{"id":313,"date":"2025-12-22T05:37:01","date_gmt":"2025-12-22T05:37:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?p=313"},"modified":"2026-05-03T08:42:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T08:42:09","slug":"illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_START --><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"ko\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/%ec%9e%84%ec%9d%98%ec%a0%9c%ec%b6%9c%ed%95%9c-%ed%9c%b4%eb%8c%80%ec%a0%84%ed%99%94%ec%97%90%ec%84%9c-%eb%ac%b4%ea%b4%80-%ec%a0%84%ec%9e%90%ec%a0%95%eb%b3%b4%eb%a5%bc-%ec%95%95%ec%88%98%ed%95%98\/\" \/><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"en\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/\" \/><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"x-default\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/%ec%9e%84%ec%9d%98%ec%a0%9c%ec%b6%9c%ed%95%9c-%ed%9c%b4%eb%8c%80%ec%a0%84%ed%99%94%ec%97%90%ec%84%9c-%eb%ac%b4%ea%b4%80-%ec%a0%84%ec%9e%90%ec%a0%95%eb%b3%b4%eb%a5%bc-%ec%95%95%ec%88%98%ed%95%98\/\" \/><!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_END --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\", \"@type\": \"Article\", \"headline\": \"Is Seizing Unrelated Digital Evidence from a Voluntarily Submitted Phone Illegally Obtained Evidence in South Korea?\", \"description\": \"Detailed analysis of whether investigative agencies' search and copying beyond the scope of voluntary submission constitutes illegally obtained evidence, with actual acquittal case study and defense strategies.\", \"author\": {\"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Taejin Kim\", \"jobTitle\": \"Managing Partner\", \"worksFor\": {\"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\", \"address\": {\"@type\": \"PostalAddress\", \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\", \"addressRegion\": \"Songdo\"}}, \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/taejin-kim\/#person\"}, \"publisher\": {\"@type\": \"Organization\", \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\", \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\"}, \"datePublished\": \"2025-12-22\", \"dateModified\": \"2025-12-22\", \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\"@type\": \"WebPage\"}, \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea#article\", \"keywords\": []}<\/script><\/p>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n    \"mainEntity\": [\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Is seizing unrelated electronic information from a voluntarily submitted phone illegally obtained evidence?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Yes, it may constitute illegally obtained evidence. According to Supreme Court precedents, the scope of voluntary submission is based on the submitter's free will, and if investigators arbitrarily search and copy beyond the scope clearly indicated by the submitter, it constitutes illegal search and seizure.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What should investigators do when they discover evidence of another crime in a voluntarily submitted phone?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Investigators must immediately stop additional searching and obtain a separate search and seizure warrant from the court for the separate criminal suspicion. Evidence obtained by continuing to search without a warrant constitutes illegally obtained evidence.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What effect does recognition as illegally obtained evidence have?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used as evidence for conviction. Additionally, secondary evidence (statements, documents, etc.) obtained based on illegally collected primary evidence is also excluded from admissibility in principle.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can I claim illegally obtained evidence even if I signed a voluntary submission consent form?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Yes, it is possible. The scope of submission is not determined solely by the contents of the voluntary submission consent form; it is judged comprehensively considering the investigation situation at the time, the submitter's specific awareness, and the scope of submission intent. Even if you signed the consent form, seizure beyond the scope of submission can be illegally obtained evidence.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"When should I claim exclusion of illegally obtained evidence?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"It is better to claim as early as possible, starting from the prosecution investigation stage. However, even if not claimed in the first trial, it can be newly claimed in the appellate trial, and the court also judges admissibility ex officio.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Does exclusion of illegally obtained evidence necessarily result in acquittal?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Not necessarily. However, when illegally obtained evidence and secondary evidence based on it are excluded, it often becomes difficult for prosecutors to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt with the remaining evidence, increasing the possibility of acquittal.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What are the suspect's rights during mobile phone forensics?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"The suspect or defense attorney has the right to attend forensic procedures and can designate or limit the scope of searching and copying. Investigators must properly confirm the submitter's intent, and seizing all electronic information without confirmation constitutes illegally obtained evidence.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can evidence seized during investigation of another case be used in a separate case?