Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management (한국기록관리학회지)

Korean Society of Archives and Records Management (한국기록관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Judgment of Authoritative Records by Applying the Concept of Authenticity and Reliability

진본성, 신뢰성 개념을 적용한 공신력 있는 기록의 판단기준에 관한 연구

  • 이젬마 (숙명여자대학교 대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 오경묵 (숙명여자대학교 문과대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2020.07.22
  • Accepted : 2020.08.05
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study seeks to analyze the concepts of authenticity and reliability of records and apply them to the criteria for judging authoritative records subject to legal management. While reliability is determined by the degree of completeness and control in the records creation stage, authenticity is ensured by preventing manipulation and tampering that occur after records creation. Authoritative records with reliability in the creation stage are legally subject to management, so such records can be subject to punishment if they are destroyed because of negligence. It is necessary to take active measures to ensure reliability, continuous authenticity after creation, and complete records creation by controlled procedures and methods before records capture. The lack of such an evidential characteristic does not mean that it is not a record, and such records are also created in reality, managed in a system, and delivered to the next generation as a representation of social memory and activities.

이 연구에서는 공신력 있는 기록이 가져야 할 품질 중 진본성과 신뢰성의 개념을 분석하여 이를 실제 법적으로 관리해야 할 공신력 있는 기록의 판단 기준에 적용해 보고자 하였다. 신뢰성은 기록의 생산단계에서의 완전성과 통제의 정도에 의해 확보되는 품질인 반면, 진본성은 기록의 생산이 종료된 이후 발생하는 조작, 변조 등을 방지함으로써 보장 가능한 품질이라 할 수 있다. 공공기록물법상 기록의 정의는 매우 포괄적이므로 법률에서 대상으로 하는 기록과 현실 속에서 실제 생산되는 기록 사이에는 차이가 존재한다. 생산단계에서 신뢰성이 확보된 기록은 공신력 있는 기록으로 생산된 것이므로 이러한 기록이 함부로 폐기되었을 때에는 처벌의 대상이 될 수 있다. 따라서 기록이 획득되기 이전부터 통제된 절차와 방식에 의해 완결성 있는 형태로 기록이 생산되어 신뢰성을 확보하고, 생산 이후 지속적으로 진본성이 보장될 수 있도록 하는 적극적 조치가 필요하다. 다만, 그러한 증거능력이나 4대 속성을 갖추지 못했다고 해서 그것이 기록이 아닌 것은 아니며, 그러한 기록역시 현실에서 생산되고, 시스템에서 관리되며, 사회적 기억의 담지물과 활동의 재현물로서 다음 세대에 지속적으로 전달된다.

