Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Electronic Information Copied onto a Third Party's Storage Medium and Voluntarily Submitted, and the Right to Participate of the Person with Authority over the Original
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 24, 2024, 2023Do3626 (judgment)
Case name: 아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작·배포등)·아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성착취물소지등)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영·반포등)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영물소지등)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the victim copied part of the electronic information on a USB owned by the defendant onto the victim's own USB and voluntarily submitted it, must the defendant, as the person with authority over the original, be treated as the person substantially subject to seizure and accorded the right to participate?
Holding
Even where the content of the copied electronic information is identical to that of the original, it is not the case that, absent special circumstances such as the grant of an opportunity to participate only to the person who submitted the copied electronic information being manifestly unfair, the person with authority over the original must be treated as the person substantially subject to seizure and accorded the right to participate. In this case, granting the victims, who made the voluntary submission, an opportunity to participate is sufficient; the court below, which treated the evidence as illegally obtained evidence, erred.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 정보의 동일성을 들어 복제 전자정보 임의제출자 외에 원본 전자정보 관리처분권자를 실질적 피압수자로 평가하고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는 것은 아니라고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Based on the identity of that information, it should be held that the person with authority to dispose of the original electronic information, in addition to the voluntary submitter of the copied electronic information, need not be evaluated as the person actually subjected to seizure and accorded the right to participate.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Read from the decision
복제 전자정보를 임의제출하는 사람에게만 참여의 기회를 부여하는 것이 현저히 부당하다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한
Unofficial English translation
unless there are special circumstances such as that affording the opportunity to participate only to the person voluntarily submitting the copied electronic information is manifestly unfair
Factors
- 복제 전자정보 생성 경위와 지배관리 상태
- 복제 전자정보를 임의제출하게 된 경위
- 원본 전자정보 임의제출이나 압수·수색 가능성
- 오직 원본 전자정보 관리처분권자의 참여를 배제할 목적으로
Unofficial English translation
• The circumstances under which the copied electronic information was created and the state of its dominion and management
• The circumstances under which the copied electronic information came to be voluntarily submitted
• The possibility of voluntary submission or search and seizure of the original electronic information
• Solely for the purpose of excluding the participation of the person with authority to dispose of the original electronic information
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
원본 전자정보 관리처분자를 실질적 피압수자로 보고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
whether the person with authority to dispose of the original electronic information should be regarded as the person actually subjected to seizure and accorded the right to participate (in principle, negative)
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the original storage medium is also voluntarily submitted or seized, must the right to participate be accorded to the person with authority over the original in the course of the seizure of the copied electronic information?
This reading will be re-examined if Article 121 of the Criminal Procedure Act is amended with respect to the right to participate in the search and seizure of electronic information, or if an en banc judgment on the criteria for determining the person substantially subject to seizure is rendered.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 5 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test), Axis 6 (Relation to precedent), and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text directs that the various circumstances be considered in combination while providing that the right to participate is not required absent special circumstances, the first reading may place its focus on the elements of the exception, whereas the independent reading may place its focus on the method of holistic determination.
참여권의 의의 및 기능을 종합적으로 살펴Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
Because the original text sets out in specific terms the standard for the right to participate in copied electronic information but does not make clear its relation to existing precedent, the first reading may lay weight on stating a new standard, whereas the independent reading may lay weight on the limits of ascertaining the relation to precedent.
원본 전자정보 관리처분자를 실질적 피압수자로 보고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는지 여부(원칙적 소극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the original storage medium is also voluntarily submitted or seized, must the right to participate be accorded to the person with authority over the original in the course of the seizure of the copied electronic information?” vs Independent “What circumstances, other than the purpose of excluding the participation of the person with authority over the original, would make granting an opportunity to participate only to the person who submitted the copied electronic information manifestly unfair?”
The first reading asks about the right to participate where the original is also secured, whereas the independent reading asks about the other circumstances that would ground a finding of manifest unfairness beyond the purpose of excluding participation.