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"In principle, it cannot be used. Seizure is only possible for electronic information related to the criminal suspicion stated in the search and seizure warrant, and using electronic information unrelated to the crime stated in the warrant as evidence in another case constitutes illegally obtained evidence.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Is consultation on illegally obtained evidence available at Atlas Legal?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Yes, Atlas Legal provides specialized legal services in corporate crimes and criminal cases in Songdo, Incheon, and has recent experience obtaining acquittal through exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. We provide professional defense in cases involving digital forensics and electronic information search and seizure.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What preparation is needed to claim illegally obtained evidence?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"First, the situation at the time of seizure and the content of the submitter's expression of intent must be carefully reviewed. Second, the contents of voluntary submission consent forms, seizure records, and suspect interrogation records must be analyzed. Third, whether the seized electronic information is related to the original charges must be examined. It is important to carefully analyze investigation records with a professional attorney.\"\n            }\n        }\n    ]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"LocalBusiness\",\n    \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\",\n    \"image\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/logo.png\",\n    \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n    \"telephone\": \"+82-32-864-8300\",\n    \"address\": {\n        \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n        \"streetAddress\": \"323 Incheon Tower-daero, B-dong 2901\",\n        \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n        \"addressRegion\": \"Yeonsu-gu, Songdo-dong\",\n        \"addressCountry\": \"KR\"\n    },\n    \"priceRange\": \"$$\",\n    \"openingHoursSpecification\": {\n        \"@type\": \"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\n        \"dayOfWeek\": [\n            \"Monday\",\n            \"Tuesday\",\n            \"Wednesday\",\n            \"Thursday\",\n            \"Friday\"\n        ],\n        \"opens\": \"09:00\",\n        \"closes\": \"18:00\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- ===== CSS \uc2a4\ud0c0\uc77c ===== --><\/p>\n<style>\n    body {\n        font-family: Georgia, serif;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        max-width: 1000px;\n        margin: 0 auto;\n        padding: 20px;\n        background-color: #f9f9f9;\n    }\n    .content-container {\n        background-color: white;\n        padding: 20px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    h2 {\n        font-size: 22px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    h3 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #34495e;\n        margin-top: 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    p, li {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n    }\n    ul, ol {\n        padding-left: 25px;\n        margin: 10px 0;\n    }\n    li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    \/* \ud14c\uc774\ube14 \uc2a4\ud0c0\uc77c *\/\n    table {\n        width: 100%;\n        border-collapse: collapse;\n        margin: 15px 0;\n    }\n    th, td {\n        border: 1px solid #ddd;\n        padding: 10px;\n        text-align: left;\n        font-size: 16px;\n    }\n    th {\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    \/* \ubaa9\ucc28 - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd *\/\n    .toc {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .toc h2 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    .toc ul {\n        list-style-type: none;\n        padding-left: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .toc ul li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .toc a {\n        text-decoration: none !important;\n        color: #3498db;\n        border-bottom: none !important;\n    }\n    .toc a:hover {\n        text-decoration: underline;\n    }\n    \/* \uc2a4\ud1a0\ub9ac \ud6c5 - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd *\/\n    .story-hook {\n        padding: 15px 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-hook p {\n        font-style: italic;\n        color: #555;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    \/* \ud575\uc2ec \ub2f5\ubcc0 - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd *\/\n    .direct-answer {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        font-weight: 500;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    \/* \uc2a4\ud1a0\ub9ac \uc804\uac1c - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd *\/\n    .story-detail {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 20px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        font-size: 19px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n    }\n    .story-detail p {\n        line-height: 1.8;\n        color: #444;\n    }\n    .disclaimer {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        color: #666;\n        font-style: italic;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n    }\n    \/* FAQ \uc139\uc158 - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd *\/\n    .faq-section {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 30px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .faq-item {\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n    }\n    .faq-question {\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-bottom: 8px;\n        font-size: 18px;\n    }\n    .faq-answer {\n        color: #555;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n    }\n    \/* \uc800\uc790 \uc18c\uac1c - \uc9c1\uac01, \uc605\uc740 \ud68c\uc0c9 \ubc30\uacbd, \uc587\uc740 \uc640\uc778\uc0c9 \uc67c\ucabd \uc904 *\/\n    .author-box {\n        background-color: #f8f9fa;\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        