자기 보관형 가상자산 압수 집행의 한계와 입법론적 검토

초록

Supreme Court decisions have recognized Bitcoin’s property value, eligibility for confiscation and seizure under the Criminal Procedure Act. However, these rulings do not resolve how seizure should be executed with respect to self-custodied virtual assets. Because a suspect may retain the private key or mnemonic code required to transfer the asset, seizure of a wallet device or access information alone cannot eliminate the suspect’s ability to dispose of the asset. Nor can pre-judgment preservation operate effectively without a third-party debtor or intermediary. This study argues that address transfer constitutes an independent compulsory measure, not a mere ancillary act under Article 120, and proposes a special statutory provision governing address transfer, court-supervised multi-party custody, and emergency transfer to a court-designated or court-managed temporary address to ensure secure custody, prevent unilateral disposal, and distinguish the procedures for return, confiscation, and collection.

키워드