Supreme Court: "Prosecutors' seizure and search of Lee Dong-jae's mobile phone and laptop illegal... Cancel it"

by Choi Sukjin

Published 13 Nov.2020 17:57(KST)

Former Channel A reporter Dongjae Lee. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution's seizure and search of former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae's (35) mobile phone and laptop in the 'Channel A coercion attempt' case must be canceled as it was illegal.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) dismissed the prosecution's rehearing petition against the lower court's decision on the 13th, which partially accepted Lee's quasi-appeal. Accordingly, the lower court's ruling that deemed the prosecution's seizure and search of the mobile phone and laptop illegal and ordered its cancellation was finalized.

Earlier, the Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (then Chief Prosecutor Jeong Jin-ung) conducted a search and seizure of Lee's residence and Channel A headquarters on April 28, but stopped due to reporters' protests. On May 14, they executed the search warrant by meeting a Channel A official at the Grand Hyatt Hotel and receiving two mobile phones and one laptop of Lee that had been separately stored.

Subsequently, Lee visited the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office to observe the forensic examination of the seized items but filed a quasi-appeal in protest after discovering that his laptop and mobile phones had been seized without his knowledge. A quasi-appeal is a procedure to challenge a prosecutor's disposition in court.

Earlier, Judge Kim Chan-nyeon of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 31, who heard the quasi-appeal case, ruled, "The prosecution did not present the warrant to the quasi-appellant from the beginning to the end of the disposition," and decided to cancel the seizure and search of Lee's two mobile phones and one laptop.

The prosecution appealed against this court decision, but the Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's judgment as correct.