Prosecutors' Office Raids Kim Woong Over 'Gobal Sajoo Suspicion'... Supreme Court Rules "Warrant Execution Illegal"

Court: "Search warrant not presented to all searched persons... Right to participate of quasi-appellants also violated"
Court rules to cancel search warrant... Public Corruption Investigation Office files appeal to court

Prosecutors from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials conducted a search and seizure at the National Assembly office of Kim Woong, a member of the People Power Party, on September 10 last year in connection with allegations of report solicitation.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the court's decision to cancel the search and seizure conducted by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Unit (HCIC) on the office of Kim Woong, a member of the People Power Party, in connection with the 'accusation coaching' allegations, was correct.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) dismissed the final appeal on the decision to accept the quasi-appeal against the execution of the search and seizure on the 8th.

Kim filed a quasi-appeal, arguing that on September 10 of last year, when the first search and seizure took place, the HCIC prosecutor only showed the cover page to his aide and did not guarantee Kim's right to participate.

Judge Kim Chan-nyeon of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 31, who heard the quasi-appeal case, accepted Kim's quasi-appeal against the search and seizure. A quasi-appeal is an objection against a judge's trial or a prosecutor's disposition, and if accepted, the HCIC must obtain a warrant again.

Judge Kim stated, "Substantively, the searches on September 10 and 13 are part of a continuous disposition and cannot be regarded as separate individual actions," and "The HCIC did not present the warrant to other staff members of the lawmaker's office besides one aide, searched documents they held, and did not guarantee the quasi-appellant's (Kim's) right to participate."

He further pointed out, "Regarding the aide's computer (PC), which the quasi-appellant used or was presumed to use/manage, the search exceeded the scope of determining whether it was an object to be seized and directly searched for information related to the criminal suspicion, violating procedures."

He added, "Since the HCIC did not actually seize any items as a result of the search, even if the disposition is canceled, there is no legal outcome that would benefit the quasi-appellant," but emphasized, "It is necessary to secure procedural legality such as the warrant principle in the evidence collection process of investigative agencies and to further emphasize the protection of citizens' fundamental rights."

In response, the HCIC filed a final appeal with the court in December last year, and the Supreme Court took up the case. The court ruled, "Even if the warrant execution ended without reaching a specific seizure disposition during the warrant execution process against the quasi-appellant, it is necessary to confirm and declare the illegality of the warrant execution. Given that the quasi-appellant was even accused of obstruction of official duties, the original court's recognition that the quasi-appellant has a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of all search dispositions carried out as part of the seizure disposition is justified."

It continued, "In this case, since the warrant was not presented to all those searched during the warrant execution process, and the quasi-appellant's right to participate was infringed by not notifying the time of warrant execution in advance, the original court's judgment that the warrant execution was illegal is justified," the court ruled.

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