我國2001 年修法雖增訂「電磁紀錄」為搜索客體（刑事訴訟法122 條），然其是否為扣押客體，學說上容有爭議。又於線上虛擬空間對電磁紀錄進行遠距搜索扣押是否亦為同條所許，並非無疑，通說雖採肯定立場，惟就「於線上虛擬空間中應如何劃定（明示特定）遠距搜索扣押之範圍？」此點卻未有深論，本文之目的即擬考察日本與德國之相關議論以深入探討此一問題，併重行思考，現行法所謂對電磁紀錄為搜索扣押，是否包括於線上虛擬空間進行遠距搜索扣押之情況？

An amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 (CCP §122) expanded the scope of objects of search to include ＂electronic record＂. However, there has been a controversy among scholars regarding whether electronic record is also an object of seizure. Moreover, considerable doubt exists as to whether the provision of CCP §122 justifies remote search and seizure of electronic record in an online virtual space. Although many people share the view that such search and seizure is justified by CCP §122, there has not been in-depth discussions regarding the specific scope of objects of search and seizure in an online virtual space. The purpose of this thesis is to explore this issue by reference to relevant arguments based on Japanese and German regulations and to discuss the legitimacy of including remote search and seizure in the online virtual space in the scope of electronic record of search and seizure defined by CCP §122.