National Teachers' Union and Labor Union et al.

Attorneys Kwon Du-con et al.

Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office (Court Administration) and one other

All of the quasi-appeals of this case are dismissed.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the quasi-appeal of this case

A. As to the assertion of violation of jurisdiction

⒧ 주장의 요지

Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the competent court of quasi-appeal shall be "the competent court of the place of performance of duties" or "the court corresponding to the prosecutor's office to which the prosecutor belongs". However, the quasi-Appellant's appeal of this case is unlawful in executing the warrant of this case at the seat of the office of the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter "Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 5") (hereinafter "Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 5") and it is not the prosecutor of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office but the judicial police officer of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station. Therefore, in this case, the competent court of quasi-appeal exists only "the competent court of the place of performance of duties", which is the place of performance of duties, and it is not the Seoul Southern District Court but the Seoul Southern District Court, which is the place of execution of duties. Therefore, filing the quasi-appeal of this case with this court is unlawful.

Shed Judgment

㈎ 형사소송법 제417조 는 ‘검사 또는 사법경찰관의 구금, 압수 또는 압수물의 환부에 관한 처분 등에 대하여 불복이 있으면 『그 직무집행지의 관할법원』 또는 『검사의 소속검찰청에 대응한 법원』에 그 처분의 취소 또는 변경을 청구할 수 있다.’라고 규정되어 있다.

㈏ 위 법문이 단순히 직무집행지의 관할법원이 아니라 『그 직무집행지의 관할법원』이라고 규정되어 있는 점에 비추어 이는 앞의 ‘구금, 압수 또는 압수물의 환부에 관한 처분’에 대응하는 것이므로, 형사소송법 제417조 에서 정한 ‘직무집행지의 관할법원’은 압수 등에 관한 처분의 직무를 집행한 장소를 관할하는 법원이라고 봄이 상당하고, 따라서 이 사건 영장 집행장소가 “서울 영등포구 영등포동 5가 (이하 생략)”인 이상 직무집행지의 관할법원은 서울남부지방법원이고( 각급 법원의 설치와 관할구역에 관한 법률 제4조 의 별표3 참조) 이 법원은 아니라고 할 것이다.

㈐ 그러나 다른 한편, 기록에 의하면 피준항고인 서울중앙지방검찰청 검사(이하 ‘피준항고인 검사’라고 한다)의 집행지휘에 따라 피준항고인 서울영등포경찰서 사법경찰관(이하 ‘피준항고인 사법경찰관’이라고 한다)이 이 사건 영장을 집행한 것임은 기록상 명백한바(피준항고인들 모두 이를 자인하고 있다, 각 의견서 제2-3면 참조), 위 사실에 의하면 피준항고인들이 공동으로 이 사건 영장을 집행하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피준항고인 검사가 소속된 서울중앙지방검찰청에 대응한 이 법원에 관할권이 있다고 할 것이다. 따라서 피준항고인들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다. [가사 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 ①사법경찰관은 검사의 지휘를 받아 수사를 행할 뿐, 수사의 주재자는 검사라는 점( 형사소송법 제195조 , 제196조 ), ②수사를 직접 담당하는 사법경찰관이 당해 수사와 관련하여 잘못된 구금·압수 등을 집행하는 경우 당해 수사를 지휘하는 검사가 이를 시정할 필요가 있다는 점 등에 비추어 검사가 준항고의 대상이 된 구금, 압수 등을 직접 집행하지 아니하고 사법경찰관이 이를 집행하더라도 그와 관련된 수사를 지휘하는 검사에게 사법경찰관의 구금·압수 등의 위법 여부를 감독할 의무가 있다. 이러한 관점에서 형사소송법 제417조 에서 정한 준항고의 관할법원인 『검사의 소속검찰청에 대응한 법원』의 『검사』는 준항고가 제기된 구금·압수 등에 관한 처분을 직접 집행하였는지와 관계없이 그 처분과 관련된 수사를 지휘하는 검사를 의미하는 것이다. 따라서 수사를 지휘하는 검사가 직접 준항고가 제기된 구금·압수 등에 관한 처분을 직접 집행하였는지와 관계없이 그 검사의 소속검찰청에 대응한 법원은 형사소송법 제417조 에서 정한 ‘검사의 소속검찰청에 대응한 법원’으로서 준항고 사건에 관하여 관할권을 가진다고 할 것이므로 모로 보나 피준항고인들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.]

B. As to the assertion that the interests of quasi-appeal were extinguished

⒧ 주장의 요지

Although judicial police officers, in accordance with the instant warrant, seize a server or computer storage device, etc., all of them were temporarily returned, and digital files stored in the storage device were also included in the above server and computer, so legal interest was extinguished to seek revocation of the execution of the instant warrant.

Shed Judgment

Inasmuch as Quasi-Appellants’ dispute over the instant quasi-appeal does not seek the return of the seized server and computer (including digital files), it is clear in the record that it is the legality of the execution of the instant warrant, and as long as the legal outcome (digital files copies, etc.) following the execution of the instant warrant exists valid, there is still a legal interest to seek revocation against Quasi-Appellants. Accordingly, the assertion on this part of the quasi-Appellants’ assertion is without merit.

