º»¹® ¹Ù·Î°¡±â ÁÖ¸Þ´º·Î ¹Ù·Î°¡±â
All
TITLE Supreme Court en banc Decision 2022Do7453 Decided September 18, 2023 ¡¼Obstruction of Performance of Duties¡½ [full Text]
Summary
¡¼Main Issues and Holdings¡½ [1] Meaning of ¡°data storage medium under ownership and management of a criminal suspect,¡± to whom the right of participation must be granted, in addition to the one granted to an individual who voluntarily submitted the said data storage medium, and standards for determination of whether a particular data storage medium constitutes such data storage medium In a case where a criminal suspect or a third party participated in either the use of the forfeited data storage medium in the past or the creation and use of individual electronic information, or the said criminal suspect or the third party constitutes a data subject identifiable by electronic information generated in the process, whether the said criminal suspect or the third party must be treated as a de facto individual whose data storage medium is subject to forfeiture (negative) [2] In relation to the Defendant¡¯s charge of the obstruction of graduate admissions process conducted by admissions officers of a graduate school through falsification of internship certificates and provision thereof to facilitate the graduate school admission process of Party A¡¯s child, in a case where: (a) Party A, etc. had evidence such as internship certificates saved in a data storage medium (hard disk) of a computer that Party A, etc. used in her residence; (b) when the investigation on the allegations of which Party A, etc. was accused of began in earnest, Party A, etc. ordered Party B to conceal the hard disk; (c) following the investigation agency¡¯s indictment of Party B on the charge of concealment of evidence, Party B voluntarily submitted the concealed hard disk; (d) in the process of the voluntary submission of the hard disk and the subsequent search, copying, and reproduction of the electronic information therein, the investigative agency guaranteed the right of participation to Party B, whereas Party A, etc. was not granted such an opportunity to participate; and (e) the admissibility of the evidence so presented was questioned, the case holding that the right of participation granted to Party B, a suspect of a crime of evidence concealment and an individual who voluntarily submitted the hard disk, does not have to be equally granted to Party A, etc., who is not an individual having voluntarily submitted the evidence
Prev Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da255941 Decided September 21, 2023 ¡¼Wage¡½
Next Supreme Court Decision 2023Da227500 Decided September 14, 2023 ¡¼Ownership Transfer Registration¡½
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100