All
| TITLE | Supreme Decision 2019Do14341, 2019Jeondo130 Decided February 13, 2020 【Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Minors less than 13 Years of Age); Statutory Rape of Minors and Abduction for Purpose of Adultery (Partly Acknowledged Name of Crime: Attempted Abduction for Purpose of Adultery); Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Obscenity Using Communication Media); Order to Attach an Electronic Device】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In a case where separate evidence irrelevant to the facts of the suspected crime on which a warrant was issued based is seized, whether this may be used as evidence for an admission of guilt (negative in principle) and in the case of crimes that are objects of search and seizure or those involved therein, whether the results of the search and seizure may be used as evidence of guilt (affirmative) Meaning of “crime related to the facts of the suspected crime of a search and seizure warrant” and, on this occasion, the scope within which “objective relevancy” in relation to the facts of suspicion is admitted and the standard for its judgment [2] In a case where, in relation to the attempted abduction for the purpose of adultery and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communication media), which a criminal defendant committed against Victim A (10-year-old girl) on May 6, 2018, investigative authorities seized a mobile phone owned by the criminal defendant and obtained additional information about criminal acts including abduction for the purpose of adultery and attempted abduction for the purpose of adultery, statutory rape of minors, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape of minors less than 13 years of age), violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communication media), etc., which the criminal defendant committed against Victims B (12-year-old girl), C (10-year-old girl) and D (9-year-old girl) from around December 2017 to around April 2018 as a result of digital forensic regarding the above mobile phone, and thus whether they may be admissible as evidence ought to be considered, the case holding that the criminal defendant’s criminal acts against Victims A, B and C clarified by the additional information satisfy all the objective and human relevance as they have a specific and an individual relationship therewith, not to mention those simply identical or similar to the criminal facts stated in the search and seizure warrant |
|
