Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Relevance of electronic information from a disguised camera voluntarily submitted by a motel operator, and admissibility of evidence where the right to participate is not guaranteed
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 25, 2021, 2019Do7342 (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
Does video footage of other rooms stored in a disguised camera voluntarily submitted by a third party have relevance, and is admissibility of evidence denied merely because the suspect's right to participate was not guaranteed and no list of the seizure of electronic information was delivered?
Holding
The footage of the other rooms has the same date and place of the offenses and is suspected of being a series of offenses arising from habituality or the manifestation of sexual inclination, and therefore its relevance is recognized. The Supreme Court held that, as to a medium in which it is difficult to posit that other electronic information worthy of protection is mixed in, such as a disguised camera, admissibility of evidence may not be denied immediately on the sole ground of the failure to guarantee the right to participate and the failure to deliver the list.
Points at issue, verbatim
기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
Where, by virtue of its functions and characteristics, there is almost no room for electronic information that is the target of lawful seizure pursuant to the voluntary submission and electronic information that is not to be intermingled, so that in substance only electronic information that is the target of seizure is stored therein
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
임의제출에 따른 압수의 동기가 된 (호실 2 생략) 촬영에 관한 범죄혐의사실과 관련성이 있는 증거로서 관련성이 인정될 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
May be recognized as relevant as evidence related to the suspected crime of (Room 2 omitted) filming, which was the motive for the seizure based on voluntary submission.
Factors
- 범죄혐의사실과 관련되고 이를 증명할 수 있는 최소한의 가치가 있는 전자정보
- 범행의 직접증거가 휴대전화 안에 이미지 파일이나 동영상 파일의 형태로 남아 있을 개연성이 있는 경우
- 실질적 피압수자인 피의자에게 참여권을 보장하는 등 피의자의 절차적 권리를 보장하기 위한 적절한 조치
- 소지
- 통상의 압수절차 외에 피압수자에게 참여의 기회를 보장하지 않고 전자정보 압수목록을 작성
Unofficial English translation
• Electronic information that is related to the suspected crime and that has at least minimal value in proving the same
• Where there is a likelihood that the direct evidence of the act remains inside the mobile phone in the form of image files or video files
• Appropriate measures to guarantee the procedural rights of the suspect, such as affording the suspect, who is the person subject to seizure in substance, the right to participate
• possession
• Apart from the ordinary seizure procedure, without affording the person subject to seizure an opportunity to participate, and preparing a list of 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][3][4][5] 대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결(공2022상, 57) / [1] 대법원 2021. 8. 26. 선고 2021도2205 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Apart from disguised cameras, what information storage media, in terms of their functions and attributes, are recognized as media in which the mixing of other electronic information worthy of protection is difficult to posit?
This reading will be verified again if the legal principle on the seizure of voluntarily submitted electronic information in Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do348 is changed, or if Articles 121, 129, 218, and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act are amended.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
4 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) that read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 4 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test), Axis 5 (Factors), Axis 6 (Relation to precedent), and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Since the Holdings set out both the general principles of relevance and of procedural guarantees and the exception conditions turning on the possibility of information being mixed in, the reading may differ depending on whether the focus is placed on the application to a specific medium or on the statement of requirements for the exception.
정보저장매체가 기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “Electronic information that is related to the facts of the criminal suspicion and has at least minimal value for proving them / Where it is probable that direct evidence of the offense remains in the mobile phone in the form of image files or video files / Appropriate measures to guarantee the procedural rights of the suspect, such as guaranteeing the right to participate of the suspect, who is the person subject to the seizure in substance / Possession / Failing to guarantee the person subject to seizure an opportunity to participate and failing to prepare a list of the seizure of electronic information, beyond ordinary seizure procedure” vs Independent “Where the target and scope of the seizure of electronic information according to the intent of the person making the voluntary submission are unclear or cannot be ascertained / Electronic information that is related to the facts of the criminal suspicion that motivated the seizure following the voluntary submission and has at least minimal value for proving them / Forming part of a series of offenses arising from the manifestation of sexual inclination or propensity / Leaving almost no room for electronic information subject to the seizure and other electronic information to be mixed in / Failing to guarantee the person subject to seizure an opportunity to participate”
Relevance and the right to participate overlap, but the primary reading relies on the possibility that direct evidence remains and on ordinary procedure, while the independent reading relies on the unclear intent to submit and on the possibility of information being mixed in; more than half of the factors do not substantially overlap.
