Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Admissibility of evidence of recorded conversation files of third parties seized during execution of a warrant against another suspect
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 16, 2014, 2013Do7101 (judgment)
Case name: 공직선거법위반·정치자금법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where, during execution of a search and seizure warrant whose listed criminal facts concerned Gap's violation of the Public Official Election Act, recorded conversation files of Eul and Byeong were seized without a separate warrant, may the suspicions of Eul and Byeong be proved by those recorded files?
Holding
Insofar as suspect Gap, identified in the warrant, is unrelated to the suspected facts for which the recorded files are suspected, those recorded files cannot be recognized as related to the relevant case. The Supreme Court held that, as evidence collected through a serious illegality violating the warrant requirement, they cannot exceptionally be afforded admissibility of evidence either.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
수사기관이 별도의 압수·수색영장을 발부받지 아니한 채 압수한 녹음파일은 형사소송법 제219조에 의하여 수사기관의 압수에 준용되는 형사소송법 제106조 제1항이 규정하는 ‘피고사건’ 내지 같은 법 제215조 제1항이 규정하는 ‘해당 사건’과 ‘관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것’에 해당하지 않으며
Unofficial English translation
The recording file seized by the investigative authorities without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant does not fall within 'the case for which the defendant is prosecuted' provided in Article 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to seizure by the investigative authorities pursuant to Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or within 'things which may be recognized as being connected with the relevant case' provided in Article 215(1) of the same Act, and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
피고인 5의 상고와 검사의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals by Defendant 5 and by the prosecutor are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
별도의 압수·수색영장을 발부받지 않고 압수한 위 녹음파일은 위법수집증거로서 증거능력이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case holding that the aforesaid recording file, seized without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant, has no admissibility of evidence as illegally obtained evidence
Factors
- 압수·수색영장에 기재된 ‘피의자’인 갑이 녹음파일에 의하여 의심되는 혐의사실과 무관한 이상
- 별도의 압수·수색영장을 발부받지 아니한 채 압수한 녹음파일
- 헌법 제12조 제1항 후문, 제3항 본문이 규정하는 영장주의를 위반한 절차적 위법
- 헌법상 영장주의 내지 적법절차의 실질적 내용을 침해하는 중대한 위법에 해당하여 예외적으로 증거능력을 인정할 수도 없다
Unofficial English translation
• Insofar as A, the 'suspect' stated in the search and seizure warrant, is unrelated to the suspected facts of the crime suspected on the basis of the recording file
• The recording file seized without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant
• Procedural illegality violating the warrant requirement provided in the latter part of paragraph (1) and the main text of paragraph (3) of Article 12 of the Constitution
• Constituting a serious illegality infringing upon the essential content of the warrant requirement under the Constitution or due process, such that the admissibility of evidence cannot even be exceptionally recognized
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Would the same conclusion be maintained where the suspect named in the warrant is connected to the newly discovered suspected facts as an accomplice or otherwise, or where the investigative authorities immediately obtained a separate warrant?
We will re-examine this reading if follow-up case law emerges on the relatedness requirement of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 215 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or on the legal principle excluding illegally obtained evidence under Article 308-2.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, all 8 axes matched.
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 is Busan High Court Decision 2012No667 decided June 5, 2013. The provided beginning portion of the reasons contains only determinations on other counts of the indictment, such as receipt of money and goods, acts of contribution, and election expenses; the specific content of the court below's determination on the admissibility of evidence of the recorded files cannot be confirmed from the reasons.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court dismissed the final appeals of both the defendants and the prosecution, and in the Summary of Decision held that the recorded files seized without a separate warrant lacked relatedness, constituted illegally obtained evidence violating the warrant requirement, and could not exceptionally be afforded admissibility of evidence. In light of the operative part, it appears that the conclusion of the court below on this point was maintained.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the suspect named in the warrant is connected to the suspected facts for which the recorded files are suspected, as an accomplice or otherwise
- Where the investigative authorities, after discovering new suspected facts, obtained a separate search and seizure warrant and seized the relevant file
- Where the recorded file is recognized as related to the relevant case as material proving the warrant's criminal facts themselves
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, we check whether there is truly no personal or factual relatedness between the suspect named in the warrant and the new suspected facts, and whether there was any procedure that could cure the illegality, such as the issuance of a separate warrant or the participation of the person subject to seizure.
From the official text
Points at issue
수사기관이 피의자 갑의 공직선거법 위반 범행을 영장 범죄사실로 하여 발부받은 압수·수색영장의 집행 과정에서 을, 병 사이의 대화가 녹음된 녹음파일을 압수하여 을, 병의 공직선거법 위반 혐의사실을 발견한 사안에서, 별도의 압수·수색영장을 발부받지 않고 압수한 위 녹음파일은 위법수집증거로서 증거능력이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where, in the course of executing a search and seizure warrant issued with the criminal facts of suspect A's violation of the Public Official Election Act as the facts constituting the offense of the warrant, the investigative authorities seized a recording file of a conversation between B and C and thereby discovered the suspected facts of B and C's violation of the Public Official Election Act, a case holding that the aforesaid recording file, seized without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant, has no admissibility of evidence as illegally obtained evidence
Summary of the holding
수사기관이 피의자 갑의 공직선거법 위반 범행을 영장 범죄사실로 하여 발부받은 압수·수색영장의 집행 과정에서 을, 병 사이의 대화가 녹음된 녹음파일(이하 ‘녹음파일’이라 한다)을 압수하여 을, 병의 공직선거법 위반 혐의사실을 발견한 사안에서, 압수·수색영장에 기재된 ‘피의자’인 갑이 녹음파일에 의하여 의심되는 혐의사실과 무관한 이상, 수사기관이 별도의 압수·수색영장을 발부받지 아니한 채 압수한 녹음파일은 형사소송법 제219조에 의하여 수사기관의 압수에 준용되는 형사소송법 제106조 제1항이 규정하는 ‘피고사건’ 내지 같은 법 제215조 제1항이 규정하는 ‘해당 사건’과 ‘관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것’에 해당하지 않으며, 이와 같은 압수에는 헌법 제12조 제1항 후문, 제3항 본문이 규정하는 영장주의를 위반한 절차적 위법이 있으므로, 녹음파일은 형사소송법 제308조의2에서 정한 ‘적법한 절차에 따르지 아니하고 수집한 증거’로서 증거로 쓸 수 없고, 그 절차적 위법은 헌법상 영장주의 내지 적법절차의 실질적 내용을 침해하는 중대한 위법에 해당하여 예외적으로 증거능력을 인정할 수도 없다고 한 사례.
Order
피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 5의 상고와 검사의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5 and by the prosecutor are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 공직선거법 제47조의2 제1항, 제135조 제3항, 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제3항, 제6항, 형사소송법 제106조 제1항, 제215조 제1항, 제219조, 제308조의2
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