Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Account IDs as electronic records and the secrecy device requirement
Supreme Court, Mar. 31, 2022, 2021Do8900 (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: 전자기록등내용탐지
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do internet account IDs and passwords stored on a laptop fall within the 'electronic records and special media records' that are the object of the offence of detecting the contents of an electronic record under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Act, and is that offence established where the record carries no lock or other secrecy device?
Holding
Yes, they are electronic records, but the offence was not established on these facts. A record with no objective, fixed meaning of its own, which performs its intended evidential function only by being used in a system that a person or corporation has built and operates to generate, process, store or output information electronically, is included in 'electronic record', and account IDs and passwords stored electronically on the victim's laptop are 'electronic records and special media records' under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Act. That offence punishes only learning the contents of a record that is locked or otherwise made secret, so where no secrecy device could be found on the IDs or on the text file recording them, and no evidence showed one was set, learning their contents by technical means did not establish the offence.
Points at issue, verbatim
그 자체로서 객관적·고정적 의미를 가지면서 독립적으로 쓰이는 것이 아니라 개인 또는 법인이 전자적 방식에 의한 정보의 생성·처리·저장·출력을 목적으로 구축하여 설치·운영하는 시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것이 ‘전자기록’에 포함되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether things which, not having objective and fixed meaning in themselves so as to be used independently, are used in a system built, installed and operated by an individual or corporation (juristic person) for the purpose of generating, processing, storing and outputting information by electronic means, thereby performing their intended probative function, are included in "electronic records" (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
여기서 전자기록 등 특수매체기록이란 일정한 저장매체에 전자방식이나 자기방식 또는 광기술 등 이에 준하는 방식에 의하여 저장된 기록을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, "electronic records and other special media records" means records stored in a certain storage medium by electronic means, magnetic means, optical technology, or other means comparable thereto.
Factors
- 개인 또는 법인이 전자적 방식에 의한 정보의 생성·처리·저장·출력을 목적으로 구축하여 설치·운영하는 시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것이
- 인터넷 계정의 아이디 및 비밀번호가 전자기록등내용탐지죄의 행위 객체인 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
- 봉함 기타 비밀장치가 되어 있지 아니한 전자기록 등 특수매체기록을 기술적 수단을 동원하여 그 내용을 알아낸 경우
Unofficial English translation
• which are used in a system built, installed and operated by an individual or corporation (juristic person) for the purpose of generating, processing, storing and outputting information by electronic means, thereby performing their intended probative function,
• Whether the ID and password of an Internet account fall under "electronic records and other special media records," the object of the act in the crime of snooping on the contents of electronic records, etc. (affirmative)
• Where the contents of electronic records and other special media records that are not sealed or otherwise provided with a secret-keeping device are ascertained by employing technical means
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2008도938 판결(공2008하, 1010)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Do938 decided June 12, 2008 (Gong 2008 Ha, 1010)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2005. 6. 9. 선고 2004도6132 판결(공2005하, 1191), 대법원 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2008도938 판결(공2008하, 1010), 대법원 2020. 8. 27. 선고 2019도11294 전원합의체 판결(공2020하, 1881)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a text file storing the account IDs is protected by a password or an access control within the operating system, does that make the file locked or otherwise made secret for the purposes of Article 316(2)?
A later decision on when an electronic record counts as locked or otherwise made secret, or on whether protection of the storage medium can substitute for secrecy of the record itself, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a text file storing the account IDs is protected by a password or an access control within the operating system, does that make the file locked or otherwise made secret for the purposes of Article 316(2)?” vs Independent “What specific security measures would qualify as secrecy protection for credentials captured during keyboard entry?”
The primary asks whether an OS-level password or access control on a text file counts as a secrecy device, while the independent asks what security measures would protect credentials captured during keyboard entry, so the unresolved scenarios differ.
그 자체로서 객관적·고정적 의미를 가지면서 독립적으로 쓰이는 것이 아니라 개인 또는 법인이 전자적 방식에 의한 정보의 생성·처리·저장·출력을 목적으로 구축하여 설치·운영하는 시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것이 ‘전자기록’에 포함되는지 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 Seoul Northern District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 18 June 2021 (2021No205), premised that an item can be an 'electronic record and special media record' under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Act only where a specific person's will is expressed on it. Because the IDs and passwords themselves were not such an expression of will, it held that the offence of detecting the contents of an electronic record was not established even though their contents were learned by technical means, and acquitted the defendant on that part of the indictment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below erred in requiring an expression of a specific person's will: in view of the legislative purpose of adding electronic records as the object of these computer offences, the protected legal interest of the offence and the nature and punishability of the infringing act, the IDs stored electronically on the laptop are 'electronic records and special media records' under Article 316(2). The reasoning was wrong, but the acquittal was right, because no secrecy device could be found on the IDs or on the text file into which the keylogger saved them and no evidence showed one, while the victim's laptop itself had no password or screensaver; the appeal was therefore dismissed, the Justices being unanimous.
Distinguishing conditions
- An electronic record or text file bearing a lock or other secrecy device, where learning its contents by technical means would fall within Article 316(2) of the Criminal Act.
- Conduct that does not learn the contents of a record by technical means, since the offence is defined as learning the contents of a locked or otherwise secret record by technical means.
- Accessing the accounts with the learned IDs and downloading the conversation contents, for which the court below convicted the defendant under the Network Act and this offence and neither the defendant nor the prosecution appealed.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, establish what secrecy device, if any, covered the particular record: the Court relied on the absence of any lock that could be found on the IDs or on the text file into which the keylogger saved them, on the absence of evidence showing one, and on the fact that the victim's laptop had neither password nor screensaver. Also confirm which part of the indictment was appealed, since the account access and downloads stood convicted below and were left alone here, and check the wording of Article 316(2) as added by the amendment of 29 December 1995 (Law No. 5057) against the charge.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 전자기록등내용탐지죄 등의 범죄에 행위 객체로 규정된 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’의 의미 / 그 자체로서 객관적·고정적 의미를 가지면서 독립적으로 쓰이는 것이 아니라 개인 또는 법인이 전자적 방식에 의한 정보의 생성·처리·저장·출력을 목적으로 구축하여 설치·운영하는 시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것이 ‘전자기록’에 포함되는지 여부(적극) [2] 인터넷 계정의 아이디 및 비밀번호가 전자기록등내용탐지죄의 행위 객체인 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [3] 봉함 기타 비밀장치가 되어 있지 아니한 전자기록 등 특수매체기록을 기술적 수단을 동원하여 그 내용을 알아낸 경우, 전자기록등내용탐지죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of "electronic records and other special media records" prescribed as the object of the act in the crime of snooping on the contents of electronic records, etc. / Whether things which, not having objective and fixed meaning in themselves so as to be used independently, are used in a system built, installed and operated by an individual or corporation (juristic person) for the purpose of generating, processing, storing and outputting information by electronic means, thereby performing their intended probative function, are included in "electronic records" (affirmative) [2] Whether the ID and password of an Internet account fall under "electronic records and other special media records," the object of the act in the crime of snooping on the contents of electronic records, etc. (affirmative) [3] Where the contents of electronic records and other special media records that are not sealed or otherwise provided with a secret-keeping device are ascertained by employing technical means, whether the crime of snooping on the contents of electronic records, etc. is established (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
[1] 형법 제227조의2, 제229조, 제232조의2, 제234조, 제314조 제2항, 제316조 제2항, 제366조 [2] 형법 제316조 제2항 [3] 형법 제316조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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