The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets provides that the content of telecommunications acquired through the implementation of communication-restricting measures shall be limited to cases where a crime which is the object of communication-restricting measures or a crime related thereto is prosecuted or is to prevent such crime (Article 12 Subparag. 1). This provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the restriction on the use of communication confirmation data (Article 13-5). Therefore, in cases where communication confirmation data, such as the currency details acquired upon a request for the provision of communication confirmation data, are used to prosecute a crime, the crime subject to communication confirmation data should be limited to the crime which is the object of a request for the provision of communication confirmation data

In this context, a crime related to a crime that is the purpose of a request for the provision of communication confirmation data refers to a crime that is objectively related to the suspected fact stated in the written permission for the provision of communication confirmation data and that is personal relations between a person subject to the request for the provision of data (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13489, Jan. 25, 2017, etc.). According to the records, the prosecutor’s investigation report submitted by the prosecutor as evidence for a violation of the Act on Entrusted Elections, such as public organizations, etc. (hereinafter “instant charges”) among the facts charged in the instant case and submitted as evidence for a violation of the Act on the Contribution-restricted Act (hereinafter “instant charges”), accompanied by the communication confirmation data (hereinafter “communication confirmation data in the instant case”), does not exist any permission for the provision of communication confirmation data, which is the basis for such provision.

Therefore, since the communication confirmation data of this case cannot be used as evidence to prove this part of the facts charged because it is difficult to verify objective and human relations with this part of the facts charged, it is erroneous for the court below to regard them as evidence of guilt.

However, evidence is admissible except for the communication confirmation data of this case.