기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “States a new standard”
Since the Holdings address both the principle of guaranteeing the right to participate and the exception for media in which there is almost no room for mixing, it may be read as following existing precedent if attention is paid to the continuity of the principle, or as a new standard if attention is paid to the specification of the exception; however, the relation to precedent cannot be confirmed on the basis of the original text provided alone.
다만 위 전원합의체 판결의 경우와 달리 수사기관이 임의제출받은 정보저장매체가 그 기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Apart from disguised cameras, what information storage media, in terms of their functions and attributes, are recognized as media in which the mixing of other electronic information worthy of protection is difficult to posit?” vs Independent “If some private electronic information worthy of protection is also stored in a disguised camera, from what degree of mixing are the guarantee of the right to participate and the delivery of the list of the seizure of electronic information required?”
The primary reading asks about the range of other media to which the exception applies, while the independent reading asks at what degree of mixing of private information inside a disguised camera procedural guarantees become necessary.
기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우Raw 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, with respect to the three room cameras and the stored electronic information among the disguised cameras that the police received as voluntary submissions from the motel operator, Non-indicted 1, the intent to make a voluntary submission was unclear, the right to participate of the defendant or of counsel was not guaranteed at the time the seizure was executed, and no list of the seized electronic information was delivered; on those grounds it reversed the judgment of the first instance, which had found the defendant guilty with respect to the three rooms, and rendered a judgment of not guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, even if the scope of submission is unclear, the video footage of the three rooms, which has the same date and place as the filming of the reported room and is suspected of forming a series of offenses, has relevance as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. Further, the disguised camera, in light of its installation purpose and function, has a low possibility that separate electronic information worthy of protection is mixed in, and accordingly no measure beyond ordinary seizure procedure is required; the Court therefore recognized admissibility of evidence and, since the not guilty portion and the guilty portion stand in a relationship of concurrence of offenses, reversed the judgment of the court below in its entirety.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the medium that was voluntarily submitted is an information storage medium in which diverse electronic information concerning private life, such as a mobile phone, is mixed in
- Where other filmed materials have a different date or place of the offense, so that only the fact that they are simply offenses of the same or a similar type remains
- Where the third party submitted in bulk electronic information even beyond the scope that bears a specific connection to the facts of the criminal suspicion, and there are no circumstances from which the suspect's consent may be inferred
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it must be checked whether private electronic information unrelated to the facts of the criminal suspicion was actually stored on the medium, and whether such information was copied or printed out in the course of the search.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 전자정보를 압수하고자 하는 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) 및 이때 범죄혐의사실과의 관련성이 인정되는 범위 [2] 휴대전화를 이용한 불법촬영 범죄와 같이 범죄의 속성상 해당 범행의 상습성이 의심되거나 성적 기호 내지 경향성의 발현에 따른 일련의 범행의 일환으로 이루어진 것으로 의심되고, 범행의 직접증거가 휴대전화 안에 이미지 파일이나 동영상 파일의 형태로 남아 있을 개연성이 있는 경우, 그 안에 저장되어 있는 같은 유형의 전자정보에서 발견되는 간접증거나 정황증거는 범죄혐의사실과 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 인정될 수 있는지 여부(적극) [3] 피의자가 소유·관리하는 정보저장매체를 피의자 아닌 피해자 등 제3자가 임의제출하는 경우, 임의제출의 동기가 된 범죄혐의사실과 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 있는 전자정보에 한하여 압수의 대상이 되는 것으로 더욱 제한적으로 해석하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [4] 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 보장하는 등 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 경우, 압수·수색의 적법 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 