The Supreme Court ruled that customs officials securing and analyzing the components of drug parcels secretly brought into the country by drug offenders without a warrant is lawful.
According to the legal community on the 9th, the Supreme Court's 1st Division (Chief Justice Noh Tae-ak) confirmed the lower court's ruling, sentencing individual A to five years in prison on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes ( narcotics ) and the Narcotics Control Act.
Individual A was indicted and tried for smuggling methamphetamine twice through international mail from Malaysia in January and June 2023 via a supplier in China, and for possession and use at home.
In this process, Incheon Customs officials had already identified that individual A was bringing in methamphetamine and secured the relevant parcels. They then collected samples and commissioned a component analysis.
However, individual A's side argued that the customs officials conducted a criminal investigation without a seizure warrant, claiming that the parcels were unlawfully collected evidence. Therefore, they contended it could not be used as evidence, and no crime could be established.
Nevertheless, the first trial concluded that "the customs' securing of the parcels cannot be seen as a search and seizure by an investigative agency." The act of customs officials opening parcels and collecting samples for examination was deemed an administrative investigation for customs clearance, not a criminal investigation.
However, it was determined that the value of the imported methamphetamine did not exceed 5 million won, as stipulated in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for drug offenders. Accordingly, only the violation of the Narcotics Control Act was applied to individual A, resulting in a five-year prison sentence and a mandate for 40 hours of drug rehabilitation education.
The prosecution and individual A's side subsequently appealed, citing legal misunderstandings and inappropriate sentencing; however, both the second trial and the Supreme Court viewed the first trial's judgment as justified.
The Supreme Court stated that "there is no error in misunderstanding the rules of evidence related to voluntary investigation and the warrant principle, as well as concerning evidentiary capacity and conspiracy relations, in the original ruling."