Supreme Court: 'Cloud Data' Cannot Be Obtained with a Search Warrant for Mobile Phone Seizure

First Supreme Court Ruling on Cloud-Stored Electronic Information Seizure
Judges State "Cloud Seizure Must Be Specifically Identified as 'Items to Be Seized'"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has made its first ruling that a search warrant for a mobile phone does not permit the seizure and search of information stored on a remote server (cloud) linked to the phone.

In order to seize and search electronic information stored in the cloud, the ‘items to be seized’ specified in the search warrant must separately identify the cloud electronic information.

The Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seon-su) announced on the 1st that it overturned the lower court’s ruling, which had partially convicted Mr. A, who was indicted on charges including violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming and distribution using a camera, etc.), and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court.

While investigating Mr. A on suspicion of fraud, the police, with Mr. A’s consent, checked bank transactions, call records, and messenger chat logs on his mobile phone. After Mr. A deleted messenger chat logs during a break, the police received the mobile phone voluntarily from Mr. A and discovered photos and videos suspected to be illegal recordings among the stored files.

The police launched a separate investigation under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act and contacted women presumed to be victims of illegal filming, confirming that they had not consented to the filming.

The police obtained a search warrant targeting the ‘computer hard disk and external storage media containing photos and video files believed to secretly record women’s bodies,’ and secured evidence by turning on Mr. A’s mobile phone and downloading illegal recordings from the cloud account that was logged in.

However, in the trial, the admissibility of cloud data seized by accessing and downloading from the cloud using a search warrant for the mobile phone, which was linked to a portal site account, became a key issue.

The first and second trials found Mr. A guilty of fraud but acquitted him of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act. They ruled that searching for photos and videos unrelated specifically and individually to the fraud crime under investigation violated the warrant principle. However, they recognized the illegal recordings found in Mr. A’s cloud account after obtaining the search warrant as lawful evidence and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that since the search warrant did not specify electronic information stored in the cloud as a seizure target, the evidence of illegal recordings obtained was not lawful.

The court stated, "To seize and search electronic information stored on a remote server beyond the electronic information stored in information processing devices such as computers specified as the ‘place to be searched’ in the search warrant, the ‘items to be seized’ in the warrant must separately specify the electronic information stored on the remote server."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.