Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Legality of a seizure where the part of the warrant stating the criminal facts, which the person subject to seizure demanded to inspect, was not shown
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 16, 2020, 2019Mo3526 (ruling)
Case name: 준항고기각결정에대한재항고
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the investigative authority did not show the part of the warrant stating the criminal facts despite the demand of the person subject to seizure at the time of seizure, but counsel later inspected the warrant, can there be deemed to have been a proper presentation of the warrant?
Holding
If the person subject to seizure demanded a specific inspection of the contents of the warrant and those contents were nevertheless not shown, it is difficult to regard the matter as a proper presentation of a warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court below, which found the seizure lawful not by examining whether the warrant was presented at the time of seizure but by relying on the subsequent inspection by counsel.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
수사기관이 압수처분 당시 재항고인으로부터 영장 내용의 구체적인 확인을 요구받았음에도 압수·수색영장의 내용을 보여주지 않았던 것으로 보이므로 형사소송법 제219조, 제118조에 따른 적법한 압수·수색영장의 제시라고 인정하기 어렵다는 이유로
Unofficial English translation
on the ground that, notwithstanding that the investigative authority was demanded by the appellant to specifically confirm the contents of the warrant at the time of the seizure, it appears that the investigative authority did not show the contents of the search and seizure warrant, it is difficult to recognize the presentation of a lawful search and seizure warrant under Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원 부천지원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Bucheon Branch of the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
원심결정에 헌법과 형사소송법의 관련 규정을 위반한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
a case holding that the order of the court below erred by violating the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act
Factors
- 재항고인이 영장의 구체적인 확인을 요구하였으나 수사기관이 영장의 범죄사실 기재 부분을 보여주지 않았고
- 재항고인의 변호인이 재항고인에 대한 조사에 참여하면서 영장을 확인한 사안
- 압수처분 당시 수사기관이 법령에서 정한 취지에 따라 재항고인에게 압수·수색영장을 제시하였는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• although the appellant demanded a specific confirmation of the warrant, the investigative authority did not show the portion of the warrant setting out the criminal facts, and
• a case in which the appellant's attorney confirmed the warrant while participating in the examination of the appellant
• whether the investigative authority presented the search and seizure warrant to the appellant in accordance with the purpose prescribed by statutes and subordinate statutes at the time of the seizure
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Read from the decision
형사소송법 제219조, 제118조에 따른 적법한 압수·수색영장의 제시라고 인정하기 어렵다는 이유로, 압수처분 당시 수사기관이 법령에서 정한 취지에 따라 재항고인에게 압수·수색영장을 제시하였는지 여부를 판단하지 아니한 채 변호인이 조사에 참여할 당시 영장을 확인하였다는 사정을 들어 압수처분이 위법하지 않다고 본 원심결정에 헌법과 형사소송법의 관련 규정을 위반한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
a case holding that the order of the court below erred by violating the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, in that, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the presentation of a lawful search and seizure warrant under Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the order of the court below held that the seizure was not unlawful, citing the circumstance that the attorney confirmed the warrant at the time of participating in the examination, without determining whether the investigative authority presented the search and seizure warrant to the appellant in accordance with the purpose prescribed by statutes and subordinate statutes at the time of the seizure
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where the person subject to seizure did not demand a specific inspection, must the investigative authority show the part stating the criminal facts as well in order for the presentation of the warrant to be proper?
If the provisions of Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the manner of presenting a warrant or the furnishing of a copy are amended, this reading is to be checked again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another AI lineage (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, showed that 7 of the 8 axes agreed, while the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
In that the original text applied the duty to present a warrant under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act to the facts at hand, it may be read as following the existing legal principle, but since the relation to precedent is not expressly stated, it may also be read as cannot be determined.
형사소송법 제219조, 제118조에 따른 적법한 압수·수색영장의 제시라고 인정하기 어렵다Raw 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 recognized that the warrant was presented at the time of seizure, that the appellant in reappeal demanded a specific inspection, and that counsel subsequently inspected the warrant while participating in the examination, and then dismissed the quasi-appeal on the ground that, even though the part stating the criminal facts was not shown, it is difficult to regard the warrant as not having been presented.
