Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Whether the Limitation on Relevance and the Right to Participate Apply to Electronic Information in a Storage Medium Seized as Found Property
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 25, 2024, 2021Do1181 (judgment)
Case name: 아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작·배포등)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Even where a storage medium whose possessor has waived, or can be understood to have waived, their rights is seized as found property without a warrant, do the limitation on relevance to the case and the guarantee of the right to participate apply?
Holding
Because seizure of found property does not presuppose a person who submitted the item or a person from whom the item is seized as the subject exercising the right to participate, the limitation on relevance that applies to warrants or voluntary submission does not in principle apply, and participation by persons entitled to participate is not mandatory. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the judgment below that denied the admissibility of evidence as to the files on an SSD card that the defendant threw outside an apartment and denied owning.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
수사기관이 형사소송법 제218조에 따라 피의자 기타 사람이 유류한 정보저장매체를 영장 없이 압수할 때 해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 압수의 대상이나 범위가 한정된다거나, 참여권자의 참여가 필수적이라고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
When an investigative authority seizes an information storage medium left behind by a suspect or other person without a warrant pursuant to Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be regarded that the object or scope of the seizure is limited to what may be recognized as having a relation to the case at hand, or that the participation of a person entitled to participate is essential.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원심 판시 범죄일람표 제6, 10, 17, 18, 19, 22항에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the portion concerning items 6, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 22 of the List of Offenses as determined by the court below, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
유류물 압수는 수사기관이 소유권이나 관리처분권이 처음부터 존재하지 않거나, 존재하였지만 적법하게 포기된 물건, 또는 그와 같은 외관을 가진 물건 등의 점유를 수사상 필요에 따라 취득하는 수사방법을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
Seizure of articles left behind refers to an investigative method whereby the investigative authority acquires, as necessitated by the investigation, possession of articles as to which the ownership or the right of management and disposition did not exist from the outset, or existed but was lawfully waived, or articles having such appearance.
Factors
- 유류물 압수는 그와 같은 제출자의 존재를 생각하기도 어렵다
- 정보저장매체를 소지하던 사람이 그에 관한 권리를 포기하였거나 포기한 것으로 인식할 수 있는 경우
- 수사기관이 그러한 사정을 알거나 충분히 알 수 있었음에도 이를 유류물로서 영장 없이 압수하였다는 등의 특별한 사정
- 참여권 행사의 주체가 되는 피압수자가 존재한다고 평가할 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
• in the case of seizure of articles left behind, it is difficult even to conceive of the existence of such a submitter
• where the person who possessed the information storage medium has waived the rights pertaining thereto or may be regarded as having waived them
• special circumstances such as that the investigative authority seized it without a warrant as an article left behind although it knew of such circumstances or could have known of them fully
• it cannot be recognized that there exists a person subject to seizure who would be the subject exercising the right to participate
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
유류물 압수·수색에 대해서는 원칙적으로 영장에 의한 압수·수색·검증에 관하여 적용되는 형사소송법 제215조 제1항이나 임의제출물 압수에 관하여 적용되는 형사소송법 제219조에 의하여 준용되는 제106조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항에 따른 관련성의 제한이 적용된다고 보기 어렵다.
Unofficial English translation
As for search and seizure of articles left behind, it is difficult to consider that the limitation on relevance under Article 215 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which applies to search, seizure, and inspection by warrant, or under Article 106 paragraphs (1), (3), and (4), which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which applies to seizure of voluntarily submitted articles, applies in principle.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2022. 1. 27. 선고 2021도11170 판결(공2022상, 486)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a storage medium for which waiver of rights is unclear, such as a lost item, is seized by an investigative agency as found property while it knows those circumstances, to what extent do the limitation on relevance and the guarantee of the right to participate apply again?
We will review this reading again if the provisions of Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the seizure of found property or the provisions governing the procedure for the seizure of electronic information are amended.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
An independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, was compared with the first reading, showing that 6 of the 8 axes matched and that the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
The original text explains the existing types of seizure and the legal principle of the power of disposition while concretizing the issues of relevance and participation concerning storage media that are found property; the first reading may thus focus on the concretization of the standard, while the independent reading may focus on the continuity of the existing legal principle.
대법원 2022. 1. 27. 선고 2021도11170 판결(공2022상, 486)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a storage medium for which waiver of rights is unclear, such as a lost item, is seized by an investigative agency as found property while it knows those circumstances, to what extent do the limitation on relevance and the guarantee of the right to participate apply again?” vs Independent “What specific circumstances are required to evaluate that the investigative agency could have sufficiently known the fact that the information storage medium was lost?”
The first reading asks in what range the limitation on relevance and the right to participate apply where the item is seized with knowledge of the circumstances of the loss, while the independent reading asks what specific circumstances are needed to evaluate that the fact of the loss could have been known.
