Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Relevance of seized items to the charge stated in a search warrant
Supreme Court, June 1, 2023, 2018Do18866 (judgment)
Case name: 군사기밀보호법위반(예비적죄명:군기누설)[군사기밀보호법 위반 혐의에 관한 압수수색영장으로 압수한 증거물을 그 군사기밀보호법 위반죄 공범의 별건 범죄사실에 관한 증거로 사용한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May investigators seize evidence unrelated to the crime alleged as the ground for issuing a warrant, and may a seized item or the information obtained from it be used as proof of another crime without a separate warrant, and what does 'related to the case' in Article 215(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act mean?
Holding
No. The warrant requirement and the statutory-law principle on compulsory measures govern not only the collection of evidence but also the use of evidence obtained by compulsory measures, so evidence unrelated to the charge that grounded the warrant may not be seized, and without a separate warrant it may not be used to prove another crime. 'Related to the case' in Article 215(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act means that the item is connected with the charge stated in the warrant and has at least the value of proving it, through both objective and personal relevance; being of the same or a similar kind of offence is not enough.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여기에서 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다’는 것은 압수·수색영장에 기재한 혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 것으로서 압수·수색영장의 혐의사실과 사이에 객관적, 인적 관련성이 인정되는 것을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'related to the relevant case' means that it is related to the suspected facts stated in the search and seizure warrant and has at least minimal value in proving those facts, such that objective and personal relevance is recognized between it and the suspected facts of the search and seizure warrant.
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
여기에서 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다’는 것은 압수·수색영장에 기재한 혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 것으로서 압수·수색영장의 혐의사실과 사이에 객관적, 인적 관련성이 인정되는 것을 말한다
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'related to the relevant case' means that it is related to the suspected facts stated in the search and seizure warrant and has at least minimal value in proving those facts, such that objective and personal relevance is recognized between it and the suspected facts of the search and seizure warrant
Factors
- 범죄 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 증거를 압수할 수 없고
- 별도의 영장을 발부받지 아니하고서는 압수물 또는 압수한 정보를 그 압수의 근거가 된 압수·수색영장 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 범죄의 유죄 증거로 사용할 수 없다
- 범행 동기와 경위, 범행 수단과 방법, 범행 시간과 장소 등을 증명하기 위한 간접증거나 정황증거 등으로 사용될 수 있는 경우에도 인정할 수 있다
- 단순히 동종 또는 유사 범행이라는 사유만으로 객관적 관련성이 있다고 볼 수는 없다
- 압수·수색영장에 기재된 대상자의 공동정범이나 교사범 등 공범이나 간접정범은 물론 필요적 공범 등에 대한 사건에 대해서도 인정할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
• Evidence that is unrelated to the suspected crime facts cannot be seized, and
• Unless a separate warrant is issued, seized articles or seized information cannot be used as evidence of guilt for a crime unrelated to the suspected facts of the search and seizure warrant that served as the basis for the seizure
• It may also be recognized where the evidence may be used as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence to prove the motive and circumstances of the offense, the means and method of the offense, the time and place of the offense, and the like
• Objective relevance cannot be regarded as established merely on the ground that the offenses are of the same or a similar type
• It may also be recognized with respect to cases concerning accomplices, such as joint principal offenders or abettors of, as well as indirect principal offenders of, the person specified in the search and seizure warrant, and necessary accomplices and the like
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2016도13489 판결(공2017상, 496), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017도13458 판결(공2018상, 141), 대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2020도14654 판결, 대법원 2021. 12. 30. 선고 2019도10309 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13489, decided January 25, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 496), Supreme Court Decision 2017Do13458, decided December 5, 2017 (Gong 2018 Sang, 141), Supreme Court Decision 2020Do14654, decided July 29, 2021, Supreme Court Decision 2019Do10309, decided December 30, 2021
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2016도13489 판결(공2017상, 496), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017도13458 판결(공2018상, 141), 대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2020도14654 판결, 대법원 2021. 12. 30. 선고 2019도10309 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How concretely must the circumstances of the investigation link a seized item to the charge in the warrant before the specific and individual connection the Court requires is made out?
A later decision that narrows or widens the categories of accomplice recognised for personal relevance would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 215(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. A further Supreme Court decision on the exception to the exclusionary rule, such as a change to the approach in Supreme Court Decision 2015Do12400, would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How concretely must the circumstances of the investigation link a seized item to the charge in the warrant before the specific and individual connection the Court requires is made out?” vs Independent “Under what conditions could a subsequently obtained separate warrant permit use of unrelated information already encountered during the original search?”
The primary asks how concrete the connection to warrant allegations must be, while the independent asks when a later warrant permits use of previously encountered unrelated information.
