Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Specification of the seizure disposition subject to quasi-appeal and the court's duty to elucidate, and the handling of cases in which the investigating agency that issued the disposition is incorrectly designated
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 12, 2023, 2022Mo1566 (ruling)
Case name: 수사기관의압수수색처분에대한준항고기각결정에대한재항고
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a quasi-appellant is unable to accurately specify the search and seizure disposition to be contested or the investigating agency that issued that disposition, may the court dismiss the quasi-appeal on that ground alone?
Holding
A quasi-appellant must specify the disposition, but where circumstances make specification difficult, the court must give an opportunity to specify it, including through exercise of the power of elucidation; and since a quasi-appeal is a type of appeal litigation that does not presuppose opposing parties, it cannot readily be rejected merely on the ground that the investigating agency was incorrectly designated. The Supreme Court quashed the relevant part of the order of the court below that had dismissed the claim solely on the ground that the designated investigating agency had not issued the disposition.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 구체적으로 특정하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 법원은 석명권 행사 등을 통해 준항고인에게 불복하는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정할 수 있는 기회를 부여하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where there are circumstances making it difficult to specifically identify the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection, the court must grant the quasi-appellant an opportunity to identify the disposition on seizure or the like to which the objection is directed, by exercising its power of elucidation or otherwise.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정 중 2021. 9. 10. 및 2021. 11. 15. 한 각 압수·수색 처분에 관한 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 취소하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Except for the portions concerning each search and seizure measure taken on September 10, 2021 and November 15, 2021, the remainder of the order of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피압수자는 준항고인의 지위에서 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정하고 준항고취지를 명확히 하여 청구의 내용을 서면으로 기재한 다음 관할법원에 제출하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
The person whose property has been seized must, in the capacity of quasi-appellant, identify the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection, clarify the grounds for the quasi-appeal, record the contents of the claim in writing, and then submit it to the court with jurisdiction
Factors
- 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 구체적으로 특정하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우
- 석명권 행사 등을 통해 준항고인에게 불복하는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정할 수 있는 기회를 부여하여야 한다
- 대립되는 양 당사자의 관여를 필요로 하지 않는다
- 준항고인이 특정한 수사기관이 해당 처분을 한 사실을 인정하기 어렵다는 이유만으로 준항고를 쉽사리 배척할 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• Where there are circumstances making it difficult to specifically identify the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection
• An opportunity must be granted to the quasi-appellant to identify the disposition on seizure or the like to which the objection is directed, by exercising the power of elucidation or otherwise
• The involvement of the two opposing parties is not required
• A quasi-appeal should not readily be rejected solely on the ground that it is difficult to find that the investigative agency identified by the quasi-appellant made the relevant disposition
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1991. 3. 28. 자 91모24 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 91Mo24 decided March 28, 1991
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1991. 3. 28. 자 91모24 결정(공1991, 1324), 대법원 2022. 11. 8. 자 2021모3291 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the investigating agency ultimately fails to respond to the court's elucidation and the quasi-appellant cannot obtain the details of the disposition, by what means must the court specify the disposition and examine whether it is unlawful?
We will re-examine this reading if the quasi-appeal procedure under Articles 417 and 418 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the provisions on the notification and participation in the search and seizure of electronic information, are amended.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the investigating agency ultimately fails to respond to the court's elucidation and the quasi-appellant cannot obtain the details of the disposition, by what means must the court specify the disposition and examine whether it is unlawful?” vs Independent “At what stage may the quasi-appeal be rejected where the disposition contested remains unspecified even after the court has granted an opportunity to specify it?”
The first reading asks about the method of examination where the details of the disposition cannot be obtained due to the investigating agency's non-response, while the independent reading asks about the point at which the quasi-appeal may be rejected where it remains unspecified even after an opportunity to specify has been granted.