Supreme Court standard: In its reasoning, the Supreme Court, referring, inter alia, to Supreme Court Decision 2015Do12400 decided September 21, 2017, stated that a warrant must be presented so that the person subject to seizure can sufficiently understand both the fact that the seizure is made under a warrant issued by a judge and the mandatory entries thereon and matters forming an integral whole therewith. It held that, even on the factual findings of the court below, it appears that the contents were not shown in response to the demand for a specific inspection, so that a proper presentation cannot be recognized, and reversed and remanded the order of the court below, which failed to determine whether the warrant was presented at the time of seizure.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the investigative authority showed the contents of the warrant, including the part stating the criminal facts, at the time of seizure so that the person subject to seizure could sufficiently understand them
- Where the person subject to seizure was not present at the scene or refused to inspect the warrant of his or her own accord, so that presentation was practically impossible
- Where a copy of the warrant was furnished at the time of seizure, separately securing the person subject to seizure an opportunity to check the entries thereon
Record verification notes
Before asserting the unlawfulness of the presentation of the warrant, one should first check, from the seizure record or statements, whether the person subject to seizure demanded a specific inspection at the time of seizure and how far the investigative authority actually went in showing the warrant.
From the official text
Points at issue
수사기관이 재항고인의 휴대전화 등을 압수할 당시 재항고인에게 압수·수색영장을 제시하였는데 재항고인이 영장의 구체적인 확인을 요구하였으나 수사기관이 영장의 범죄사실 기재 부분을 보여주지 않았고, 그 후 재항고인의 변호인이 재항고인에 대한 조사에 참여하면서 영장을 확인한 사안에서, 수사기관이 위 압수처분 당시 재항고인으로부터 영장 내용의 구체적인 확인을 요구받았음에도 압수·수색영장의 내용을 보여주지 않았던 것으로 보이므로 형사소송법 제219조, 제118조에 따른 적법한 압수·수색영장의 제시라고 인정하기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where, at the time the investigative authority seized the appellant's mobile phones and other items, the investigative authority presented a search and seizure warrant to the appellant, but although the appellant demanded a specific confirmation of the warrant, the investigative authority did not show the portion of the warrant setting out the criminal facts, and thereafter the appellant's attorney confirmed the warrant while participating in the examination of the appellant, a case holding that it is difficult to recognize the presentation of a lawful search and seizure warrant under Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since, notwithstanding that the investigative authority was demanded by the appellant to specifically confirm the contents of the warrant at the time of the seizure, it appears that the investigative authority did not show the contents of the search and seizure warrant
Summary of the holding
수사기관이 재항고인의 휴대전화 등을 압수(이하 ‘압수처분’이라 한다)할 당시 재항고인에게 압수·수색영장을 제시하였는데 재항고인이 영장의 구체적인 확인을 요구하였으나 수사기관이 영장의 범죄사실 기재 부분을 보여주지 않았고, 그 후 재항고인의 변호인이 재항고인에 대한 조사에 참여하면서 영장을 확인한 사안에서, 수사기관이 압수처분 당시 재항고인으로부터 영장 내용의 구체적인 확인을 요구받았음에도 압수·수색영장의 내용을 보여주지 않았던 것으로 보이므로 형사소송법 제219조, 제118조에 따른 적법한 압수·수색영장의 제시라고 인정하기 어렵다는 이유로, 압수처분 당시 수사기관이 법령에서 정한 취지에 따라 재항고인에게 압수·수색영장을 제시하였는지 여부를 판단하지 아니한 채 변호인이 조사에 참여할 당시 영장을 확인하였다는 사정을 들어 압수처분이 위법하지 않다고 본 원심결정에 헌법과 형사소송법의 관련 규정을 위반한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원 부천지원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Bucheon Branch of the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제12조 제3항, 형사소송법 제114조 제1항, 제118조, 제219조, 제415조, 제417조, 형사소송규칙 제58조
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