1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Article 215(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The public prosecutor may seize, search or inspect evidence according to the warrant issued by a judge of the competent district court upon request of the public prosecutor, only when there are circumstances to suspect that a suspect has committed a crime if necessary for the investigation of a crime.”

Therefore, in case of seizure of a separate evidence irrelevant to the facts of the offense on which a warrant was issued, it cannot be used as evidence of conviction in principle.

However, in the case of a crime subject to search and seizure or a crime related to it, the result of search and seizure can be used as evidence of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11233, Mar. 10, 2016). The term “crimes related to the suspected criminal facts of a search and seizure warrant” means crimes related to a person subject to a search and seizure warrant and having objective relevance to the suspected criminal facts stated in the search and seizure warrant.

Among them, the objective relevance to the suspected facts may be recognized in cases where the facts or basic facts of the suspected facts stated in the search and seizure warrant are directly related to the same crime, as well as indirect evidence to prove the motive, background, means and methods of the crime, time and place of the crime, etc., or circumstantial evidence.

The relevance is recognized only when there is a specific and individual relationship by taking into account the details of the facts of the suspicion stated in the search and seizure warrant, the object of the investigation, the investigation circumstances, etc. The relevance is not simply related to the facts of the suspicion, but is not simply related to the facts of the offense.

In addition, human relations between the suspect is not only the co-offenders of the person subject to the search and seizure warrant, or the principal offender, but also the principal offender.