border-left: 2px solid #722f37;\n    }\n    .author-box h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-name {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-info {\n        font-size: 16px;\n        color: #555;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n        line-height: 1.4;\n    }\n    .author-box a {\n        display: inline-block;\n        background-color: #722f37;\n        color: white;\n        padding: 12px 24px;\n        text-decoration: none;\n        border-radius: 6px;\n        font-size: 16px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        border: 2px solid #722f37;\n        cursor: pointer;\n        box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(114, 47, 55, 0.3);\n        margin-top: 5px;\n    }\n    br {\n        display: none;\n    }\n    \/* \ubaa8\ubc14\uc77c \ubc18\uc751\ud615 *\/\n    @media (max-width: 768px) {\n        body {\n            padding: 10px;\n        }\n        .content-container {\n            padding: 15px;\n        }\n        h2 {\n            font-size: 18px;\n        }\n        h3 {\n            font-size: 17px;\n        }\n        p, li {\n            font-size: 16px;\n        }\n        th, td {\n            font-size: 14px;\n            padding: 8px;\n        }\n    }\n    \/* \uc6cc\ub4dc\ud504\ub808\uc2a4 \ud14c\ub9c8 \uac04\uaca9 \uc870\uc815 *\/\n    .site-container, .content-area, .entry-content {\n        padding: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .entry-content > *:first-child {\n        margin-top: 0 !important;\n    }\n    .entry-content {\n        margin-top: 0px !important;\n    }\n    .kb-row-container, .kb-column-container {\n        margin: 0;\n        padding: 0;\n    }\n    strong {\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n<\/style>\n<div class=\"content-container\">\n<div class=\"toc\">\n<h2>Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#section1\">1. Is Seizing Unrelated Electronic Information from a Voluntarily Submitted Phone Illegally Obtained Evidence?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section2\">2. What Are the Criteria for Interpreting the Submitter&#8217;s Intent in Voluntary Submission?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section3\">3. Why Is Electronic Information Seizure Beyond the Scope of Voluntary Submission Illegal?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section4\">4. What Should Investigators Do When They Discover Unrelated Electronic Information?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section5\">5. What Effects Occur When Illegally Obtained Evidence Is Recognized?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section6\">6. Atlas Legal Acquittal Case Analysis<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section7\">7. Defense Strategies for Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section8\">8. FAQ<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<div class=\"related-links\">\n<h3>Related Articles<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/category\/criminal\/white-collar-crime\/\">Atlas Legal Corporate Criminal Cases<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<div class=\"related-links\" style=\"border-left: 4px solid #722f37;\">\n<h3>Related Cases<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/casenote.kr\/%EB%8C%80%EB%B2%95%EC%9B%90\/2011%EB%AA%A81839\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2011Mo1839 (en banc), July 16, 2015<\/a> &#8211; Requirement to stop additional searching and obtain separate warrant when discovering separate criminal suspicion<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/casenote.kr\/%EB%8C%80%EB%B2%95%EC%9B%90\/2021%EB%8F%842205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2021Do2205, August 26, 2021<\/a> &#8211; Criteria for determining relevance to criminal suspicion for electronic information subject to seizure<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/law.go.kr\/LSW\/precInfoP.do?mode=0&#038;precSeq=219709\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2016Do348, November 18, 2021<\/a> &#8211; Illegality of seizure exceeding voluntary submission scope; not cured even by ex post warrant<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/casenote.kr\/%EB%8C%80%EB%B2%95%EC%9B%90\/2020%EB%8F%843050\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2020Do3050, April 16, 2024<\/a> &#8211; Criteria for excluding admissibility of secondary evidence<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<div class=\"story-hook\">\n<p><strong>Actual Case:<\/strong> &#8220;I voluntarily submitted my phone, and now it&#8217;s being used as evidence for a completely different case?&#8221; A related party voluntarily submitted three mobile phones to investigators as evidence for a specific case under investigation. However, the prosecution extracted evidence for an entirely different case from those phones and indicted several National Assembly members. Atlas Legal argued for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence and obtained a complete acquittal for all defendants in the appellate court.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"direct-answer\">\n        <strong>Key Answer:<\/strong> The scope of seizure of voluntarily submitted information storage devices is determined based on the submitter&#8217;s free will. If the submitter expressed an intent to submit only electronic information related to a specific criminal suspicion, investigators&#8217; searching and copying of unrelated electronic information beyond that scope constitutes illegal search and seizure. Atlas Legal recently obtained an acquittal in a case involving indicted National Assembly members by having the court recognize the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.\n    <\/div>\n<div class=\"story-detail\">\n<h3>How Was the Illegally Obtained Evidence Recognized?