그 정보의 동일성을 들어 복제 전자정보 임의제출자 외에 원본 전자정보 관리처분권자를 실질적 피압수자로 평가하고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는 것은 아니라고 보아야 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 held that, because the exclusive authority to dispose of the electronic information stored on the original USB was reserved to the defendant, the person substantially subject to seizure of the first, second, and third USBs voluntarily submitted by the victims and of the electronic information stored therein was likewise the defendant, yet the investigative authorities neither accorded the defendant the right to participate nor delivered a list of the electronic information. Accordingly, it affirmed the first-instance judgment, which denied the admissibility of this evidence and of the secondary evidence obtained on the basis thereof and found the defendant not guilty of all of the charged facts.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, citing the non-rivalrous nature of electronic information, the determination of the person substantially subject to seizure according to external and objective criteria at the time of the seizure, and the on-site nature and timeliness of the investigation, held that in this case, where the original USB was neither voluntarily submitted nor seized, granting the victims an opportunity to participate is sufficient. It accepted the prosecution's final appeal, which asserted that the court below had misapprehended legal principles regarding the right to participate, and reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where a copy was submitted solely for the purpose of excluding the participation of the person with authority over the original, even though voluntary submission of the original was entirely possible
- Where the information storage medium itself owned or managed by the suspect is submitted to the investigative authorities and the electronic information therein is seized
- Where what is disputed is not the right to participate but the illegality of the act of a private individual collecting or copying the electronic information itself
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check the circumstances under which the copying took place, whether the investigative authorities were involved in the copying process, and whether submission of the original storage medium was possible.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 전자정보가 제3자 소유·관리의 정보저장매체에 그 내용이 동일하게 복제되어 임의제출되는 경우, 복제 전자정보 임의제출자 외에 원본 전자정보 관리처분자를 실질적 피압수자로 보고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 아동·청소년이용음란물 및 성적 욕망 또는 수치심을 유발할 수 있는 피해자들의 신체 부위를 피해자들의 동의 없이 촬영한 사진과 동영상을 소지하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 피고인 소유의 USB에 저장된 사진과 동영상 등 전자정보 중 일부를 피해자들이 임의로 선별, 복제한 다음 그 복제 전자정보를 피해자들이 소유·관리하는 USB들에 저장하여 경찰에 임의제출한 사안에서, 피해자들이 제출한 위 전자정보 등이 위법수집증거에 해당하고 이에 기초하여 획득한 증거도 2차적 증거로서 증거능력이 없다고 보아 공소사실을 무죄로 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where electronic information is replicated identically in content onto an information storage medium owned and managed by a third party and is voluntarily submitted, the person with authority to dispose of the original electronic information, in addition to the voluntary submitter of the copied electronic information, should be regarded as the person actually subjected to seizure and accorded the right to participate (in principle, negative) [2] A case in which the defendant was prosecuted on a charge of possessing photographs and videos stored in a USB owned by the defendant, depicting obscene materials using children and adolescents and body parts of the victims that may arouse sexual desire or shame, filmed without the consent of the victims, and the victims arbitrarily selected and copied part of the photographs and videos and other electronic information stored in that USB, then stored that copied electronic information in USBs owned and managed by the victims and voluntarily submitted it to the police; in which the court below held that the foregoing electronic information and the like submitted by the victims constitute illegally obtained evidence and that evidence obtained on the basis thereof also has no admissibility of evidence as secondary evidence, and accordingly found the facts charged not guilty; and in which it was held that the judgment of the court below was in error by reason of misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 전자정보가 제3자 소유·관리의 정보저장매체에 복제되어 임의제출되는 경우에 복제 전자정보와 원본 전자정보의 내용이 완전히 동일하다고 하더라도, 복제 전자정보 생성 경위와 지배관리 상태, 복제 전자정보를 임의제출하게 된 경위, 원본 전자정보 임의제출이나 압수·수색 가능성 등 제반 사정과 전자정보 압수·수색에서 혐의사실과 무관한 전자정보의 무분별한 탐색·복제·출력 등을 방지하려는 참여권의 의의 및 기능을 종합적으로 살펴, 원본 전자정보 임의제출이 충분히 가능함에도 오직 원본 전자정보 관리처분권자의 참여를 배제할 목적으로 원본 전자정보 대신 복제 전자정보를 임의제출하는 경우 등과 같이 복제 전자정보를 임의제출하는 사람에게만 참여의 기회를 부여하는 것이 현저히 부당하다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 정보의 동일성을 들어 복제 전자정보 임의제출자 외에 원본 전자정보 관리처분권자를 실질적 피압수자로 평가하고 그에게 참여권을 인정해야 하는 것은 아니라고 보아야 한다. [2] 아동·청소년이용음란물 및 성적 욕망 또는 수치심을 유발할 수 있는 피해자들의 신체 부위를 피해자들의 동의 없이 촬영한 사진과 동영상을 소지하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 피고인 소유의 USB(이하 ‘원본 USB’라 한다)에 저장된 사진과 동영상 등 전자정보 중 일부를 피해자들이 임의로 선별, 복제한 다음 그 복제 전자정보를 피해자들이 소유·관리하는 USB들에 저장하여 경찰에 임의제출한 사안에서, 피해자들이 임의제출한 USB들은 피해자들의 소유·관리에 속하는 정보저장매체로서 그 자체로는 피고인과 관련이 없는 점, 피고인이 소유·관리하는 정보저장매체는 원본 USB뿐인데, 원본 USB는 수사기관에 임의제출되거나 압수된 바 없으므로 원본 USB에 관하여 형사소송법이 정한 참여권이나 그 참여권 인정을 위한 전제로 실질적 피압수자라는 지위를 상정하기 어려운 점, 피해자들이 임의제출한 전자정보 등의 압수·수색(임의제출) 과정에서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임의제출자인 피해자들(피압수자)에게 형사소송법이 정하는 바에 따라 참여의 기회를 부여하는 것으로 충분하고 그 전자정보 등이 원본 USB로부터 유래하였다는 사정만으로 원본 USB 소유·관리자이자 그 저장 전자정보의 관리처분권자인 피고인을 실질적 피압수자로 보아 피고인에게까지 참여의 기회를 부여해야만 그 임의제출이 적법하다고 평가할 수는 없는 점을 종합하면, 피해자들이 제출한 위 전자정보 등이 위법수집증거에 해당하고 이에 기초하여 획득한 증거도 2차적 증거로서 증거능력이 없다고 보아 공소사실을 무죄로 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제118조, 제121조 [2] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제118조, 제121조, 제308조의2
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