Case overview

Defendants:

A (environmental consulting company CEO)

B (local government official)


Charges: Bribery giving and receiving

Supreme Court decision: Conviction overturned and remanded

Case No.: 2023도12127

Decision date: Nov 20, 2025


Core issue

Whether courtroom confessions remain admissible when they were induced by illegally seized digital evidence.


How the evidence was obtained

Environmental Ministry investigators lawfully seized A’s phone for a different offense (manipulation of environmental test results).

During forensic analysis, they discovered 73 audio recordings unrelated to the warrant scope, allegedly showing bribery.

These files were outside the warrant and thus illegally collected.


Lower courts’ view

Illegal recordings themselves: inadmissible.

Defendants’ courtroom confessions: admissible.

Reasoning: the causal link between the illegal seizure and the confessions was attenuated.


Supreme Court’s ruling

The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning.

It held that:

The initial illegality was serious.

The illegal files were the starting point and core evidence of the bribery investigation.

Defendants were confronted with those files during the investigation.


As a result, their later courtroom confessions were not independent.


Key legal principle reaffirmed

If:

Illegally obtained evidence is the trigger or linchpin of the investigation, and

The defendant was questioned on the premise of that evidence,


Then:

Subsequent courtroom confessions and witness testimony are considered derivative evidence.

Without proof of a clear break in causation, they are inadmissible.



Notable Supreme Court language (paraphrased)

A courtroom confession made under the shadow of illegal evidence is no different in substance from a confession made after being directly shown that evidence.

Had the illegal electronic data not existed, the investigation and indictment would likely never have occurred.


Outcome

Guilty verdicts were quashed.

Case sent back to the Busan High Court for retrial without the tainted evidence.


Why this matters

Reinforces a strict exclusionary rule for digital forensics.

Sends a clear warning to investigators about warrant scope creep.

Confirms that “confession cures illegality” is not acceptable when causation remains intact.

Particularly significant in the age of smartphone-wide forensic searches 📱⚖️



Bottom line:
If the investigation is born from poisoned data, even a voluntary-sounding confession cannot wash the stain away.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/214383