C. As to the assertion that the quasi-Appellant did not have the eligibility

⒧ 주장의 요지

Since Quasi-Appellants' dispute as the quasi-appeal in this case was erroneous in executing the warrant in this case, the quasi-Appellants' prosecutor did not participate in the execution of the warrant in this case, so there is no eligibility.

Shed Judgment

As seen earlier, the quasi-Appellants may jointly execute the instant warrant. Accordingly, in detail, in addition to the quasi-Appellants who have executed the instant warrant, the quasi-Appellants who directed the enforcement of the instant warrant also have the qualifications to be subject to the examination. Accordingly, this part of the assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the Quasi-Appellant's assertion

⒧ 압수방법의 제한위반

The instant warrant limits the method of seizure by stating that “In principle, in the case of information stored in a computer storage device, it shall be seized by means of collecting scarp, scarp, or output to the storage device carried by the investigative agency, but such storage device itself may be seized only if it is inevitable to do so.” Nevertheless, the quasi-Appellants seize the storage device itself on the ground that “the storage device itself has no time to avoid knife”, and the execution of

Doz. Violation subject to seizure

In addition, the instant warrant is an object to be seized and classified into “computers, Nowon-gu, external hard disks, fluor, CD, CD, DoVD, flob, and other external storage media in custody of the above materials” and “a copy of the storage media and its output.” However, in relation to the meaning of the storage media, the contents to be seized are merely expressed as a storage medium due to difficulties in specifying the subject. As such, regardless of the expression of the warrant, the object to be seized refer to the storage medium itself and the file stored in the storage medium. Therefore, “the storage medium in custody of the permanent declaration data” refers not to the storage medium in which the current declaration related materials were kept and the file included therein, but to “the files related to the current declaration data” as a matter of course, and “the files related to the storage medium in custody of the current declaration data” are stored in the storage medium itself and are unlawful in the way of seizure and execution of the present warrant.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The record reveals the following facts:

⒧ 준항고인 전국교직원노동조합(소속 조합원 70,000여 명, 이하 ‘준항고인 전교조’라고 한다)의 소속 교원들 17,000여 명은 2009. 6. 18.경 미디어법 입법 중단과 한반도 대운하 추진의혹 해소 등을 요구하는 시국선언을 발표하였고, 이에 교육과학기술부는 2009. 6. 26. 서울중앙지방검찰청에 준항고인 2 등 전교조 간부 41명이 국가공무원법을 위반하였으니 처벌하여 달라는 내용의 고발장을 제출하였고, 이러한 사실이 언론 등을 통하여 널리 알려졌다.

On July 2, 2009, the prosecutor, who was in charge of the said case, requested a search and seizure warrant to the Seoul Central District Court. On the same day, the warrant of this case was issued by the judge of the Seoul Central District Court as follows:

(1) The Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that “The Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means “the Assembly and the Assembly and Demonstration Act” means” means “the Assembly and the Assembly and the Assembly and the Assembly and the Commission” means” means.

【Quasi-Appellant’s Judicial Police Officers enforced the warrant of this case at the office of Quasi-Appellant’s headquarters until July 3, 2009 between 05:00 - 07:00 and 07:00.

Then, at the time of the execution of the warrant, the quasi-Appellants judicial police officer prepared two hard copies to download the files stored in the storage device, but at the same time, most of 50 computers installed in the above office removed hard diskss from most of the computers, and the power supply of computers and servers was obstructed and thus it was impossible to verify the contents stored in the storage device. Accordingly, the quasi-Appellants judicial police officer seized three computer units in the storage device and ten server computers, including the storage device, and carried them to the Seoul Young-gu Police Station. However, after May 1, 2009, the above storage device had 8,000 files (the above storage device was after June 1, 2009) and 8,000 files (the amount of DVD three copies and one CDs).

(v) Following the enforcement of the instant warrant, at the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, the quasi-Appellant police officer, and the quasi-Appellant’s judicial police officer, after May 1, 2009, sent to the DVD and CDs in such a way as to ensure integrity by exchanging the value of the files, among all the files stored in the seized storage medium (the EXE document was after June 1, 2009) among the files presented by the employees of the quasi-Appellant’s pre-Appellants and their defense counsel. In this case, the employees and their defense counsel of the quasi-Appellants were required to reduce them on the grounds that the scope of carp is too wide (the “documents prepared,” etc. at the close date to the Si Declaration).

⑹ 위와 같이 파일 카피가 마쳐 진 후 준항고인 사법경찰관은 저장매체가 포함된 압수물을 준항고인 전교조 측에 가환부하였다.

