바카라사이트 순위

1. Case summary

 

바카라사이트 순위 was charged with a violation of the Act on Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secrets Protection under the allegation that he had attempted to acquire and sell trade secrets held by the plaintiffs to a foreign country.

 

2. Our arguments and role

 

Before making a substantial determination as to whether a crime could be constituted just like the charges, Barun conceived a doubt about the issue as to whether the massive amount of evidence produced by prosecutors had been collected in accordance with due procedure. Most evidence had been secured in seizure and search conducted at the office of 바카라사이트 순위. We had found material illegality in the seizure and search procedure as follows:

 

An original copy of warrant must be presented to a person who is subject to seizure and search pursuant to Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea. However, the investigators had presented a copied version of warrant to 바카라사이트 순위.

 

Electronic information may be seized and searched by way of printing out or copying part of electronic information that is relevant to criminal allegations that are the basis of the issuance of the warrant. However, the investigators had directly taken away or had copied storage medium themselves even though there had been no circumstances in which it had been impossible or significantly difficult for them to seize or search evidence by way of printing out or copying part of data that had been relevant to criminal allegations made against 바카라사이트 순위.

 

In the case where investigators copy, investigate and print out data by taking storage medium or the copied version thereof to their offices, they are required to allow the person who is subject to seizure or his/her attorney to participate in the process. However, the investigators of this case had not given 바카라사이트 순위 an opportunity to participate in the investigation process.

 

If an investigator detects electronic information on other criminal allegations that are separate from allegations causing the issuance of the warrant in the seizure and search process, the investigator is required to stop searching for additional information and to issue another warrant for seizure and search. Nonetheless, the investigators of this case had confiscated evidence that had been irrelevant to the allegations set forth in the relevant warrant.

 

On the basis of precedents upheld by the Supreme Court of Korea, we asserted illegality committed in the seizure and search process, and examined police officers who had been in charge of seizure and search to substantiate circumstances that had not been revealed in the records.

 

3. Decision

 

The district court dealing with this case had found that 바카라사이트 순위 had been guilty, precluding our assertions about admissibility of evidence illegally collected.

 

The high court, however, accepted our argument that the investigators had committed illegality because they had presented a copied version of warrant and had violated restrictions to the subjects and the method of seizure and search, they had not given 바카라사이트 순위 an opportunity to participate in the investigation of evidence, and they had confiscated evidence irrelevant to the allegations made in the warrant. The high court excluded the admissibility of evidence collected in the illegal seizure and search process (the “primary evidence”) and the admissibility of secondary evidence based on primary evidence, and found that 바카라사이트 순위 was innocent on the ground that the rest of evidence was not sufficient for the court to find the charges.

 

4. Implications

 

There are still many cases in which prosecutions are filed based on evidence collected through illegal forced investigations, but in practice, procedural illegality is not often pointed out or such claims are not accepted. However, the decision has an implication in that we discovered and pointed out illegality of seizure and search on the basis of a close review of records and have practically realized the aims pursued by the doctrine of warrants and the doctrine of procedural due process through thorough legal argument and the presentation of evidence.