Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Relevance of illegally filmed material from other periods found in a voluntarily submitted mobile phone, and the effect of the right to participate and of non-service of the list of seized items
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 13, 2022, 2016Do9596 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. 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.
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an investigative authority seizes a mobile phone that has been voluntarily submitted, may video footage of illegal filming from other periods stored in it also be found relevant and thus possess admissibility of evidence?
Holding
If the scope of submission is not clear, only electronic information related to the criminal suspicion that prompted the seizure becomes subject to seizure. However, in crimes of illegal filming, video footage of the same type may have a concrete and individual connection as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found that the defendant participated in the search and that his procedural rights were not substantially infringed by the non-service of the list of seized items, and accordingly recognized the admissibility of the video of the 2014 offense.
Points at issue, verbatim
임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보에 한하여 압수의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
whether the seizure is limited to electronic information that is related to the suspected crime that motivated the seizure by voluntary submission and that has at least minimal value to prove it (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
위와 같은 사실관계를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 2014년 범행에 관한 영상은 임의제출에 의해 적법하게 압수된 전자정보로서 그 증거능력을 인정할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Examining the facts as found above in light of the legal principle reviewed earlier, the video relating to the 2014 offense is electronic information lawfully seized by voluntary submission, and its admissibility of evidence may be recognized.
Factors
- 임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보
- 그 안에 저장되어 있는 같은 유형의 전자정보에서 발견되는 간접증거나 정황증거
- 피압수자 측에 참여의 기회를 보장하고
- 압수된 전자정보의 파일 명세가 특정된 압수목록
Unofficial English translation
• electronic information that is related to the suspected crime that motivated the seizure by voluntary submission and that has at least minimal value to prove it
• indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence found in the same type of electronic information stored therein
• guarantee the party subject to seizure an opportunity to participate and
• a seizure list specifying the file details of the seized electronic information
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do348 decided November 18, 2021
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결(공2022상, 57), 대법원 2022. 1. 27. 선고 2021도11170 판결(공2022상, 486)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where the person making the voluntary submission expressly limited the scope of submission to specified videos, may relevance be broadly recognized as to other videos of the same type?
This reading will be checked again if the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the scope of seizure of voluntarily submitted electronic information or the guarantee of the right to participate are amended, or if the legal principle of the en banc judgment in 2016Do348 is changed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test) and the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the original text sets out the general elements of relevance and procedural guarantees while expressing the finding of illegality as the principle, the first reading may focus on application according to the individual circumstances, while the independent reading may focus on the statement of general elements.
임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보에 한하여 압수의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Even where the person making the voluntary submission expressly limited the scope of submission to specified videos, may relevance be broadly recognized as to other videos of the same type?” vs Independent “Even where the printed photographs are numerous or the dates and places of filming differ and are not readily identifiable, may the non-service of the list of seized items be regarded as not constituting a substantial infringement of rights?”
The first reading asks about the possibility of seizing other videos where the scope of submission was expressly limited, while the independent reading asks about the effect of non-service of the list of seized items where the photographs are difficult to identify.
임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보에 한하여 압수의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)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 the video concerning the 2014 offense was not related to the 2015 offense, that the defendant's right to participate was not guaranteed during the search of the mobile phone, and that the list of the seized electronic information was not served, so that it was illegally obtained evidence and lacked admissibility of evidence. On the ground that there was no other evidence to corroborate the confession, it reversed the first-instance conviction as to the 2014 offense and pronounced a not guilty verdict.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, although the scope of submission was not clear, approximately 2,000 video files had been recorded with the same mobile phone over a period of about two years, raising suspicion of habitual conduct or the manifestation of a sexual preference, and that relevance to the 2015 criminal suspicion was therefore established. It found that the defendant participated by searching together during the first interrogation of the suspect, and that at the second interrogation he was shown five photographs taken at the same date and place, so that his procedural rights were not substantially infringed by the non-service of the list of seized items. As the not guilty portion stood in the relation of concurrent offenses with the guilty portion, it reversed the judgment of the court below in its entirety.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the person making the voluntary submission clearly expressed his intent to limit the scope of submission to specified videos
- Where, given the nature of the crime, no suspicion of habitual conduct or the manifestation of a sexual preference arises and the object of seizure extends to private electronic information in general
- Where the person whose property was seized could not participate in the search process at all, and the printed materials were so numerous that the object of seizure was difficult to identify by sight, with the result that procedural rights were substantially infringed
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check the record as to whether the intent concerning the scope of submission at the time of the voluntary submission was ascertained, whether the person whose property was seized actually participated in the search and printing process, and whether the non-service of the list of seized items substantially infringed procedural rights.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수사기관이 정보저장매체와 거기에 저장된 전자정보를 임의제출의 방식으로 압수할 때 임의제출자의 의사에 따른 전자정보 압수의 대상과 범위가 명확하지 않거나 이를 알 수 없는 경우, 임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보에 한하여 압수의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극) / 휴대전화를 이용한 불법촬영 범죄의 경우, 그 안에 저장되어 있는 같은 유형의 전자정보에서 발견되는 간접증거나 정황증거는 범죄혐의사실과 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 인정될 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재된 정보저장매체나 복제본을 임의제출받은 수사기관이 정보저장매체 등을 수사기관 사무실 등으로 옮겨 탐색·복제·출력하는 일련의 과정에서, 피압수자 측에 참여의 기회를 보장하고 압수된 전자정보의 파일 명세가 특정된 압수목록을 작성·교부하는 등의 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 경우, 압수·수색의 적법 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 이때 정보저장매체 또는 복제본에서 범죄혐의사실과 관련된 전자정보만을 복제·출력하였더라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] When an investigative agency seizes an information storage medium and the electronic information stored therein by way of voluntary submission, if the subject and scope of the seizure of electronic information in accordance with the will of the person who voluntarily submitted it are unclear or cannot be ascertained, whether the seizure is limited to electronic information that is related to the suspected crime that motivated the seizure by voluntary submission and that has at least minimal value to prove it (affirmative) / In the case of a crime of illegal filming using a mobile phone, whether indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence found in the same type of electronic information stored therein may be recognized as having a concrete and individual connection with the suspected crime (affirmative) [2] Where an investigative agency that has received by voluntary submission an information storage medium or a copy in which electronic information subject to seizure and electronic information not subject to seizure are intermingled, moves the information storage medium, etc. to the office of the investigative agency, etc. and carries out a series of processes of searching, copying, and printing, without taking appropriate measures such as guaranteeing the seized party an opportunity to participate and preparing and delivering a seizure list specifying the files of the seized electronic information, whether the search and seizure is lawful (in principle, negative) and whether the same holds true even if only the electronic information related to the suspected crime was copied and printed from the information storage medium or the copy (affirmative)
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
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제106조, 제218조, 제219조 [2] 형사소송법 제106조, 제121조, 제129조, 제218조, 제219조
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