준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 구체적으로 특정하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 법원은 석명권 행사 등을 통해 준항고인에게 불복하는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정할 수 있는 기회를 부여하여야 한다.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 (Seoul Central District Court 2021Bo12) dismissed the claim as to the message, e-mail, and messenger records on the prosecution's internal network and the case-search and judgment-search materials, solely on the ground that those materials had been seized under a warrant issued not by a prosecutor of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials but by a prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. As to the remaining dispositions, it also dismissed the claim, finding that there was no, or insufficient, material to recognize search and seizure dispositions directed at the quasi-appellant. As to the disposition of November 15, 2021 (PC storage device), it held that the right to participate had in substance been guaranteed and that there was no serious illegality.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, since a quasi-appellant who did not receive notice of participation has limitations in specifying the disposition, the court below should have given an opportunity, through elucidation, to specify even the dispositions of investigating agencies that actually executed the dispositions during the period stated in the statement of the quasi-appeal, or that hold the resulting materials, and should have examined the question of illegality after correction of the statement of the quasi-appeal. It also noted that the prosecutor of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials failed to respond to repeated elucidation, and that the Record index of the investigative records in the merits contained numerous entries of execution of warrants. The Supreme Court concurred in the court below's holding on the disposition of November 15, 2021, and the specific reason for excluding from the scope of the quashal the part concerning the disposition of September 10, 2021 cannot separately be confirmed from the original text of the reasons.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the quasi-appellant was presented with the warrant and participated in its execution, and was thus able to specify the disposition to be contested on his or her own
- Where the court exercised the power of elucidation and gave an opportunity to specify, but the quasi-appellant still failed to specify the disposition
- Where, even though a procedural violation occurred, the right to participate was guaranteed in the course of the actual execution, and the violation did not rise to a level that renders the search and seizure procedure as a whole unlawful
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check from the record whether the circumstances that prevented the quasi-appellant from knowing the details of the disposition arose from the investigating agency's side, such as failure of notification, and whether the court actually gave the opportunity for elucidation and correction.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형사소송법 제417조에서 규정한 준항고 절차의 취지와 내용 / 피압수자는 준항고인의 지위에서 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정하고 준항고취지를 명확히 하여 청구의 내용을 서면으로 기재한 다음 관할법원에 제출하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 구체적으로 특정하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우, 법원이 취해야 할 조치 [2] 형사소송법 제417조에 따른 준항고 절차의 법적 성격(=항고소송의 일종) / 준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 한 수사기관을 제대로 특정하지 못하거나 준항고인이 특정한 수사기관이 해당 처분을 한 사실을 인정하기 어렵다는 이유만으로 준항고를 배척할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport and content of the quasi-appeal procedure provided in Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act / Whether the person whose property has been seized must, in the capacity of quasi-appellant, identify the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection, clarify the grounds for the quasi-appeal, record the contents of the claim in writing, and then submit it to the court with jurisdiction (affirmative), and, where there are circumstances making it difficult for the quasi-appellant to specifically identify the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection, the measures the court must take [2] The legal nature of the quasi-appeal procedure under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act (= a type of appeal litigation) / Whether a quasi-appeal may be rejected solely on the ground that the quasi-appellant has failed to properly identify the investigative agency that made the disposition on seizure or the like that is the subject of the objection, or that it is difficult to find that the investigative agency identified by the quasi-appellant made the relevant disposition (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 형사소송법은 수사기관의 압수·수색영장 집행에 대한 사후적 통제수단 및 피압수자의 신속한 구제절차로 준항고 절차를 마련하여 검사 또는 사법경찰관의 압수 등에 관한 처분에 대하여 불복이 있으면 처분의 취소 또는 변경을 구할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다(제417조). 피압수자는 준항고인의 지위에서 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정하고 준항고취지를 명확히 하여 청구의 내용을 서면으로 기재한 다음 관할법원에 제출하여야 한다(형사소송법 제418조). 다만 준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 구체적으로 특정하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 법원은 석명권 행사 등을 통해 준항고인에게 불복하는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 특정할 수 있는 기회를 부여하여야 한다. [2] 형사소송법 제417조에 따른 준항고 절차는 항고소송의 일종으로 당사자주의에 의한 소송절차와는 달리 대립되는 양 당사자의 관여를 필요로 하지 않는다. 따라서 준항고인이 불복의 대상이 되는 압수 등에 관한 처분을 한 수사기관을 제대로 특정하지 못하거나 준항고인이 특정한 수사기관이 해당 처분을 한 사실을 인정하기 어렵다는 이유만으로 준항고를 쉽사리 배척할 것은 아니다.
Order
원심결정 중 2021. 9. 10. 및 2021. 11. 15. 한 각 압수·수색 처분에 관한 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 취소하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Except for the portions concerning each search and seizure measure taken on September 10, 2021 and November 15, 2021, the remainder of the order of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제417조, 제418조, 형사소송규칙 제141조 [2] 형사소송법 제417조, 제418조, 형사소송규칙 제141조
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