수사기관이 형사소송법 제218조에 따라 피의자 기타 사람이 유류한 정보저장매체를 영장 없이 압수할 때 해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 압수의 대상이나 범위가 한정된다거나, 참여권자의 참여가 필수적이라고 볼 수는 없다.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 (the Seoul High Court, Case 2020No1164) viewed the PC files obtained from a storage medium seized by warrant as separate evidence unrelated to the suspected facts stated in the warrant and thus as illegally obtained evidence, and found the defendant not guilty of the relevant counts of the indictment for lack of corroborating evidence. Although it held that the seizure without a warrant itself of the SSD card inside a shoe bag, which the defendant threw from a high-rise apartment while knowing that the warrant was being executed, as found property was lawful, it denied the admissibility of evidence as to those files on the ground that the right to participate was not guaranteed during the process of searching and printing and that the files were not objectively related to the suspected facts stated in the warrant, and found the defendant not guilty as to paragraphs (6), (10), (17), (18), and (19) for lack of corroborating evidence and as to paragraph (22) for lack of evidence.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court concurred in the determination of the court below regarding the PC files and dismissed that portion of the final appeal. It held, however, that the limitation on relevance does not in principle apply to the seizure of found property, and that where the medium can be understood as one whose rights were waived, it is also difficult to presuppose a person from whom the item is seized as the subject exercising the right to participate; accordingly, it held that the determination of the court below denying the admissibility of evidence as to the files on the SSD card involved a misunderstanding of the legal principle on the seizure of found property and failure to exhaust deliberations, and reversed that portion.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the waiver of rights is unclear, as where the possessor lost the medium, and the investigative agency knew or could have sufficiently known those circumstances
- Where the information storage medium is seized by warrant or voluntarily submitted
- Where, at the time of the seizure, the suspect exercised actual control and management over the medium and had not waived the power of disposition over the electronic information
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one should check whether the circumstances under which the suspect discarded the medium or denied ownership are confirmed in the record, and whether the investigative agency could have known that the circumstances were not a waiver of rights but, for example, a loss.
From the official text
Points at issue
범죄수사를 위해 정보저장매체의 압수가 필요하고, 정보저장매체를 소지하던 사람이 그에 관한 권리를 포기하였거나 포기한 것으로 인식할 수 있는 경우, 수사기관이 형사소송법 제218조에 따라 피의자 기타 사람이 유류한 정보저장매체를 영장 없이 압수할 때 해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 압수의 대상이나 범위가 한정되는지 여부(소극) 및 이때 참여권자의 참여가 필수적인지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a seizure of an information storage medium is necessary for a criminal investigation, and the person who possessed the information storage medium has waived the rights pertaining thereto or may be regarded as having waived them, whether the object or scope of a seizure, when an investigative authority seizes an information storage medium left behind by a suspect or other person without a warrant pursuant to Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is limited to what may be recognized as having a relation to the case at hand (negative), and whether the participation of a person entitled to participate is essential at that time (negative)
Summary of the holding
형사소송법 제215조 제1항은 ‘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.’고 규정하고 있다. 그러나 유류물 압수의 근거인 형사소송법 제218조는 유류물을 압수하는 경우에 사전, 사후에 영장을 받을 것을 요구하지 않는다. 유류물 압수와 같은 조문에 규정된 임의제출물 압수의 경우, 제출자가 제출·압수의 대상을 개별적으로 지정하거나 그 범위를 한정할 수 있으나, 유류물 압수는 그와 같은 제출자의 존재를 생각하기도 어렵다. 따라서 유류물 압수·수색에 대해서는 원칙적으로 영장에 의한 압수·수색·검증에 관하여 적용되는 형사소송법 제215조 제1항이나 임의제출물 압수에 관하여 적용되는 형사소송법 제219조에 의하여 준용되는 제106조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항에 따른 관련성의 제한이 적용된다고 보기 어렵다. 정보저장매체에 대한 압수·수색에 있어, 압수·수색 당시 또는 이와 시간적으로 근접한 시기까지 정보저장매체를 현실적으로 지배·관리하면서 그 정보저장매체 내 전자정보 전반에 관한 전속적인 관리처분권을 보유·행사하고, 달리 이를 자신의 의사에 따라 제3자에게 양도하거나 포기하지 아니한 경우에는, 그 지배·관리자인 피의자를 정보저장매체에 저장된 전자정보 전반에 대한 실질적인 압수·수색 당사자로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 유류물 압수는 수사기관이 소유권이나 관리처분권이 처음부터 존재하지 않거나, 존재하였지만 적법하게 포기된 물건, 또는 그와 같은 외관을 가진 물건 등의 점유를 수사상 필요에 따라 취득하는 수사방법을 말한다. 따라서 유류물 압수에 있어서는 정보저장매체의 현실적 지배·관리 혹은 이에 담겨있는 전자정보 전반에 관한 전속적인 관리처분권을 인정하기 어렵다. 정보저장매체를 소지하고 있던 사람이 이를 분실한 경우와 같이 그 권리를 포기하였다고 단정하기 어려운 경우에도, 수사기관이 그러한 사정을 알거나 충분히 알 수 있었음에도 이를 유류물로서 영장 없이 압수하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 영장에 의한 압수나 임의제출물 압수와 같이 수사기관의 압수 당시 참여권 행사의 주체가 되는 피압수자가 존재한다고 평가할 수는 없다. 따라서 범죄수사를 위해 정보저장매체의 압수가 필요하고, 정보저장매체를 소지하던 사람이 그에 관한 권리를 포기하였거나 포기한 것으로 인식할 수 있는 경우에는, 수사기관이 형사소송법 제218조에 따라 피의자 기타 사람이 유류한 정보저장매체를 영장 없이 압수할 때 해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 압수의 대상이나 범위가 한정된다거나, 참여권자의 참여가 필수적이라고 볼 수는 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 원심 판시 범죄일람표 제6, 10, 17, 18, 19, 22항에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the portion concerning items 6, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 22 of the List of Offenses as determined by the court below, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제106조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항, 제121조, 제215조, 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