<\/h3>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">\u203b This case is based on an actual acquittal case, but some facts have been adapted to aid understanding, and the personal information of the parties has been protected.<\/p>\n<p>Third party Mr. A voluntarily submitted three mobile phones and a USB drive to investigators in connection with a case in which he was being investigated as a suspect. Mr. A did not make an explicit expression of intent that the evidence could be used for the case in question. However, the prosecution searched and copied all electronic information stored in the three mobile phones and used it as evidence for a case completely different from Mr. A&#8217;s original case. The clients, National Assembly members, were indicted based on this evidence and found guilty in the first trial. Atlas Legal and co-counsel for other defendants focused on the fact that Mr. A had never clearly expressed an intent to submit electronic information related to the charges against the clients, and strongly argued for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, resulting in a complete acquittal for all defendants in the appellate court, reversing the original judgment. Let us examine the legal principles of voluntary submission and illegally obtained evidence in detail.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section1\">1. Is Seizing Unrelated Electronic Information from a Voluntarily Submitted Phone Illegally Obtained Evidence?<\/h2>\n<h3>Conclusion: It May Constitute Illegally Obtained Evidence<\/h3>\n<p>Even in cases where a mobile phone is submitted through voluntary submission, seizing unrelated electronic information beyond the scope of the submitter&#8217;s intent constitutes illegally obtained evidence. This is because it violates the constitutional warrant requirement and the due process principle under the Criminal Procedure Act.<\/p>\n<h3>Information Storage Devices and Electronic Information Are Distinguished<\/h3>\n<p>According to Supreme Court precedents, information storage devices (mobile phones, USB drives, etc.) and the electronic information stored within them are conceptually and functionally separate entities with independent value and utility. Therefore, submitting a physical object such as a mobile phone does not automatically constitute consent to seizure of all electronic information within it.<\/p>\n<p>The seizure of voluntarily submitted electronic information is lawful only to the extent that it is based on the submitter&#8217;s free submission intent. When voluntarily submitting an information storage device containing both electronic information related to criminal suspicion and electronic information not related to criminal suspicion, the submitter can individually designate or limit the scope of electronic information subject to submission and seizure.<\/p>\n<h3>Strict Interpretation of Submitter&#8217;s Intent<\/h3>\n<p>In light of the due process, warrant requirement, and proportionality principle that the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act seek to realize, as well as the importance of electronic information within information storage devices from the perspective of protecting privacy, informational self-determination rights, and property rights, expressions of intent by a person voluntarily submitting an information storage device to designate or limit the scope of electronic information therein must be strictly interpreted.<\/p>\n<p>Investigators are not permitted to arbitrarily presume the submitter&#8217;s unconfirmed intent. Therefore, when investigators receive voluntary submission of an information storage device containing electronic information both related and unrelated to a specific criminal suspicion without confirming the submitter&#8217;s intent when such confirmation was readily available, the entire electronic information stored on that information storage device cannot be treated as having been voluntarily submitted and seized.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section2\">2. What Are the Criteria for Interpreting the Submitter&#8217;s Intent in Voluntary Submission?<\/h2>\n<h3>Comprehensive and Strict Judgment Is Required<\/h3>\n<p>When interpreting the voluntary submitter&#8217;s intent regarding the scope of electronic information submission, the following factors must be comprehensively considered, and such intent must be strictly interpreted.<\/p>\n<p>First, the content of the case under investigation at the time. What criminal suspicion was being investigated at the time of submission serves as the basis for determining the scope of submission.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the expected future investigation situation. Consideration is given to how the submitter expected the investigation to proceed in the future.<\/p>\n<p>Third, the content of the electronic information. Whether the submitter specifically recognized the content of the electronic information in the mobile phone is important.<\/p>\n<p>Fourth, whether there was willingness to accept disadvantages or risks resulting from submission. Consideration is given to whether there was willingness to accept risks such as oneself or third parties being investigated or punished.<\/p>\n<div class=\"case-point\">\n<h4>Application in the Atlas Legal Case<\/h4>\n<p>In this case, the court determined that it was difficult to conclude that third party Mr. A had intent to submit electronic information related to the case in question, comprehensively considering that at the time of submitting the three mobile phones, no one could have anticipated that the case in question would become a subject of investigation, and that the case in question was a completely separate offense from Mr. A&#8217;s original case in terms of timing, location, motive, content, and method of the alleged crime.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section3\">3. Why Is Electronic Information Seizure Beyond the Scope of Voluntary Submission Illegal?