Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Application of the warrant requirement to an act of opening export and import goods and taking possession thereof pursuant to a controlled delivery measure under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc.
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 18, 2017, 2014Do8719 (judgment)
Case name: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does an act of opening and inspecting a specific export or import item and taking possession of the contents thereof pursuant to a measure under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc. also require a warrant?
Holding
Ordinary customs inspections conducted for the purpose of proper customs clearance may be carried out without a warrant; however, an act of opening and inspecting a specific item and taking possession thereof pursuant to a measure under Article 4 (1) of that Act constitutes search and seizure for the purpose of a criminal investigation, and a warrant must therefore be obtained in advance or afterward. The Supreme Court upheld the court below, which denied the admissibility of evidence of the philopon secured without a warrant and of the related evidence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
마약류 불법거래 방지에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항에 따른 조치의 일환으로 특정한 수출입물품을 개봉하여 검사하고 그 내용물의 점유를 취득한 행위는 위에서 본 수출입물품에 대한 적정한 통관 등을 목적으로 조사를 하는 경우와는 달리, 범죄수사인 압수 또는 수색에 해당하여 사전 또는 사후에 영장을 받아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
An act of opening and inspecting a specific import and export item and obtaining possession of its contents as part of the measures taken pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc., unlike the case of conducting an investigation for the purpose of proper customs clearance, etc., of import and export items as seen above, constitutes seizure or search in a criminal investigation and therefore a warrant must be obtained either before or after the act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
범죄수사인 압수 또는 수색에 해당하여 사전 또는 사후에 영장을 받아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
constitutes seizure or search in a criminal investigation and therefore a warrant must be obtained either before or after the act.
Factors
- 법률에 따라 허용된 예외사유에 해당하지 않는 한
- 수출입물품에 대한 적정한 통관 등을 목적으로 조사를 하는 것
- 수사기관이 강제로 점유를 취득하지 않은 이상
- 특정한 수출입물품을 개봉하여 검사하고 그 내용물의 점유를 취득한 행위
Unofficial English translation
• unless it falls under an exception permitted by law
• conducting an investigation for the purpose of proper customs clearance of import and export items, etc.
• provided that the investigative authority has not obtained possession by force
• an act of opening and inspecting a specific import and export item and obtaining possession of its contents
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
영장주의 원칙이 적용되는지 여부(한정 적극)
Unofficial English translation
whether the warrant principle is applied (limited affirmative)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2013. 9. 26. 선고 2013도7718 판결(공2013하, 2048)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a customs officer, without any request from an investigative agency, independently opened and inspected the item and then discovered narcotics and submitted them, what is the specific criterion that distinguishes whether that inspection was for the purpose of customs clearance or for the purpose of an investigation?
If Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc. or the customs inspection provisions of the Customs Act are amended, or if a subsequent decision addressing the relationship between voluntary submission by customs officers and controlled delivery is handed down, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
Because the original text presents both the general principle of the warrant requirement and a specific classification of measures under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc., the former may focus on the novelty of the specific classification, while the latter may focus on the application of the general principle.
대법원 2013. 9. 26. 선고 2013도7718 판결(공2013하, 2048)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 held that, although the activity of attempting to conduct a controlled delivery of express cargo with the cooperation of the U.S. investigative authorities and Incheon Airport Customs was from the outset a search and seizure aimed at collecting evidence of specific criminal facts, no warrant was obtained in advance or afterward and the warrant requirement was thereby violated; it accordingly upheld the first-instance judgment, which denied the admissibility of evidence of the seized items, the seizure report, and the appraisal report and found the defendant not guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the customs officers brought the express cargo to their office without going through the ordinary customs clearance procedures and that the prosecution investigator seized it without a warrant in the form of a voluntary submission, and held that, although there are aspects in which the court below made insufficient findings concerning the role of the customs officers, its conclusion is just as grounded in the legal principle and is therefore proper; the Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the final appeal of the prosecution.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the opening of the item, the taking of samples, and the analysis of components took place within ordinary customs inspection procedures for the purpose of proper customs clearance, irrespective of any request by an investigative agency
- Where the customs officer voluntarily submitted to an investigative agency items that he or she had held in custody in the course of his or her duties for the purpose of customs inspection, so that it cannot be said that the investigative agency forcibly took possession thereof
- Where the investigative agency obtained a warrant in advance, or seized the items without a warrant due to urgent circumstances and obtained a warrant afterward without delay
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one first checks the records whether the opening of the item and the taking of possession stemmed from a request by an investigative agency under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc., or whether it was an inspection independently conducted by the customs officer within the ordinary customs clearance procedures.