이때 정보저장매체 또는 복제본에서 범죄혐의사실과 관련된 전자정보만을 복제·출력하였더라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [5] 피해자 등 제3자가 피의자의 소유·관리에 속하는 정보저장매체를 영장에 의하지 않고 임의제출한 경우, 실질적 피압수자인 피의자에게 참여권을 보장하는 등 피의자의 절차적 권리를 보장하기 위한 적절한 조치가 이루어져야 하는지 여부(적극) [6] 수사기관이 임의제출받은 정보저장매체가 기능과 속성상 임의제출에 따른 적법한 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보와 그렇지 않은 전자정보가 혼재될 여지가 거의 없어 사실상 대부분 압수의 대상이 되는 전자정보만이 저장되어 있는 경우, 소지·보관자의 임의제출에 따른 통상의 압수절차 외에 피압수자에게 참여의 기회를 보장하지 않고 전자정보 압수목록을 작성·교부하지 않았다는 점만으로 곧바로 증거능력을 부정할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where an investigative authority seeking to seize electronic information seizes an information storage medium and the electronic information stored therein by way of voluntary submission, and the target and scope of the seizure of electronic information in accordance with the intent of the person making the voluntary submission are unclear or cannot be ascertained, the target of the seizure is limited to electronic information that is related to the suspected crime that motivated the seizure based on the voluntary submission and that has at least minimal value in proving the same (affirmative), and the range in which the connection with the suspected crime is recognized at that time [2] Whether, in cases such as the crime of illegal filming using a mobile phone, where by the nature of the crime the habitual nature of the act is suspected, or it is suspected of having been committed as part of a series of offenses arising from the manifestation of sexual predilection or tendency, and where there is a likelihood that the direct evidence of the act remains inside the mobile phone in the form of image files or video files, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence found in electronic information of the same type stored therein may be recognized as having a concrete and individual connection with the suspected crime (affirmative) [3] Whether, where a third party such as the victim, other than the suspect, voluntarily submits an information storage medium owned or managed by the suspect, it must be interpreted even more restrictively such that only electronic information having a concrete and individual connection with the suspected crime that motivated the voluntary submission becomes the target of seizure (affirmative) [4] Whether, where an investigative authority that has received a voluntary submission of an information storage medium or a duplicate in which electronic information that is the target of seizure and electronic information that is not are intermingled fails to take appropriate measures, such as affording the person subject to seizure an opportunity to participate, in the course of a series of processes of transferring the information storage medium etc. to the investigative authority's office and searching, duplicating, and printing therefrom, the search and seizure is lawful (negative in principle), and whether the same applies even if only electronic information related to the suspected crime was duplicated and printed from the information storage medium or the duplicate (affirmative) [5] Whether, where a third party such as the victim voluntarily submits an information storage medium belonging to the ownership or management of the suspect without a warrant, appropriate measures must be taken to guarantee the procedural rights of the suspect, such as affording the suspect, who is the person subject to seizure in substance, the right to participate (affirmative) [6] Whether, where an information storage medium voluntarily submitted to an investigative authority has, by virtue of its functions and characteristics, almost no room for electronic information that is the target of lawful seizure pursuant to the voluntary submission and electronic information that is not to be intermingled, so that in substance only electronic information that is the target of seizure is stored therein, the admissibility of evidence may be denied outright on the sole ground that, apart from the ordinary seizure procedure based on the voluntary submission of the possessor or custodian, no opportunity to participate was afforded to the person subject to seizure and no list of seized electronic information was prepared and delivered (negative)
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 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제106조, 제218조, 제219조 [2] 형사소송법 제106조, 제218조, 제219조 [3] 형사소송법 제106조, 제218조, 제219조 [4] 형사소송법 제121조, 제129조, 제218조, 제219조 [5] 형사소송법 제121조, 제129조, 제218조, 제219조 [6] 형사소송법 제121조, 제129조, 제218조, 제219조, 제307조
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