Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Whether a search and seizure may be conducted again under a search and seizure warrant whose validity period remains after execution has been completed
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Mar. 16, 2023, 2020Do5336 (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: 마약류불법거래방지에관한특례법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May an investigative agency, after completing the execution of a search and seizure warrant, present the same warrant and conduct a search and seizure again on the ground that the validity period of the warrant has not yet expired?
Holding
The validity period stated in the warrant is merely the deadline by which execution may be commenced; accordingly, once execution has been completed, the warrant has achieved its purpose and loses its effect. If a further search and seizure is necessary, a new warrant must be obtained by substantiating that necessity. The Supreme Court upheld the holding of the court below that evidence collected through an arrest of a flagrant offender and the seizure of belongings, based on information obtained by re-executing the previous warrant, is not admissible as evidence.
Points at issue, verbatim
종전 압수·수색영장의 유효기간이 남아 있음을 이유로 이를 제시하고 다시 압수·수색을 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a search and seizure may be conducted again by presenting the previous search and seizure warrant on the ground that its term of validity remains unexpired (negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
원심판결 이유를 앞에서 본 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining the reasons for the judgment of the court below in light of the legal principle and records set out above
Factors
- 압수·수색영장을 제시하고 집행에 착수하여 압수·수색을 실시하고 집행을 종료한 경우
- 그 영장의 효력이 상실되는지 여부(적극)
- 동일한 장소 또는 목적물에 대하여 다시 압수·수색할 필요가 있는 경우
- 종전 압수·수색영장의 유효기간이 남아 있음을 이유로
Unofficial English translation
• Where a search and seizure warrant is presented, execution thereof is commenced, a search and seizure is conducted, and the execution is completed
• Whether the warrant thereby loses its effect (affirmative)
• Where it is necessary to conduct a search and seizure again on the same place or object
• On the ground that the term of validity of the previous search and seizure warrant remains unexpired
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1999. 12. 1. 자 99모161 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 99Mo161 decided December 1, 1999
Decisions referred to
대법원 1999. 12. 1. 자 99모161 결정(공2000상, 524)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Apart from the filing of an indictment, on what circumstances is the point in time at which execution of the warrant is regarded as completed determined, and may the messenger account of a seized mobile phone be used in the investigation of a separate case if the person whose property was seized consents?
This reading will be re-examined if Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the provisions concerning the validity period of a search and seizure warrant and its re-execution are amended, or if the Supreme Court changes the legal principle of the 99Mo161 Decision.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading made by another AI line (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the original text sets out the conclusion that re-execution is not permitted in a situation where execution has been completed and the validity period remains, it may be read either as the application to a particular situation or as the statement of the requirements for the effect of a warrant and for re-execution.
그 영장의 효력이 상실되는지 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 police appear to have completed the execution of the warrant in this case no later than around March 21, 2019, when the Non-indicted person was indicted; that the acquisition of message information after April 8, 2019 constituted an unlawful re-execution; and that, since there was no circumstance of the Non-indicted person consenting to the use of the messenger account in the investigation of a separate case, there was no legitimate right of access, and evidence collected through the arrest of a flagrant offender and the seizure of belongings on that basis is not admissible as evidence even though a warrant was obtained afterward.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principle of the 99Mo161 Decision that the validity period of a warrant is merely the deadline by which execution may be commenced and that the warrant loses its effect upon completion of execution, and, although certain parts of the reasoning stated by the court below were somewhat inappropriate, found no misapprehension of legal principles regarding the loss of effect of the warrant, the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, and admissibility of evidence, and therefore dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the record contains materials indicating that the execution of the previous warrant had not yet been completed and was still continuing
- Where the person whose property was seized expressly consented to the use of the messenger account of the seized mobile phone in the investigation of a separate case
- Where the investigative agency obtained and executed a new search and seizure warrant after substantiating the necessity of a further search and seizure
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first confirm when the execution of the previous warrant was actually completed, and whether there was an independent lawful basis sufficient to sever the causation between the information obtained through the re-execution and the subsequent arrest and seizure.
From the official text
Points at issue
수사기관이 압수·수색영장을 제시하고 집행에 착수하여 압수·수색을 실시하고 집행을 종료한 경우, 그 영장의 효력이 상실되는지 여부(적극) / 이때 동일한 장소 또는 목적물에 대하여 다시 압수·수색할 필요가 있는 경우, 종전 압수·수색영장의 유효기간이 남아 있음을 이유로 이를 제시하고 다시 압수·수색을 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where an investigative authority presents a search and seizure warrant, commences its execution, conducts a search and seizure, and completes the execution, the warrant thereby loses its effect (affirmative) / Whether, in such case, where it is necessary to conduct a search and seizure again on the same place or object, a search and seizure may be conducted again by presenting the previous search and seizure warrant on the ground that its term of validity remains unexpired (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
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제215조
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