From the official text
Points at issue
수출입물품을 검사하는 과정에서 마약류가 감추어져 있다고 밝혀지거나 그러한 의심이 드는 경우, 마약류 불법거래 방지에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항에 따라 검사의 요청으로 세관장이 행하는 조치에 영장주의 원칙이 적용되는지 여부(한정 적극) / 위 조항에 따른 조치의 일환으로 특정한 수출입물품을 개봉하여 검사하고 그 내용물의 점유를 취득한 행위가 범죄수사인 압수 또는 수색에 해당하여 사전 또는 사후에 영장을 받아야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the principle of warrant requirement applies to measures taken by the head of a customs office at the request of a prosecutor pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc., where, in the course of inspecting import and export items, narcotics are found to be concealed or such suspicion arises (limited affirmative) / Whether an act of opening and inspecting a specific import and export item and obtaining possession of its contents as part of the measures under the foregoing provision constitutes seizure or search in a criminal investigation and therefore requires a warrant to be obtained either before or after the act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
수사기관에 의한 압수·수색의 경우 헌법과 형사소송법이 정한 적법절차와 영장주의 원칙은 법률에 따라 허용된 예외사유에 해당하지 않는 한 관철되어야 한다. 세관공무원이 수출입물품을 검사하는 과정에서 마약류가 감추어져 있다고 밝혀지거나 그러한 의심이 드는 경우, 검사는 마약류의 분산을 방지하기 위하여 충분한 감시체제를 확보하고 있어 수사를 위하여 이를 외국으로 반출하거나 대한민국으로 반입할 필요가 있다는 요청을 세관장에게 할 수 있고, 세관장은 그 요청에 응하기 위하여 필요한 조치를 할 수 있다(마약류 불법거래 방지에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항). 그러나 이러한 조치가 수사기관에 의한 압수·수색에 해당하는 경우에는 영장주의 원칙이 적용된다. 물론 수출입물품 통관검사절차에서 이루어지는 물품의 개봉, 시료채취, 성분분석 등의 검사는 수출입물품에 대한 적정한 통관 등을 목적으로 조사를 하는 것으로서 이를 수사기관의 강제처분이라고 할 수 없으므로, 세관공무원은 압수·수색영장 없이 이러한 검사를 진행할 수 있다. 세관공무원이 통관검사를 위하여 직무상 소지하거나 보관하는 물품을 수사기관에 임의로 제출한 경우에는 비록 소유자의 동의를 받지 않았더라도 수사기관이 강제로 점유를 취득하지 않은 이상 해당 물품을 압수하였다고 할 수 없다. 그러나 마약류 불법거래 방지에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항에 따른 조치의 일환으로 특정한 수출입물품을 개봉하여 검사하고 그 내용물의 점유를 취득한 행위는 위에서 본 수출입물품에 대한 적정한 통관 등을 목적으로 조사를 하는 경우와는 달리, 범죄수사인 압수 또는 수색에 해당하여 사전 또는 사후에 영장을 받아야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제199조 제1항, 제215조 제1항, 제216조 제3항, 제218조, 마약류 불법거래 방지에 관한 특례법 제4조 제1항
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