<\/h2>\n<h3>The Subject of Seizure Is Limited to Electronic Information Related to Criminal Suspicion<\/h3>\n<p>Under Articles 219 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act, investigators may seize only items that can be recognized as related to the suspected facts, limited to evidence or items deemed subject to confiscation. Therefore, when investigators seeking to seize electronic information seize information storage devices and electronic information stored therein through voluntary submission, if the subject and scope of electronic information seizure according to the voluntary submitter&#8217;s intent is unclear or cannot be determined due to failure to properly confirm the submitter&#8217;s specific intent regarding the scope of submission, only electronic information related to and having minimal value in proving the criminal suspicion that motivated the seizure through voluntary submission is subject to seizure.<\/p>\n<h3>The Meaning of &#8216;Relevance&#8217; Here<\/h3>\n<p>Electronic information related to criminal suspicion includes not only information directly related to the criminal suspicion itself or offenses with the same basic factual relationship, but may also include information that can be used as indirect or circumstantial evidence to prove the motive and circumstances of the offense, means and methods of the offense, and time and place of the offense.<\/p>\n<p>However, such relevance is recognized only when there is a specific and individual connection considering the content of the criminal suspicion that motivated the seizure through voluntary submission, the subject of investigation, the circumstances of investigation, and the process of voluntary submission. Relevance cannot be found merely because the offense is of the same type or similar to the criminal suspicion (see Supreme Court Decision 2021Do2205, August 26, 2021, etc.).<\/p>\n<div class=\"legal-box\">\n<h4>Supreme Court Legal Principles<\/h4>\n<p>Evidence obtained through warrantless search and seizure by investigators of electronic information beyond the scope subject to seizure from voluntarily submitted information storage devices constitutes illegally obtained evidence, and such illegality is not cured even if a warrant was issued ex post by the court or the defendant or defense counsel consented to its use as evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do348, November 18, 2021, etc.).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section4\">4. What Should Investigators Do When They Discover Unrelated Electronic Information?<\/h2>\n<h3>Search Must Be Stopped and Separate Warrant Obtained<\/h3>\n<p>Investigators arbitrarily searching, copying, or printing electronic information beyond the scope subject to seizure from voluntarily submitted information storage devices constitutes illegal search and seizure in principle and is not permitted.<\/p>\n<p>If electronic information related to a separate criminal suspicion is discovered incidentally while lawfully searching electronic information related to the criminal suspicion before the completion of search and seizure of electronic information, investigators must stop additional searching and may only lawfully search and seize such information after obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant for the separate criminal suspicion from the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Mo1839 (en banc), July 16, 2015, etc.).<\/p>\n<h3>Investigators&#8217; Obligations<\/h3>\n<p>The purpose of requiring relevance in search and seizure of electronic information and likewise requiring the same for seizure of voluntarily submitted items, and the Supreme Court precedent requiring investigators receiving voluntary submission to clearly confirm the intent regarding the scope of submission, was already established at the time of investigation in this case. Therefore, procedures according to these legal principles must be followed despite investigative difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, according to the Supreme Prosecutors&#8217; Office regulation &#8220;Regulations on Collection, Analysis, and Management of Digital Evidence,&#8221; digital evidence must be disposed of when &#8220;it is confirmed during the investigation process to be unrelated to the criminal facts&#8221; or &#8220;there is no longer a need for continued storage due to final disposition such as indictment or non-indictment in the case that was the cause of seizure.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section5\">5. What Effects Occur When Illegally Obtained Evidence Is Recognized?<\/h2>\n<h3>Exclusion of Admissibility<\/h3>\n<p>Under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, evidence collected without following proper procedures cannot be used as evidence. Evidence collected by investigators without following procedures prescribed by the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act, as well as secondary evidence obtained based thereon, in principle cannot be used as evidence for conviction.<\/p>\n<h3>Exclusion of Secondary Evidence<\/h3>\n<p>Admissibility is also excluded in principle for secondary evidence obtained based on illegally collected primary evidence. However, if the investigators&#8217; procedural violation does not constitute a case of infringing on the substantial content of due process, and rather excluding the admissibility of that evidence would be evaluated as producing a result contrary to the purpose of harmonizing due process principle and discovery of substantive truth through establishing procedural provisions regarding criminal proceedings in the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act and thereby realizing criminal justice, the court may use that evidence as evidence for conviction in such exceptional cases (see Supreme Court Decision 2020Do3050, April 16, 2024, etc.).