Keywords

References

  1. National Archives of Korea(NAK) (2019). A Study on the Legislative Evaluation and Improvement of the Public Records Management Act. Final Report(Korea Legislation Research Institute).
  2. Seol, Moon-Won (2005). Quality Criteria for Measuing Authenticity, Reliability, Integrity and Usability of Records. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 11, 5-38. UCI: G704-001548.2005..11.007
  3. Youn, Eunha (2019). A Study on the Concepts of Record from a Legal Perspective The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 60, 89-111. https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2019.60.089
  4. Lee, Kyungnam (2019). A Study on Authentication Model using Blockchain. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 59, 47-79. http://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2019.59.047
  5. Lee, Sang-Won (2012). Electronic Evidence and Best Evidence Rule, Contemporary Review of Criminal Law, 36, 50-104.
  6. Lee, Sook Yeon (2017). The Admissibility of Digital Evidence - The Status of Identity and Integrity in Assessing the Admissibility of Digital Evidence and the Interpretation of Article 313 of the Amended Criminal Procedure Act. The Justice, 161, 164-199.
  7. Lee, Yoon-Ju & Lee, So-Yeon (2009). A Policy Framework for the Long-term Preservation of Authentic Digital Records: Based on InterPARES Studies. The Korean Journal of Archival Studies, 19, 193-249. UCI: G704-001548.2009..19.006
  8. Cho, Kwang-hun (2015). The review and interpretation of the issues in the evidence admissibility of electronic information. Chung-Ang Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 183-237. http://doi.org/10.22853/caujls.2015.39.3.183
  9. Choi, Young Min (2018). Archival Analysis on Requirements for Admissibility of Evidence of Electronic Records. MA. PUSAN National University Graduate School.
  10. COOK, Michael (1986). The Management of Information from Archives. Aldershot, Hants, England: Brookfield, Vt., U.S.A: Gower.
  11. COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES (Clir) (2000). Authenticity in a Digital Environment. Washington (D.C.), Available in: .
  12. Dollar, Charles M (2000). Authentic Electronic Records: Strategies for Long-Term Access. Chicago: Cohasset Associates, Inc.
  13. Duranti, Luciana (1989). Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science(Part I). Archivaria, 28, 7-27.
  14. Duranti, Luciana (1995). Reliability and Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implications. Archivaria, 39, 5-10.
  15. Duranti, Luciana (1996). Archival Science. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York, Basel, Hong Kong: Marcel Dekker, 59, 1-19.
  16. Duranti, Luciana (2001). The Impact of Digital Technology on Archival Science. Archival Science, 1(1), 39-55, 2001. Doi:10.1007/BF02435638.
  17. Duranti, Luciana & Eastwood, Terry (1995). Protecting Electronic Evidence: A Progress Report on a Research Study and Its Methodology. Archivi and Computer, Roma, 3, 213-50.
  18. Duranti, Luciana & MacNeil, Heather (1997). The Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records: An Overview of the UBC-MAS Research Project. Archivaria, 42, 46-67.
  19. Duranti, Luciana & Rogers, Corinne (2012). Trust in digital records: An increasingly cloudy legal area. Computer Law & Security Review, 28, 522-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2012.07.009
  20. Duranti, Luciana & Rogers, Corinne(edited) (2019). Trusting Records in the Cloud. London: Facet Publishing.
  21. Gilliland, Anne (2018). Conceptualizing 21st-century archives. ALA Editions: Chicago.
  22. InterPARES I Authenticity Task Force (2002). Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic Records.
  23. ISO (2016). ISO 15489-1: Records management: concepts and principles. International Organization for Standardization.
  24. Jenkinson, Hilary (1937). A Manual of Archive Administration. New and Revised. London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co., http://www.archive.org/details/manualofarchivea00iljenk
  25. Library and Archives Canada (2016). General Application Guide for the Disposition Authorization for Transitory Records.
  26. MacNeil, Heather & Gilliland-Swetland, Ann (2005). Authenticity Task Force Report. In: DURANTI, Luciana (ed.) 2005, The Long-Term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records: Finding of the InterPARES Project. http://www.interpares.org/book/
  27. MacNeil, Heather & Mak, Bonnie (2007). Constructions of Authenticity. Library Trends. Baltimore, 56 (1), 26-52. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0054
  28. Rogers, Corinne (2016). A Literature Review of Authenticity of Records in Digital Systems: From 'Machine-Readable' to Records in the Cloud. acervo, rio de janeiro, 29(2), 16-44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320593846
  29. Yeo, Geoffrey (2018). Records, Information and Data. London: Facet Publishing.
  30. Federal Rules of Evidence. Retrieved 2020.05.15., from https://www.rulesofevidence.org/
  31. Finding of the InterPARES Project. http://www.interpares.org/book/
  32. InterPARES, InterPARES Project. Retrieved 2020.7.7., from http://www.interpares.org/
  33. InterPARES, InterPARES Trust Terminology. Retrieved 2020.05.25., from https://interparestrust.org/terminology/term/authenticity/en
  34. Society of American Archivists, Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Retrieved 2020.06.02., from https://dictionary.archivists.org/