Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Admissibility of Evidence Requirements for Documents Printed from Seized Digital Storage Media and Whether Ilshimhoe Constitutes an Enemy-Benefiting Organization
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007Do7257 (judgment)
Case name: 국가보안법위반(간첩)·국가보안법위반(잠입·탈출)·국가보안법위반(잠입·탈출)교사·국가보안법위반(찬양·고무등)·국가보안법위반(회합·통신등)·국가보안법위반(회합·통신등)교사·국가보안법위반(자진지원·금품수수)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What must be established in order to use as evidence a document printed from a seized digital storage medium?
Holding
It must be established that the content stored in the original and the printed document are identical, and for that purpose it must be guaranteed that the original has not been altered from the time of seizure until the time of printing. Where the printed document is used as testimonial evidence, the hearsay rule applies, and the genuineness of its establishment must be proven by the statement of its author or declarant.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
압수물인 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건을 증거로 사용하기 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본에 저장된 내용과 출력한 문건의 동일성이 인정되어야 하고, 이를 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본이 압수시부터 문건 출력시까지 변경되지 않았음이 담보되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to use documents printed out from a seized digital storage medium as evidence, the identity between the contents stored in the original digital storage medium and the printed-out documents must be recognized, and to this end, it must be guaranteed that the original digital storage medium had not been altered from the time of seizure until the time the documents were printed out.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
각 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
디지털 저장매체 원본에 저장된 내용과 출력한 문건의 동일성이 인정되어야 하고
Unofficial English translation
the identity between the contents stored in the original digital storage medium and the printed-out documents must be recognized, and
Factors
- 디지털 저장매체 원본이 압수시부터 문건 출력시까지 변경되지 않았음이 담보되어야 한다
- 자료의 동일성도 인정되어야 할 뿐만 아니라
- 컴퓨터의 기계적 정확성, 프로그램의 신뢰성
- 조작자의 전문적인 기술능력과 정확성이 담보되어야 한다
- 그 기재 내용의 진실성에 관하여는 전문법칙이 적용되므로
Unofficial English translation
• it must be guaranteed that the original digital storage medium had not been altered from the time of seizure until the time the documents were printed out
• not only must the identity of the data be recognized, but also
• the mechanical accuracy of the computer and the reliability of the program
• the professional technical skill and accuracy of the operator must be guaranteed
• as to the truthfulness of the contents stated therein, the hearsay rule applies, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 99도2317 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 99Do2317 decided September 3, 1999
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 99도2317 판결(공1999하, 2140)
Burden of proof
The prosecution Read from the decision
그 작성자 또는 진술자의 진술에 의하여 그 성립의 진정함이 증명된 때에 한하여 이를 증거로 사용할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
may be used as evidence only where the genuineness of its execution has been proved by the statement of its preparer or declarant
Open question and revisit condition
Where the author denies the genuineness of establishment in court, or the author is not identified, can the establishment of the printed document be proven by objective means such as digital forensic materials?
This reading will be re-examined if the method of proving the genuineness of establishment under Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is amended, or if subsequent decisions define the identity requirement for digital evidence differently.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by a different AI lineage (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 5 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 5 (Factors), Axis 7 (Burden of proof), and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “It must be guaranteed that the original on the digital storage medium has not been altered from the time of seizure to the time the document was printed / The identity of the materials must also be established / The mechanical accuracy of the computer and the reliability of the program / The operator's professional technical competence and accuracy must be guaranteed / Because the hearsay rule applies to the truthfulness of the contents stated therein” vs Independent “The identity of the content stored on the original digital storage medium and the printed document / The mechanical accuracy of the computer and the reliability of the program / A document intended for reporting to superiors or others rather than public certification / The number of its members, the manner in which the organization was formed, and its methods and records of activity / A system for maintaining the organization's internal order and leading the organization”
Identity and technical reliability overlap, but the first reading turns on immutability, the operator's competence, and the hearsay rule, while the independent reading adds the reporting purpose and the organized nature of the group, so the readings do not overlap by more than half.
압수물인 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건을 증거로 사용하기 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본에 저장된 내용과 출력한 문건의 동일성이 인정되어야 하고, 이를 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본이 압수시부터 문건 출력시까지 변경되지 않았음이 담보되어야 한다.Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The prosecution” vs Independent “Not addressed”
Because the original text imposes proof requirements for the use of evidence, the first reading may read a burden of proof on the prosecution, but as the text does not specify the party bearing the burden, the independent reading may take this as not addressed.
그 작성자 또는 진술자의 진술에 의하여 그 성립의 진정함이 증명된 때에 한하여 이를 증거로 사용할 수 있다Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the author denies the genuineness of establishment in court, or the author is not identified, can the establishment of the printed document be proven by objective means such as digital forensic materials?” vs Independent “Where some of the custody records of the digital storage medium after seizure are missing, by what supplementary materials can the immutability of the original be recognized?”
The first reading asks how to prove the genuineness of establishment without the author's acknowledgment, while the independent reading asks how to supplement the immutability of the original when custody records are missing.
