Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Illegality of Seizure Under a Warrant Issued in Another Person's Name and Voluntary Submission of Remote Electronic Information Through Provision of Cloud Access Information
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 29, 2021, 2020Do14654 (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: 아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작·배포등)·아동복지법위반(아동에대한음행강요·매개·성희롱등)·아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물소지)·공갈·협박
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a suspect voluntarily surrenders a mobile phone and voluntarily provides cloud access ID and password, may the electronic information stored in a remote location also be deemed to have been voluntarily submitted?
Holding
Where the access information was voluntarily provided with the intent to submit the remote electronic information, the electronic information stored in the cloud or the like may be deemed to have been voluntarily submitted. The Supreme Court held that the seizure of the mobile phone owned by the defendant under a warrant issued with a person other than the defendant as the suspect was unlawful, but dismissed the final appeal, on the ground that since the court below did not use that evidence, there was no effect on the outcome.
Points at issue, verbatim
피의자가 휴대전화를 임의제출하면서 원격지에 저장되어 있는 전자정보를 수사기관에 제출한다는 의사로 수사기관에게 클라우드 등에 접속하기 위한 아이디와 비밀번호를 임의로 제공한 경우 위 클라우드 등에 저장된 전자정보를 임의제출 하는 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the suspect voluntarily submitted a mobile phone and, with the intention of submitting to the investigative agency the electronic information stored at a remote location, voluntarily provided the investigative agency with the ID and password for accessing a cloud or the like, whether the electronic information stored in such cloud or the like may be regarded as having been voluntarily submitted (affirmative)
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
압수·수색영장에 기재한 혐의사실과 객관적 관련성이 있고 압수·수색영장 대상자와 피의자 사이에 인적 관련성이 있는 범죄를 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
It means a crime that has an objective relevance to the suspicion facts stated in the search and seizure warrant and as to which there is a personal relevance between the subject of the search and seizure warrant and the suspect.
Factors
- 영장 발부의 사유로 된 범죄 혐의사실과 무관한 별개의 증거
- 피의자의 이메일 계정에 대한 접근권한에 갈음하여 발부받은 압수·수색영장
- 원격지의 저장매체에 적법하게 접속하여 내려받거나 현출된 전자정보
- 클라우드 등에 접속하기 위한 아이디와 비밀번호를 임의로 제공한 경우
Unofficial English translation
• Separate evidence unrelated to the criminal suspicion facts that formed the grounds for the issuance of the warrant
• A search and seizure warrant issued in lieu of access authority to the suspect's email account
• Electronic information downloaded or produced upon lawful access to a storage medium at a remote location
• Where the ID and password for accessing a cloud or the like were voluntarily provided
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 11. 29. 선고 2017도9747 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9747 decided November 29, 2017
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2016도13489 판결(공2017상, 496), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017도13458 판결(공2018상, 141) / [2] 대법원 2017. 11. 29. 선고 2017도9747 판결(공2018상, 105)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In light of what circumstances must it be ascertained whether the suspect who provided the access information also had the intent to submit the remote electronic information, and how far does that scope extend?
If the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning search and seizure of electronic information or voluntary submission are amended, or a subsequent Supreme Court decision on the seizure of remote electronic information is rendered, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 primary reading, all 8 axes matched.
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 procedure, in which the mobile phone owned by the defendant and other items were seized at the defendant's residence under a warrant issued with Non-indicted 3 as the suspect, involved no illegality infringing upon the warrant requirement or the right to participate. However, it did not use the evidence obtained from that mobile phone and the like as evidence of guilt, stating that it was found to be irrelevant or not to be used as evidence. It found that the Galaxy Note 8 and SDCard stored files, Naver Cloud files, and gallery files were voluntarily submitted by the defendant.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, since the wording of the items to be seized in a warrant must be strictly construed, even if told at the scene that the true culprit was the defendant, the warrant could not be executed by treating another person as the person from whom items are to be seized, and found that the court below's holding that the execution of the warrant was lawful involved a misapprehension of legal principles. However, it dismissed the final appeal, stating that since the relevant evidence was not used as evidence of guilt, there was no effect on the outcome of the judgment, and that the finding of voluntary submission of the cloud files and the like was justifiable.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the suspect provided cloud access information not with the intent to submit the remote electronic information as well, but for another purpose such as unlocking the mobile phone
- A case in which the suspect and the items to be seized were stated in the warrant so as to include the person from whom items were actually seized, so that no issue of expansive construction of the wording arises
- A case in which evidence seized unlawfully was in fact used as evidence of guilt and affected the outcome of the judgment
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it must first be checked whether the voluntariness of the provision of the access information and the scope of the intent to submit are ascertainable from the record, and whether the electronic information subject to seizure bears a specific and individual connection with the alleged facts.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 영장 발부의 사유로 된 범죄 혐의사실과 무관한 별개의 증거를 압수하였을 경우, 이를 유죄 인정의 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / ‘압수·수색영장의 범죄 혐의사실과 관계있는 범죄’의 의미 및 범위 [2] 피의자의 이메일 계정에 대한 접근권한에 갈음하여 발부받은 압수·수색영장에 따라 원격지의 저장매체에 적법하게 접속하여 내려받거나 현출된 전자정보를 대상으로 하여 범죄 혐의사실과 관련된 부분에 대하여 압수·수색하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(적극) / 피의자가 휴대전화를 임의제출하면서 원격지에 저장되어 있는 전자정보를 수사기관에 제출한다는 의사로 수사기관에게 클라우드 등에 접속하기 위한 아이디와 비밀번호를 임의로 제공한 경우 위 클라우드 등에 저장된 전자정보를 임의제출 하는 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether separate evidence unrelated to the criminal suspicion facts that formed the grounds for the issuance of the warrant may be used as evidence for a guilty finding (in principle, negative) / Meaning and scope of "a crime related to the criminal suspicion facts of the search and seizure warrant" [2] Whether, pursuant to a search and seizure warrant issued in lieu of access authority to the suspect's email account, it is permitted to lawfully access a storage medium at a remote location and conduct a search and seizure as to the portions related to the criminal suspicion facts, with respect to the electronic information downloaded or produced (affirmative) / Where the suspect voluntarily submitted a mobile phone and, with the intention of submitting to the investigative agency the electronic information stored at a remote location, voluntarily provided the investigative agency with the ID and password for accessing a cloud or the like, whether the electronic information stored in such cloud or the like may be regarded as having been voluntarily submitted (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
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제215조 제1항 [2] 형사소송법 제106조 제3항, 제108조, 제109조 제1항, 제114조 제1항, 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