citizens have the right of communication secret which is confirmed and guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, the contradiction between the court's exercise of the power to investigate and collect evidence and the telecommunication department's resistance to the court's power on the grounds of protecting the citizen's communication secret right occurred from time to time. At present, the conflict between the court's power of investigation and the citizens' right of communication secrets is highlighted in the Constitution, the Civil Pocedure Law, the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and the Telecommunications Regulations. The courts and the telecommunications sector have been divided in their understanding and application of the legislation. The essence of the conflict between the court's power of investigation and the citizens' right of communication secrets is the conflict between the public power and the private right, the conflict between the substantive right and the guarantee of procedural right, the conflict between the inquisitorial system and the adversary system, and the conflict between the value orientation of different departments. On the basis of defining the court's power of investigation and the citizens' right of communication secrets, this paper analyzes the conflict in the legislation between the court's power of investigation and the citizens' right of communication secrets, and analyzes the essence of the conflict, then puts forward the method to balance the conflict. The method to balance the conflict of the court's power of investigation and the citizens' right of communication secrets is to affirm the court's right to investigation as well as the citizens' right of communication secrets, to distinguish the communication secrets from the user information, communication activity information and communication content information, to protect and restrict different types of communication secret to different degrees, and define the boundary of the court's power of investigation to exercise the power to different types of communication secret. With respect to citizens' user information, the court may conduct an investigation on the basis of its authority; with respect to communications activity information, the court may make an investigation on the basis of a party's application and under certain conditions; for the communication content information, the court cannot exercise the power to investigate and collect evidence.