All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ fraud and violation of the Political Funds Act

A. In principle, search and seizure by an investigative agency should be based on a search and seizure warrant issued by a judge. The name of the suspect, the articles to be seized, the place and articles to be searched, the reason for search and seizure, etc. should be specified in the warrant.

(Articles 215, 219, and 114(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 58 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure provides that a warrant must be presented to the person subject to the disposition (Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act); where seized articles are seized, a list thereof shall be prepared and delivered to the owner, possessor, etc.

(Article 219 and Article 129 of the same Act). The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the rules on criminal procedure are to realize due process and warrant requirement declared in the Constitution, and their normative power must be firmly maintained.

Therefore, evidence collected without following the procedure stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. is not in compliance with the legitimate procedure prepared to guarantee fundamental human rights, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence of conviction in principle.

(2) Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis to cases where an investigative agency executes a search and seizure warrant with respect to a financial institution and e-mail enterprise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do101, Sept. 7, 2017).

Therefore, the court below did not present the original copy of the warrant, although the investigative agency sent the warrant copy by facsimile while executing the search and seizure warrant for financial institutions and e-mail companies.