The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Not only evidence collected in violation of the procedures prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, but also secondary evidence obtained based on it 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.

However, in a final determination as to whether to grant admissibility of seized articles illegally collected, all circumstances related to the procedural violation committed by an investigative agency during the process of evidence collection, namely, the purport of the procedural provision and the content and degree of the violation, specific course and possibility of avoidance, the nature of the right to protect or legal interests in the procedure provision, the degree of infringement, the relationship between the defendant and the defendant, the degree of relevance between the procedural violation and the collection of evidence, the perception and intent of the investigative agency, etc., do not constitute a case where the procedural violation by the investigative agency infringes on the substantive contents of due process, but rather, where the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act establish the procedural provisions concerning criminal procedure and promote harmony between the substantive truth and the substantial justice of criminal justice, and exceptional cases where it is assessed that the admissibility of evidence results in a violation of the purpose of realizing criminal justice, the court may use the evidence as

This also applies to secondary evidence obtained based on the evidence collected in violation of due process, and in exceptional cases, it can be used as evidence of conviction in consideration of all circumstances related to the collection of secondary evidence, focusing on whether the collection of evidence not in compliance with the procedure and the collection of secondary evidence are dilution or simplification of causation.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do3061 Decided November 15, 2007