|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] When an investigative agency, which intends to seize electronic information, does so through voluntary submission of a data storage medium and the electronic information stored therein, where the subject and scope of electronic information to be seized in accordance with the intention of the person who had voluntarily submitted the data storage medium are unclear or unknown, whether the electronic information relevant to facts of a suspicion of the crime, which provides the motive for seizure subsequent to the voluntary submission, and has a minimum value in proving such relevance is merely subject to seizure (affirmative) and, in such a case, the scope within which the relevance to facts of a suspicion of a crime may be recognized
[2] Where an investigative agency, to which a data storage medium, in which electronic information, subject to seizure and not subject thereto, is intermingled, or its duplicate was voluntarily submitted, does not take any appropriate measure such as guaranteeing opportunities to participate in such process to the person whose articles were seized, etc. in the process of examining, duplicating, and printing out the data storage medium, etc. after transferring the data storage medium, etc. to an office, etc. of the investigative agency, whether such seizure and search may be deemed legal (negative in principle) and, in such a case, whether the same is true even if electronic information relevant to facts of a suspicion of a crime in the data storage medium or its duplicate was merely duplicated and printed out (affirmative)
[3] Where a third person including a victim, etc. voluntarily submitted a data storage medium falling under the ownership and management of a criminal suspect without a warrant, whether any appropriate measure to ensure the procedural right of the criminal suspect by guaranteeing the right of participation to the criminal suspect, the actual person whose articles were seized, should be taken (affirmative) and, in such a case, the meaning of a “data storage medium falling under the ownership and management of a criminal suspect,” in relation to which the right of participation should be guaranteed even to a criminal suspect, who did not voluntarily submit the data storage medium as well as the person whose articles were voluntarily submitted and thus are deemed to be seized, and standard of determining whether a data storage medium corresponds thereto
[4] Where an investigative agency did not present the original warrant to financial institutions before receiving materials on financial transactions from financial institutions in the process of executing a seizure and search warrant issued for financial account tracking, whether such execution method may be deemed legal (negative in principle) and, in such a case, a case that can be seen to correspond to a legitimate method to execute a warrant as an exception
|
