beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of legal principles
(a) Narcotics, etc. are concealed in the course of examining illegal export and import of postal items;
If the opening, collecting, and component analysis of the exported or imported goods is conducted, this constitutes a search and seizure, which is a criminal investigation, and thus requires a search and seizure warrant.
However, since the mail clearance inspection was conducted without a prior or ex post warrant, it is illegal in violation of warrant requirement, and thus, it is not admissible in all reports on detection, a request for component analysis, a response to the result of analysis, and an investigation report (the details of five orders and remittances).
B. In the protocol of seizure of illegality, the investigative agency voluntarily received and seized mushroom (No. 1, hereinafter “the instant mushroom”) from the Defendant as a savor’s death day.
In the record, the defendant did not have obtained possession of the mushroom of this case and thus received a voluntary submission from the defendant, and it is not admissible as evidence even after the time limit seizure.
(c)
The evidence presented by the prosecutor as above, as there is no evidence supporting the confession, is inadmissible as it is unlawful, and thus, the confession of the defendant cannot be recognized as guilty as there is no evidence to reinforce it.
2. Determination
A. A. A prosecutor, such as opening, collecting samples, component analysis, etc. of postal items, conducted in the process of customs clearance inspection to determine the illegality of a postal item customs clearance inspection, shall not be deemed a compulsory disposition by an investigation agency. Thus, even if a prosecutor was conducted without a warrant of search and seizure, such as opening, collecting samples, and component analysis of postal items without a warrant of search and seizure, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do718, Sept. 26, 2013). The lower court can be duly admitted and examined by evidence.