All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The abstract of the grounds for appeal of the grounds for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of documents submitted after the deadline for appeal is not timely filed.

A. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding sampling and electronic information admissibility <1> The investigative agency, upon voluntary submission from H that made a disguised transaction with Defendant A without a seizure warrant, seizes 0.67g of philophones presumed to have been made, and submitted as evidence proving the Defendant’s criminal act the above sampling with the detection of Melograms.

However, H merely received samples from Defendant A for the purpose of collecting criminal evidence under the direction and control of the investigation agency, and submitted them to the investigation agency as they are. As such, H does not constitute “owner, possessor, or keeper” who can voluntarily submit the samples.

Ultimately, this constitutes a case where the investigative agency seizes the sample directly for the purpose of investigation without the warrant of seizure, and it cannot be used as evidence of guilt against the defendant as evidence collected in violation of the warrant requirement.

② Since the scope of “goods to be seized” stated in the warrant of search, seizure and verification against the Defendant (the warrant number 2019-25095, evidence records 4-2, 724 pages, hereinafter “instant warrant of seizure”) is limited to digital information related to criminal facts, it is unlawful to seize the Defendant’s cell phone (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2019No. 5713, hereinafter “the instant cell phone”) and the PC’s main body (hereinafter “instant PC”) itself. Since the instant cell phone and the instant PC were not guaranteed the right to participate in the process of searching, copying, and printing out the instant PC, electronic information and its printed materials acquired through such process by the investigative agency were unlawful.