<\/p>\n<h3>Criteria for Judging Admissibility of Secondary Evidence<\/h3>\n<p>When the court finally determines whether to admit secondary evidence, it must first examine all circumstances related to the collection of primary evidence that did not follow procedures\u2014namely, the purpose of the procedural provision and the content and degree of violation, the specific circumstances and avoidability of the violation, the nature and degree of infringement of rights or legal interests the procedural provision seeks to protect and relation to the defendant, the degree of relevance including causal relationship between the procedural violation and evidence collection, and the investigators&#8217; awareness and intent\u2014and furthermore, comprehensively and holistically consider all circumstances that additionally arose in the process of collecting secondary evidence based on primary evidence, primarily focusing on whether the causal relationship is diluted or severed according to the specific case.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section6\">6. Atlas Legal Acquittal Case Analysis<\/h2>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">\u203b This case is based on an actual acquittal case, but some facts have been adapted to aid understanding, and the personal information of the parties has been protected.<\/p>\n<h3>Background of the Case<\/h3>\n<p>Third party Mr. A voluntarily submitted three mobile phones to investigators in connection with a specific case in which he was being investigated as a suspect. Mr. A submitted them on the premise that they would only be used as evidence for the case under investigation at the time, and the voluntary submission consent form also stated, &#8220;I consent to voluntarily submitting items in connection with this case until the completion of this investigation.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>However, the prosecution extracted call recordings, text messages, KakaoTalk messages, and Telegram messages related to alleged bribery in the case in question from the three mobile phones and indicted National Assembly members based on this evidence.<\/p>\n<h3>First Trial Judgment and Appeal<\/h3>\n<p>The first trial court found the defendants guilty. Accordingly, Atlas Legal appealed, making exclusion of illegally obtained evidence the core issue.<\/p>\n<h3>Atlas Legal&#8217;s Defense Strategy<\/h3>\n<p>Atlas Legal intensively argued the following points.<\/p>\n<p>First, Mr. A never clearly expressed an intent to submit all electronic information within the three mobile phones. Mr. A expressed an intent to submit only electronic information related to the case he was being investigated for at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Second, at the time Mr. A submitted the mobile phones, no one could have anticipated that the case in question would become a subject of investigation. The case in question was a completely separate offense from Mr. A&#8217;s original case in terms of timing, location, motive, content, and method of the alleged crime.<\/p>\n<p>Third, the prosecutor presumed without basis that the intent was to submit all electronic information without clearly confirming Mr. A&#8217;s intent. This violates the constitutional and Criminal Procedure Act warrant requirement, due process principle, and proportionality principle.<\/p>\n<p>Fourth, such action by the prosecutor not only violates the constitutional and Criminal Procedure Act warrant requirement, due process principle, and proportionality principle, but also violates Article 198(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that &#8220;evidence or materials obtained through investigation of another case shall not be used to coerce confession or statements regarding an unrelated case.&#8221; The procedural defect is not only serious but constitutes a case of infringing on the substantial content of due process.<\/p>\n<h3>Appellate Court&#8217;s Judgment<\/h3>\n<p>The appellate court fully accepted Atlas Legal&#8217;s arguments. The court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that Mr. A clearly expressed an intent to submit all electronic information within the three mobile phones including evidence for the case in question, and there was no other evidence to recognize this.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the court determined that the unrelated electronic information extracted from Mr. A&#8217;s mobile phones was illegally collected evidence without admissibility, and secondary evidence based thereon likewise had its admissibility excluded.<\/p>\n<h3>Final Result: Complete Acquittal<\/h3>\n<p>As a result of excluding illegally obtained evidence and secondary evidence based thereon, the remaining admissible evidence alone was insufficient to prove the charges in this case, and there was no other evidence to recognize them, so acquittal was rendered for all defendants.<\/p>\n<p>This case is an important example confirming the legal principle that the scope of submitter&#8217;s intent must be strictly interpreted in seizure of electronic information through voluntary submission. Atlas Legal accurately applied the legal principles of illegally obtained evidence exclusion and obtained acquittal for the clients in this case.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section7\">7. Defense Strategies for Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence<\/h2>\n<h3>Analysis of the Scope of Submitter&#8217;s Intent<\/h3>\n<p>To claim exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, one must first carefully analyze what scope of electronic information the submitter expressed intent to submit at the time of voluntary submission. The contents of voluntary submission consent forms, seizure records, and suspect interrogation records must be thoroughly reviewed, and the investigation situation at the time and the submitter&#8217;s specific awareness must be ascertained.<\/p>\n<h3>Review of Relevance Between Seized Electronic Information and Original Charges<\/h3>\n<p>It must be examined whether the seized electronic information is relevant to the criminal suspicion that originally motivated the voluntary submission. The timing, location, motive, content, and method of the offense are compared to examine whether there is a specific and individual connection. Mere similarity or same type of offense does not establish relevance.