C. Determination

⒧ 판단의 대상

According to the facts found above, the quasi-Appellants executed the seizure of 3 parts of the database computer and 10 parts of the server computer with the warrant of this case (if only a part of the files stored in the above computer were carried out while temporarily returned to the above computer, then the execution of the warrant of this case). Thus, we examine whether the execution of the warrant of this case conforms to the warrant of this case.

d. The limit of interpretation of the text stated in the warrant of search and seizure

In light of the due process and the spirit of warrant requirement to be implemented by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, in cases where a judge issues a warrant of search and seizure and contains phrases that restrict the objects to be searched or to be searched or the method of search and seizure, it shall be strictly interpreted according to the language and text stated therein, and shall not be expanded or analogically interpreted to the extent unfavorable to the persons subject to search and seizure, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do763, Mar. 12, 2009). On the other hand, as an institution whose mission is to discover substantive truth through due process, the search and seizure is not necessary for individual and specific cases for this mission. Thus, the search and seizure warrant may be executed lawfully within the extent that does not go beyond the scope of expansion or analogical interpretation according to the language and text stated in the search and seizure method.

【Claim of Violation of Restriction on Seizure Method】

㈎ 이 사건 영장은 시국선언과 관련되어 컴퓨터 저장장치에 저장된 파일들은, 원칙적으로 수사기관이 휴대한 저장장치에 하드카피하는 등의 방법으로 압수하도록 되어 있고 예외적으로 하드카피하는 등의 방법으로 할 수 없는 경우에 한하여 저장장치를 포함한 컴퓨터 자체를 압수할 수 있다고 규정된 것은 앞에서 본 바와 같다.

㈏ 그런데 앞에서 인정한 사실 및 기록상 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ①압수수색 장소의 사무실에 증거인멸의 정황이 있었던 점, ②피압수자인 전교조의 조합원 수가 70,000여 명에 달하고, 피의사실과 관련된 조합원 수도 17,000여 명에 달하였던 점, ③피압수자인 전교조의 직원들 중 여러 명이 이 사건 영장집행 당시에 사무실에 있었고 이들은 피준항고인인 사법경찰관이 이 사건 영장을 집행하는 것에 대하여 적대시하였고, 더 나아가 다른 직원 또는 조합원들이 이들로부터 연락을 받고 몰려올 가능성도 있었던 점, ④이 사건 영장집행 당시 초기에 서버에 전원공급 등이 제대로 되지 아니하여 하드카피가 물리적으로 불가능하였고, 이에 따라 서버 및 컴퓨터를 압수하기 위하여 본체를 떼어내 들고 나오려고 할 때서야 비로소 전교조 직원들이 전원공급이 가능하다고 말하였던 점(저장매체에 저장된 파일크기를 고려할 때, 이를 현장에서 이미징하거나 문서로 출력하는 것은 원천적으로 불가능하다), ⑤피준항고인인 사법경찰관이 하드카피에 필요한 장비 등을 소지하고 있었던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피준항고인 사법경찰관이 이 사건 영장집행 당시 저장매체에 저장된 시국선언과 관련된 파일들을 휴대한 하드디스크에 하드카피하는 방법으로 집행할 수는 없다고 판단되고, 따라서 시국선언과 관련된 파일들이 담긴 컴퓨터 및 서버의 저장장치 자체를 압수한 것은 이 사건 영장의 내용에 부합하는 집행이라고 할 것이다.

Therefore, this part of the Quasi-Appellants' assertion is without merit.

x) As to the assertion of violation of restrictions on seizure

In light of the language and text of the warrant, the warrant of this case, as an object to be seized and seized, is clearly indicated as “the storage device in which the file related to the temporary declaration was stored,” and as a limitation on the method of seizure, it is evident that “in principle, the warrant of this case should be seized by means of sadadding, etc., but in exceptional cases, the storage device itself cannot be seized.” Therefore, in principle, the warrant of this case only seizes the relevant files stored in the storage device, i.e., the requirements for cancellation of the restriction on the method of seizure, i.e., the method of seizure., the storage device itself in which the file was stored, insofar as it cannot be seized exceptionally. Therefore, the requirements for cancellation of the restriction on the method of seizure of the warrant of this case are satisfied, as seen in the above paragraph (1) and it is evident in the record that there was a file related to the seized storage device, and thus, the execution of the warrant of this case is lawful, and there is no reason for the Quasi-Appellants’ assertion on different premise.

[4] However, in the case of exceptional cases where the search and seizure of a storage device itself cannot be executed in such a way as to keep the files related to criminal facts at the search and seizure site, the principle can be interpreted as being limited, and in exceptional cases where the search and seizure is conducted in such a way as to allow the search and seizure of the storage device itself, so that the investigation agency may seize the storage device itself even those files unrelated to criminal facts, thereby infringing on various fundamental rights of the persons subject to the search and seizure. However, even in the case where the investigation agency exceptionally seizes the storage device itself, it can be solved by means of collecting only the files related to criminal facts within a certain period of time, cutting them into the storage device, and making the other files deleted and returned the storage device recorded in the search and seizure warrant, or (2) if the search and seizure requester requests the search and seizure agency to delete the files that are not related to criminal facts and refuses it, it can be resolved by filing a quasi-appeal with the court pursuant to Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as infringing without remedy methods for the victim

3. Conclusion

Thus, the quasi-Appellant's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 417, 419, and 414 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yang Ro-soon