압수물인 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건을 증거로 사용하기 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본에 저장된 내용과 출력한 문건의 동일성이 인정되어야 하고, 이를 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본이 압수시부터 문건 출력시까지 변경되지 않았음이 담보되어야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court 2007No929) found the printed document identical to the original on the basis of the sealing and video recording by the National Intelligence Service, the match between the hash values of the file imaged in the presence of the defendants and the original, and the verification results of the court of first instance. However, it admitted as evidence only the 53 documents whose genuineness of establishment the author acknowledged at first instance, and did not use the contents of the remainder as evidence on the ground that the genuineness of establishment had not been proven or the author was not identified.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, after setting out the legal principles on identity and integrity and on the hearsay rule, viewed the determination of the court below as justified, and rejected the prosecution's argument that the genuineness of establishment should be recognized on the basis of circumstantial material alone or that admissibility of evidence should be conferred under Articles 314 and 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It held that the consul's certificate of fact was not a document under Article 315 because it was a document intended for reporting to superiors rather than public certification, and held that Ilshimhoe, while possessing the character of benefiting the enemy, did not reach the level of an organized association and therefore was not an enemy-benefiting organization; it accordingly dismissed the final appeals of both the defendants and the prosecution.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where the identity of the original and the copy is not guaranteed because procedures such as sealing after seizure, comparison of hash values, or assurance of participation were not followed
- Cases where the printed document is used to prove the existence of the document itself rather than the truthfulness of its stated contents
- Cases where the seizure of the storage medium itself is unlawful and the evidence is excluded as illegally obtained evidence
Record verification notes
Before adducing a printed document as evidence, check each of the following separately: whether records of the sealing of the original and of the hash value remain, whether the document is used as testimonial evidence, and whether the author acknowledged the genuineness of its establishment.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건의 증거능력 [2] 대한민국 주중국 대사관 영사가 작성한 사실확인서 중 공인 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분이 공적인 증명보다는 상급자 등에 대한 보고를 목적으로 작성된 것인 경우, 형사소송법 제315조 제1호 또는 제3호의 문서에 해당하지 아니하여 증거능력이 없다고 한 사례 [3] 소위 ‘일심회’는 이적성은 인정되나 국가보안법 제7조 제3항이 요구하는 정도의 조직적 결합체에는 이르지 못하였으므로, 국가보안법상 이적단체에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Admissibility of evidence of documents printed out from a digital storage medium [2] A case where, with the exception of the officially certified portion of a certificate of fact prepared by a consul of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in China, the remainder was prepared for the purpose of reporting to a superior rather than as an official certification, and therefore did not fall within a document under Article 315 subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and lacked admissibility of evidence [3] A case where the so-called 'Ilsimhoe,' although its anti-state character is recognized, did not reach the degree of an organized association required by Article 7 paragraph (3) of the National Security Act, and therefore did not correspond to an anti-state organization under the National Security Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 압수물인 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건을 증거로 사용하기 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본에 저장된 내용과 출력한 문건의 동일성이 인정되어야 하고, 이를 위해서는 디지털 저장매체 원본이 압수시부터 문건 출력시까지 변경되지 않았음이 담보되어야 한다. 특히 디지털 저장매체 원본을 대신하여 저장매체에 저장된 자료를 ‘하드카피’ 또는 ‘이미징’한 매체로부터 출력한 문건의 경우에는 디지털 저장매체 원본과 ‘하드카피’ 또는 ‘이미징’한 매체 사이에 자료의 동일성도 인정되어야 할 뿐만 아니라, 이를 확인하는 과정에서 이용한 컴퓨터의 기계적 정확성, 프로그램의 신뢰성, 입력·처리·출력의 각 단계에서 조작자의 전문적인 기술능력과 정확성이 담보되어야 한다. 그리고 압수된 디지털 저장매체로부터 출력한 문건을 진술증거로 사용하는 경우, 그 기재 내용의 진실성에 관하여는 전문법칙이 적용되므로 형사소송법 제313조 제1항에 따라 그 작성자 또는 진술자의 진술에 의하여 그 성립의 진정함이 증명된 때에 한하여 이를 증거로 사용할 수 있다. [2] 대한민국 주중국 대사관 영사가 작성한 사실확인서 중 공인 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분이 비록 영사의 공무수행 과정 중 작성되었지만 공적인 증명보다는 상급자 등에 대한 보고를 목적으로 하는 것인 경우, 형사소송법 제315조 제1호의 ‘공무원의 직무상 증명할 수 있는 사항에 관하여 작성한 문서’ 또는 제3호의 ‘기타 특히 신뢰할 만한 정황에 의하여 작성된 문서’라고 볼 수 없으므로 증거능력이 없다고 한 사례. [3] 소위 ‘일심회’에 대하여, 반국가단체인 북한의 활동을 찬양·고무·선전하거나 동조하는 행위를 목적으로 하는 결합체로서 이적성이 인정되나, 그 구성원의 수, 조직결성의 태양, 활동방식과 활동내역에 비추어 단체의 내부질서를 유지하고 단체를 주도하기 위한 체계를 갖추는 등 조직적 결합체에는 이르지 못하였다고 보아, 국가보안법상 이적단체에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례.
Order
각 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제313조 제1항 [2] 형사소송법 제313조, 제314조 [3] 국가보안법 제7조 제3항
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger