Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Objective Relevance to the Allegations of a Warrant of Videos of the Same Type Seized in a Case Involving Illegal Filings with a Mobile Phone
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, June 27, 2024, 2024Do1881 (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: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영·반포등)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적다중이용장소침입)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May videos of restroom intrusions at another location, discovered while analyzing a mobile phone pursuant to a warrant issued on allegations of illegal filming, be admitted in evidence on the ground of objective relevance to the allegations?
Holding
Where the nature of the crime gives rise to a suspicion of habitual conduct or the manifestation of sexual tendencies, and where it is probable that direct evidence remains stored as files on the mobile phone, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence discovered in electronic information of the same type may be found to have a specific and individual connection to the allegations. The Supreme Court held that a video filmed in a public restroom with the same mobile phone, on the same date of filming and with a difference in time of a little over one hour, had objective relevance, and that additional videos seized under a second warrant issued for the purpose of investigating other offenses were also lawful.
Points at issue, verbatim
그 안에 저장되어 있는 같은 유형의 전자정보에서 발견되는 간접증거나 정황증거는 혐의사실과 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 인정될 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
whether indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence found in electronic information of the same type stored therein may be recognized as having a concrete and individual connection with the facts alleged (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part finding not guilty, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
앞서 본 사실관계를 관련 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining the facts as set out above in light of the relevant legal principle,
Factors
- 범죄의 속성상 해당 범행의 상습성이 의심되거나
- 성적 기호 내지 경향성의 발현에 따른 일련의 범행의 일환으로 이루어진 것으로 의심되고
- 범행의 직접증거가 휴대전화 안에 이미지 파일이나 동영상 파일의 형태로 남아 있을 개연성이 있는 경우
- 혐의사실과 단순히 동종 또는 유사 범행에 관한 것이라는 사유만으로 객관적 관련성이 인정되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• where, by the nature of the crime, there is a suspicion that the offender is habitually committing such acts, or
• where there is a suspicion that the act was committed as part of a series of acts arising from the manifestation of a sexual preference or tendency, and
• where it is probable that the direct evidence of the crime remains inside the mobile phone in the form of image files or video files,
• whether objective relevance is recognized on the sole ground that the matter concerns a crime of the same type as or similar to the alleged offense (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do348 decided November 18, 2021
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017도13458 판결(공2018상, 141), 대법원 2021. 11. 25. 선고 2021도10034 판결 / [2] 대법원 2021. 11. 18. 선고 2016도348 전원합의체 판결(공2022상, 57), 대법원 2021. 11. 25. 선고 2019도7342 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What are the limits of seizing, under the initial warrant alone, files of the same type whose date of filming is far removed from the allegations and whose location and manner also differ, and how is the specificity of a warrant for investigating other offenses, which states an unknown date on which the criminal facts cannot be ascertained and an unknown location, to be assessed?
If the relevance requirement of Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act is amended, or if a new en banc judgment is rendered on the scope of relevance in the search and seizure of electronic information, we will re-examine this reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading in which another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra) read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 4 (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
In that the Holdings connect habitual conduct and sexual tendencies with the probability that files remain, and that the disposition reverses the not guilty portion, the first reading may be seen as focusing on application to the facts of the case, and the independent reading on the weighing of the various circumstances.
범죄의 속성상 해당 범행의 상습성이 의심되거나 성적 기호 내지 경향성의 발현에 따른 일련의 범행의 일환으로 이루어진 것으로 의심되고Raw 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 found that each of the videos in this case filmed the interior of a different restroom and did not depict a woman using the toilet, and that the additional videos were filmed in a subway, on the street, or in other restrooms, so that the filming location and the situation of the target of the offense differed, and therefore held that there was no specific and individual connection to the allegations. Finding no material to show that the investigative authorities had stopped the search and seizure and obtained a new warrant, it treated the evidence as illegally obtained evidence and found the defendant not guilty of the relevant counts of the indictment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that each of the videos was filmed in a public restroom with the same mobile phone on the same date as the allegations and with a difference in time of a little over one hour, and that, where there was no direct evidence and the victim's statement was in effect the only evidence, they could be used as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence supporting its credibility, and therefore had objective relevance. The additional videos were seized pursuant to a second warrant stating the purpose of investigating other offenses, and were therefore not unlawful; the Supreme Court accordingly reversed the not guilty portion of the judgment below.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the seized files are not closely connected to the allegations in terms of the time, place, and manner of filming, and the only thing they have in common is merely that they involve offenses of the same or a similar type
- Where, given the nature of the crime, there is no suspicion of habitual conduct or the manifestation of sexual tendencies, and the probability that direct evidence remains stored as files on the storage medium is also low
- Where, after becoming aware of additional crimes, the authorities continued to search without a separate warrant, or where a new warrant does not state the grounds for seizure, such as the purpose of investigating other offenses
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one needs to check whether the seized files are sufficiently proximate in time, place, and means to actually be used as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence of the allegations, and whether a separate warrant, the guarantee of the right to participate, and the delivery of a list of seized items were provided for the portions exceeding the scope of the initial warrant.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형사소송법 제215조 제1항에 따라 영장에 의하여 압수, 수색 또는 검증을 할 수 있는 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것’의 의미 / 이때 압수수색영장의 범죄 혐의사실과 객관적 관련성이 인정되는 범위 및 혐의사실과 단순히 동종 또는 유사 범행에 관한 것이라는 사유만으로 객관적 관련성이 인정되는지 여부(소극) [2] 휴대전화를 이용한 불법촬영 등 범죄와 같이 범죄의 속성상 해당 범행의 상습성이 의심되거나 성적 기호 내지 경향성의 발현에 따른 일련의 범행의 일환으로 이루어진 것으로 의심되고, 범행의 직접증거가 휴대전화 안에 이미지 파일이나 동영상 파일의 형태로 남아 있을 개연성이 있는 경우, 그 안에 저장되어 있는 같은 유형의 전자정보에서 발견되는 간접증거나 정황증거는 혐의사실과 구체적·개별적 연관관계가 인정될 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "anything that may be recognized as having a connection with the relevant case," for which seizure, search or inspection may be conducted by warrant pursuant to Article 215 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / the scope within which objective relevance to the crime alleged in the search and seizure warrant is recognized at this time, and whether objective relevance is recognized on the sole ground that the matter concerns a crime of the same type as or similar to the alleged offense (negative) [2] In cases of crimes such as illegal filming using a mobile phone, where, by the nature of the crime, there is a suspicion that the offender is habitually committing such acts, or that the act was committed as part of a series of acts arising from the manifestation of a sexual preference or tendency, and where it is probable that the direct evidence of the crime remains inside the mobile phone in the form of image files or video files, whether indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence found in electronic information of the same type stored therein may be recognized as having a concrete and individual connection with the facts alleged (affirmative)
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 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part finding not guilty, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제215조 제1항 [2] 형사소송법 제215조, 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