Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Lawfulness of cloud seizure under a warrant that does not specify electronic information stored on a remote server as the item to be seized
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, June 30, 2022, 2022Do1452 (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: 사기·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영·반포등)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the items to be seized under a search and seizure warrant are described only as electronic information stored in a computer or other information processing device, may an investigative agency use that device to seize electronic information stored on a remote server?
Holding
Because the language of a warrant specifying the items to be seized must be construed strictly, electronic information stored on a remote server must be separately specified among the items to be seized in the warrant in order for it to be seized. The Supreme Court held that, where a warrant describing only storage media located within a residence was used to seize illegal photographic material from Google Cloud by utilizing the logged-in Google account on a mobile phone, the seizure was unlawful, and the seized material and the derivative evidence based on it have no admissibility of evidence.
Points at issue, verbatim
수사기관이 압수·수색영장에 적힌 ‘수색할 장소’에 있는 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 저장된 전자정보 외에 원격지 서버에 저장된 전자정보를 압수·수색하기 위해서는 압수·수색영장에 적힌 ‘압수할 물건’에 별도로 원격지 서버 저장 전자정보가 특정되어 있어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in order for an investigative agency to search and seize electronic information stored in a remote server in addition to electronic information stored in a computer or other information processing device located at the 'place to be searched' stated in the search and seizure warrant, the electronic information stored in the remote server must be separately specified in the 'objects to be seized' stated in the search and seizure warrant (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘압수할 물건’에 별도로 원격지 서버 저장 전자정보가 특정되어 있어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
whether the electronic information stored in the remote server must be separately specified in the 'objects to be seized' stated in the search and seizure warrant (affirmative)
Factors
- ‘압수할 물건’을 특정하기 위하여 기재한 문언은 엄격하게 해석하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 원격지 서버에 저장된 전자정보를 압수·수색하기 위해서는
- 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치 저장 전자정보만 기재되어 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the wording entered to specify the 'objects to be seized' must be interpreted strictly (affirmative)
• In order to search and seize electronic information stored in a remote server,
• where only electronic information stored in a computer or other information processing device is entered
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008도763 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Do763 decided March 12, 2009
Decisions referred to
대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008도763 판결(공2009상, 503)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When electronic information stored on a remote server is described among the items to be seized, to what extent must the service provider, the account, and the storage location be specified for the warrant to be lawful?
This reading will be re-examined if the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act on the search and seizure of electronic information are amended or if subsequent Supreme Court decisions on the seizure of remote servers are issued.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first 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 viewed it as unlawful for the police to search and copy illegal photographic material unrelated to the fraud offense from a mobile phone that had been voluntarily submitted, yet it held that the illegal photographic material seized from Google Cloud linked to a separate mobile phone pursuant to a search and seizure warrant later issued by a court was newly collected evidence, and that the need to protect the victim was also great; on that basis, applying an exception to the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, it recognized the admissibility of evidence of the seizure record, investigative reports, the victim's statements, and the like, and found the portions of entries 2 through 6 of Crime List 2 guilty. As to the not guilty portion contested by the prosecution, it found that proof of the crime was lacking.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, even though the items to be seized under the warrant were limited to electronic information stored on the computer hard disk and external storage media located within the residence, the police's seizure of illegal photographic material from Google Cloud, a remote server, by utilizing the logged-in Google account on a mobile phone exceeded the scope permitted by the warrant and ran counter to due process and the warrant requirement. Holding that the seized material was illegally obtained evidence and that the seizure record and the statements of related persons, as derivative evidence, had no admissibility of evidence, it reversed and remanded the entirety of the guilty portions, including the fraud portion for which a single sentence had been imposed as concurrent crimes, and dismissed the prosecution's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where electronic information stored on a remote server is separately specified and described among the items to be seized in the search and seizure warrant
- Where the electronic information was stored not on a remote server but in the information processing device itself located at the place to be searched
- Where the person subject to seizure lawfully and voluntarily submitted the electronic information on the remote server, or there is otherwise a lawful and independent basis for collection distinct from the execution of a warrant
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether there is room to read the language describing the items to be seized in the warrant as encompassing electronic information stored on a remote server, and whether the evidence in question was collected through an independent course of events in which the causation with the unlawful seizure was severed.
From the official text
Points at issue
법관이 압수·수색영장을 발부하면서 ‘압수할 물건’을 특정하기 위하여 기재한 문언은 엄격하게 해석하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 수사기관이 압수·수색영장에 적힌 ‘수색할 장소’에 있는 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 저장된 전자정보 외에 원격지 서버에 저장된 전자정보를 압수·수색하기 위해서는 압수·수색영장에 적힌 ‘압수할 물건’에 별도로 원격지 서버 저장 전자정보가 특정되어 있어야 하는지 여부(적극) / 압수·수색영장에 적힌 ‘압수할 물건’에 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치 저장 전자정보만 기재되어 있는 경우, 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치를 이용하여 원격지 서버 저장 전자정보를 압수할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the wording entered to specify the 'objects to be seized' when a judge issues a search and seizure warrant must be interpreted strictly (affirmative) / Whether, in order for an investigative agency to search and seize electronic information stored in a remote server in addition to electronic information stored in a computer or other information processing device located at the 'place to be searched' stated in the search and seizure warrant, the electronic information stored in the remote server must be separately specified in the 'objects to be seized' stated in the search and seizure warrant (affirmative) / Where only electronic information stored in a computer or other information processing device is entered in the 'objects to be seized' stated in the search and seizure warrant, whether the electronic information stored in a remote server may be seized using the computer or other information processing device (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
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다. 검사의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court. The prosecutor's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제114조 제1항, 제215조, 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