新着情報

Lee & Ko successfully hosted a seminar titled Recent Trends in Case Law on Search and Seizure on Friday, November 14.

The seminar began with opening remarks by Attorney Hoogon Kim, Head of the firm’s White Collar Crime Practice Group, and proceeded with a total of six sessions.

In the first session, Attorney Tae Yop Lee presented on the topic “Analysis of Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Search and Seizure”. Mr. Lee explained that the Supreme Court has recently adopted a stricter interpretation of the standards for assessing the legality of search and seizure, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the right to participate in the seizure of electronic information, prohibiting the search of unrelated data, and limiting the seizure of storage devices. He also stressed that practitioners should carefully review the scope and procedures of search and seizure, including the presentation of warrants, adherence to procedural requirements, and the obligation to delete unrelated information.

In the second session, Attorney Yang Ho Park discussed “The Permissible Scope of Search and Seizure under a Search and Seizure Warrant”. Mr. Park explained that a search and seizure is permissible only within the scope specified in the warrant, and that remote storage information such as cloud data must be expressly stated in the warrant. He also emphasized, in relation to the limitations of the Plain View doctrine under U.S. law, that retaining or using unrelated information for other investigations is unlawful and cannot be remedied by a subsequent warrant issuance or consent to the use of evidence.

In the third session, Attorney Joohyun Lee gave a presentation on “Special Cases Concerning the Permissibility of Search and Seizure”. Mr. Lee explained that when seizing electronic information stored on remote servers, the scope of the seizure must be clearly specified. Otherwise, any subsequent selection or seizure under a separate warrant would be unlawful. He emphasized the importance of verifying both the contents of the warrant and the procedures used in its execution at the search site. He also introduced case law establishing that the use of electronic information seized in a prior case as evidence in a subsequent case renders the evidence inadmissible, and that retaining copies for an extended period and using them in other criminal investigations is prohibited.

In the fourth session, Attorney Hanjae Lee delivered a presentation on “The Admissibility of Evidence in Case of a Search and Seizure Procedure Violation”. Mr. Lee explained that if the warrant is not presented, the seized items lack evidentiary value. However, if the investigative authorities did not intend to circumvent the principles of due process or the warrant requirement, the execution of a financial account tracing search and seizure warrant may still be deemed valid when a copy of the warrant is presented first and the original is shown afterward. He also introduced the Supreme Court’s position that the right to participation is guaranteed primarily for the “person subject to seizure” and that mere use of information does not entitle one to such participation right.

Then, Attorney Seung Hyun Kim presented on the topic of “Admissibility of Evidence in Re-Seizure Cases”. He explained that once a search and seizure has been executed, a re-execution within the validity period of the warrant is not permitted, and if a new warrant is not issued, the seized items must be returned immediately in accordance with the Supreme Court’s position. He further noted that when seized items are not promptly returned despite the absence of a subsequently issued warrant, such evidence lacks admissibility and cannot be validated even with the consent of the defendant or defense counsel, nor by re-seizure. He also emphasized that the prolonged failure to return original seized materials is an unlawful act whose illegality cannot be remedied by later issuing a warrant or obtaining consent to use the evidence.

Attorney Kyunhae Kim concluded the session with a presentation on “Key Issues in Search and Seizure”. He explained that in cases involving violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, the admissibility of evidence should be determined by balancing the public interest against the individual’s right to privacy. Regarding illegally obtained evidence by private individuals, he noted that although the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of excluding such evidence, in practice, most precedents have acknowledged its admissibility, and there have been no explicit cases denying it. He also emphasized that allowing persons other than authorized participants to be present during a search and seizure is, in principle, prohibited and is permitted only as an exception when technical assistance is necessary.

Through this seminar, Lee & Ko’s White Collar Crime Practice Group reminded attendees that recent Supreme Court precedents impose very strict standards on the procedures and scope of search and seizure. The Group also emphasized that, following a search and seizure by investigative authorities, it is crucial for companies to promptly seek legal advice, ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, and diligently carry out follow-up measures such as deleting and returning irrelevant information.