<\/p>\n<h3>Proof of Investigators&#8217; Procedural Violations<\/h3>\n<p>It must be confirmed whether investigators seized all electronic information without clearly confirming the submitter&#8217;s intent, and whether they stopped additional searching and obtained a separate warrant when discovering unrelated electronic information. Forensic procedure records, attendance confirmation documents, and seizure lists are analyzed.<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis of Causal Relationship with Secondary Evidence<\/h3>\n<p>Secondary evidence (statement records, witness statements, etc.) obtained based on electronic information recognized as illegally obtained is identified, and it is analyzed whether this evidence has a causal relationship with the illegally obtained evidence. If the causal relationship is not diluted or severed, secondary evidence is also excluded.<\/p>\n<h3>Emphasis on the Seriousness of Due Process Violations<\/h3>\n<p>It is emphasized that the investigators&#8217; procedural violation constitutes a case of infringing on the substantial content of due process. In particular, violations of Article 198(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibiting misuse of evidence from other cases, violations of the warrant requirement, and violations of the proportionality principle are argued.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section8\">8. FAQ<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-section\">\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q1. Is seizing unrelated electronic information from a voluntarily submitted phone illegally obtained evidence?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Yes, it may constitute illegally obtained evidence. According to Supreme Court precedents, the scope of voluntary submission is based on the submitter&#8217;s free will, and if investigators arbitrarily search and copy beyond the scope clearly indicated by the submitter, it constitutes illegal search and seizure.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q2. What should investigators do when they discover evidence of another crime in a voluntarily submitted phone?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Investigators must immediately stop additional searching and obtain a separate search and seizure warrant from the court for the separate criminal suspicion. Evidence obtained by continuing to search without a warrant constitutes illegally obtained evidence (Supreme Court Decision 2011Mo1839 (en banc), July 16, 2015).<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q3. What effect does recognition as illegally obtained evidence have?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used as evidence for conviction. Additionally, secondary evidence (statements, documents, etc.) obtained based on illegally collected primary evidence is also excluded from admissibility in principle.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q4. Can I claim illegally obtained evidence even if I signed a voluntary submission consent form?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Yes, it is possible. The scope of submission is not determined solely by the contents of the voluntary submission consent form; it is judged comprehensively considering the investigation situation at the time, the submitter&#8217;s specific awareness, and the scope of submission intent. Even if you signed the consent form, seizure beyond the scope of submission can be illegally obtained evidence.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q5. When should I claim exclusion of illegally obtained evidence?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. It is better to claim as early as possible, starting from the prosecution investigation stage. However, even if not claimed in the first trial, it can be newly claimed in the appellate trial, and the court also judges admissibility ex officio. The case handled by Atlas Legal also obtained acquittal in the appellate court by having exclusion of illegally obtained evidence recognized.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q6. Does exclusion of illegally obtained evidence necessarily result in acquittal?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Not necessarily. However, when illegally obtained evidence and secondary evidence based on it are excluded, it often becomes difficult for prosecutors to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt with the remaining evidence, increasing the possibility of acquittal.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q7. What are the suspect&#8217;s rights during mobile phone forensics?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. The suspect or defense attorney has the right to attend forensic procedures and can designate or limit the scope of searching and copying. Investigators must properly confirm the submitter&#8217;s intent, and seizing all electronic information without confirmation constitutes illegally obtained evidence.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q8. Can evidence seized during investigation of another case be used in a separate case?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. In principle, it cannot be used. Seizure is only possible for electronic information related to the criminal suspicion stated in the search and seizure warrant, and using electronic information unrelated to the crime stated in the warrant as evidence in another case constitutes illegally obtained evidence. Additionally, Article 198(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibits coercing confession or statements regarding an unrelated case using evidence obtained through investigation of another case.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q9. Is consultation on illegally obtained evidence available at Atlas Legal?