여기에서 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다’는 것은 압수·수색영장에 기재한 혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 것으로서 압수·수색영장의 혐의사실과 사이에 객관적, 인적 관련성이 인정되는 것을 말한다.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 High Military Court, in its judgment of 15 November 2018 (2018No93), held that the items seized under the search, seizure and inspection warrant issued by a judge of the Seoul Southern District Court on 15 September 2015 were seized as evidence unrelated to the charge stated in that warrant and were therefore illegally collected evidence. It held that the two memo slips did not fall within any exception to the exclusionary rule, and that the other evidence gathered on the strength of those slips was derivative evidence whose causal link to the defective seizure had not been diluted or cut off, so all of it was excluded.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the relevance of the warrant, it held that the court below had not misread the law of objective relevance; on the exception to the exclusionary rule, it held that the court below had not breached the rules on the exception and on the admissibility of derivative evidence, nor exceeded the limits of free evaluation by deciding without necessary examination. It also noted that the prosecution's appeal on the principal charge set out no specific ground, and unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case where the only link between the seized item and the charge in the warrant is that they are offences of the same or a similar kind, since that alone does not establish objective relevance.
- A case where a separate warrant has been obtained for the other offence, since the bar applies only where no separate warrant was issued.
- A case where the person connected to the seized material is not a joint offender, instigator, indirect perpetrator or necessary accomplice of the person named in the warrant, so that no personal relevance exists.
Record verification notes
Set the seized item against the charge stated in the warrant, the target of the investigation and the circumstances of the investigation, and ask whether it has at least the value of proving that charge, rather than merely resembling it. Then check the personal link, whether the person falls within the categories of accomplice the Court listed. If the item is treated as unlawfully collected, gather everything on the purpose of the procedure provision, the content and degree of the violation, avoidability, the nature of the protected right, the investigator's knowledge and intent, and whether the causal link to later evidence was diluted or cut off.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수사기관이 영장 발부의 사유로 된 범죄 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 증거를 압수할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 별도의 영장을 발부받지 아니하고 압수물 또는 압수한 정보를 그 압수의 근거가 된 압수·수색영장 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 범죄의 유죄 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 영장에 의한 압수·수색을 규정한 형사소송법 제215조 제1항에서 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다’는 것의 의미 / 이때 압수·수색영장에 기재된 혐의사실과의 객관적 관련성이 인정되는 범위와 판단 기준 및 피의자 또는 피고인과의 인적 관련성이 인정되는 범위
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an investigative agency may seize evidence that is unrelated to the suspected crime that constitutes the ground for issuance of the warrant (negative) and whether, without obtaining a separate warrant, seized articles or seized information may be used as evidence of guilt for a crime unrelated to the suspected facts underlying the search and seizure warrant on which the seizure was based (negative) [2] The meaning of 'related to the relevant case' in Article 215 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for search and seizure by warrant / The scope in which objective relevance to the suspected facts stated in the search and seizure warrant is recognized at that time, the criteria for that determination, and the scope in which personal relevance to the suspect or defendant is recognized
Summary of the holding
[1] 헌법 제12조의 영장주의와 형사소송법 제199조 제1항 단서의 강제처분 법정주의는 수사기관의 증거수집뿐만 아니라 강제처분을 통하여 획득한 증거의 사용까지 아우르는 형사절차의 기본원칙이다. 따라서 수사기관은 영장 발부의 사유로 된 범죄 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 증거를 압수할 수 없고, 별도의 영장을 발부받지 아니하고서는 압수물 또는 압수한 정보를 그 압수의 근거가 된 압수·수색영장 혐의사실과 관계가 없는 범죄의 유죄 증거로 사용할 수 없다. [2] 형사소송법 제215조 제1항은 "검사는 범죄수사에 필요한 때에는 피의자가 죄를 범하였다고 의심할 만한 정황이 있고 해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 한정하여 지방법원판사에게 청구하여 발부받은 영장에 의하여 압수·수색 또는 검증을 할 수 있다."라고 규정한다. 여기에서 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다’는 것은 압수·수색영장에 기재한 혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 것으로서 압수·수색영장의 혐의사실과 사이에 객관적, 인적 관련성이 인정되는 것을 말한다. 혐의사실과의 객관적 관련성은 압수·수색영장에 기재된 혐의사실 자체 또는 그와 기본적 사실관계가 동일한 범행과 직접 관련되어 있는 경우를 의미하지만, 범행 동기와 경위, 범행 수단과 방법, 범행 시간과 장소 등을 증명하기 위한 간접증거나 정황증거 등으로 사용될 수 있는 경우에도 인정할 수 있다. 이때 객관적 관련성은 압수·수색영장에 기재된 혐의사실의 내용과 수사의 대상, 수사 경위 등을 종합하여 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 있는 경우에만 인정할 수 있고, 혐의사실과 단순히 동종 또는 유사 범행이라는 사유만으로 객관적 관련성이 있다고 볼 수는 없다. 그리고 피의자 또는 피고인과의 인적 관련성은 압수·수색영장에 기재된 대상자의 공동정범이나 교사범 등 공범이나 간접정범은 물론 필요적 공범 등에 대한 사건에 대해서도 인정할 수 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 헌법 제12조, 형사소송법 제199조 제1항, 제215조 제1항, 제307조, 제308조의2 / [2] 형사소송법 제215조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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