The argument in the grounds of appeal is that a customs officer's forced intervention of an international postal item without a warrant constitutes an illegal search and seizure, and other evidence collected based on this constitutes derivative evidence of illegally collected evidence and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

However, according to the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, an inspection, such as opening, collecting samples, component analysis, etc. of a postal item conducted in the international postal clearance procedure, has the nature of an administrative investigation conducted with a view to adequate customs clearance against exported and imported goods, and cannot be deemed a compulsory disposition by an investigation agency. Thus, even if an inspection, such as opening, collecting samples, and component analysis, was conducted without a search and seizure warrant, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7718, Sept. 26, 2013). The grounds of appeal on a different premise

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.