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Yes, Atlas Legal provides specialized legal services in corporate crimes and criminal cases in Songdo, Incheon, and has recently obtained acquittal for indicted National Assembly members by having exclusion of illegally obtained evidence recognized. We provide professional defense in cases involving digital forensics and electronic information search and seizure.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q10. What preparation is needed to claim illegally obtained evidence?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. First, the situation at the time of seizure and the content of the submitter&#8217;s expression of intent must be carefully reviewed. Second, the contents of voluntary submission consent forms, seizure records, and suspect interrogation records must be analyzed. Third, whether the seized electronic information is related to the original charges must be examined. It is important to carefully analyze investigation records with a professional attorney.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>Atlas Legal provides legal services in the areas of corporate expertise, corporate disputes, corporate advisory, and corporate crimes (fraud, breach of trust, embezzlement, tax law, customs law) in Songdo, Incheon. We recently obtained acquittal in a case involving indicted National Assembly members by having the court recognize that electronic information extracted from voluntarily submitted mobile phones constituted illegally obtained evidence. This is an example of accurately applying the legal principle that the scope of submitter&#8217;s intent must be strictly interpreted in seizure of electronic information through voluntary submission to restore clients&#8217; rights. We have professional advisory and litigation representation experience in complex criminal issues such as digital forensics, electronic information search and seizure, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\" style=\"margin: 20px 0;\">\u203b The case introduced in this article is based on an actual acquittal case, but some facts have been adapted to aid understanding, and the personal information of the parties has been protected.<\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\">\n<h3>About the Author<\/h3>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Tae-jin Kim | Managing Partner<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Attorney specializing in corporate advisory, corporate disputes, and corporate criminal cases<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">(Former) Prosecutor | 33rd Class, Judicial Research and Training Institute<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">LL.B. and LL.M. in Criminal Law, Korea University; LL.M., University of California, Davis<\/div>\n<p>        <a href=\"https:\/\/        \n\n<div class=\"author-info\">Atlas Legal | Incheon Songdo, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>        atlaw.kr&#8221; target=&#8221;_blank&#8221; rel=&#8221;noopener noreferrer&#8221;>Visit Atlas Legal Website<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Table of Contents 1. Is Seizing Unrelated Electronic Information from a Voluntarily Submitted Phone Illegally Obtained Evidence? 2. What Are the Criteria for Interpreting the Submitter&#8217;s Intent in Voluntary Submission? 3. Why Is Electronic Information Seizure Beyond the Scope of Voluntary Submission Illegal? 4. What Should Investigators Do When They Discover Unrelated Electronic Information? 5&#8230;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16,224],"tags":[305,303,301,304,302],"class_list":["post-313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal","category-white-collar-crime","tag-criminal-defense-south-korea","tag-digital-forensics","tag-illegally-obtained-evidence","tag-search-and-seizure","tag-voluntary-submission"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ko_KR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21\ubd84\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3767,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"criminal defense South Korea\",\"digital forensics\",\"illegally obtained evidence\",\"search and seizure\",\"voluntary submission\"],\"articleSection\":[\"White Collar Crime\",\"White-Collar Crime\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/\",\"name\":\"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00\",\"description\":\"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal","description":"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/","og_locale":"ko_KR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal","og_description":"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04":"21\ubd84"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea","datePublished":"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/"},"wordCount":3767,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["criminal defense South Korea","digital forensics","illegally obtained evidence","search and seizure","voluntary submission"],"articleSection":["White Collar Crime","White-Collar Crime"],"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/","name":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-12-22T05:37:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-03T08:42:09+00:00","description":"Is seizing unrelated digital evidence from a voluntarily submitted mobile phone illegal in South Korea? Analysis of exclusion rules with actual acquittal case. Criminal defense attorneys at Atlas Legal, Songdo, Incheon. atlaw.kr","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/illegally-obtained-evidence-from-voluntarily-submitted-phone-in-south-korea\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Illegally Obtained Evidence from Voluntarily Submitted Phone in South Korea"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=313"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1016,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313\/revisions\/1016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}