The Supreme Court determined that even if items seized during the search later turned out to be unrelated to the charges, the search and seizure were conducted lawfully.
On the 24th, according to the legal community, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Chief Justice Lee Heung-gu) annulled the ruling of the second trial, which had acquitted a former Army Colonel A on charges of violating the Military Secrets Protection Act, and sent the case back to the Suwon District Court.
A served in the Defense Readiness Examination Unit under the Ministry of National Defense and retired in 2016. However, upon retirement, it was reported that A took documents containing military secrets, including 'Operation Status in the Waters near Yeonpyeongdo' and 'Joint Chiefs of Staff Reserve Force Operation Plans,' and stored them at home.
In July 2018, A was subjected to a search and seizure by prosecutors investigating another military officer's allegations of leaking military secrets. At that time, prosecutors suspected that B had leaked the '20th Division reorganization and transfer plan' to A.
During the search process, prosecutors discovered and seized documents labeled 'Operation Status in the Waters near Yeonpyeongdo' and 'Joint Chiefs of Staff Reserve Force Operation Plans' hidden by A in a bookshelf at home as evidence. Subsequently, prosecutors charged A with violating the Military Secrets Protection Act.
In A's trial, the key issue was whether the documents discovered during the search in another case could be used as evidence. The first and second trials acquitted A. Both trial courts determined that the charges stated in the search warrant were based on allegations that B leaked the '20th Division reorganization and transfer plan,' so the seizure of the 'Operation Status in the Waters near Yeonpyeongdo' and 'Joint Chiefs of Staff Reserve Force Operation Plans' documents under this warrant was deemed unlawful.
However, the Supreme Court stated that 'the troop deployment status and other information contained in the documents held by A could serve as indirect and circumstantial evidence regarding the charges in the warrant.' It also noted, 'There is room to consider that it has value as corroborative evidence to ensure the truthfulness of B's confession related to the allegations in the warrant.'
Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated, 'If the investigative agency seized items that could be recognized as relevant based on circumstances known or reasonably foreseeable until the execution of the warrant, it cannot be deemed illegal immediately even if circumstances denying relevance are revealed later.' This implies that it is difficult to view the investigator executing the warrant as having perceived that the documents were irrelevant to the allegations stated in the warrant.