Admissibility of Evidence of Emails Seized After Transmitting Only a Fax Copy of the Warrant Without Presenting the Original

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 family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).

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, on the premise that the investigative authority, when executing the warrant at Non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. on January 11, 2010, transmitted only a copy of the warrant by fax without presenting the original, and cannot be regarded as having delivered a written report of seizure and a list of seized items, held that the seized emails were illegally obtained evidence, and that even the exceptional cases in which admissibility of evidence may be recognized did not apply, as they infringed the substantive content of due process; it therefore upheld the first-instance judgment that found not guilty the corresponding portion of the charged facts of praise and encouragement. It also upheld the not guilty finding on the charged facts of espionage alleged in the alternative and the remaining guilty portions.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held the court below's determination to be proper, under the legal principle of the en banc judgment in Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3061 that the provisions on presentation of the warrant and delivery of the list of seized items embody the constitutional principles of due process and the warrant requirement and their normative force must be firmly maintained. It accepted neither the defendant's nor the prosecution's final appeal and dismissed both final appeals.

Distinguishing conditions

• A case in which the original warrant was presented to the person subject to the disposition and a written report of seizure and a list of seized items were prepared and delivered
• A case in which, notwithstanding a procedural violation, the substantive content of due process was not infringed, so that admissibility of evidence may exceptionally be recognized as an exception to the rule on illegally obtained evidence
• A case in which seizure without a warrant is permitted by law, or in which there is a separate lawful basis for collection, such as voluntary submission

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same conclusion, the records should first be checked as to whether the original warrant was in fact not presented at the time of execution, whether the list of seized items was not delivered to the person whose items were seized, and whether that violation reached the degree of infringing the substantive content of due process.

From the official text

Points at issue

[1] 형사소송법 등에서 정한 절차에 따르지 않고 수집된 증거를 유죄 인정의 증거로 삼을 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 수사기관이 갑 주식회사에서 압수수색영장을 집행하면서 갑 회사에 팩스로 영장 사본을 송신하기만 하고 영장 원본을 제시하거나 압수조서와 압수물 목록을 작성하여 피압수·수색 당사자에게 교부하지도 않은 채 피고인의 이메일을 압수한 후 이를 증거로 제출한 사안에서, 위와 같은 방법으로 압수된 이메일은 증거능력이 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례

Summary of the holding

The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.

Order

상고를 모두 기각한다.

Provisions referred to

[1] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제114조 제1항, 제118조, 제129조, 제215조, 제219조, 형사소송규칙 제58조 [2] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제114조 제1항, 제118조, 제129조, 제215조, 제219조, 형사소송규칙 제58조