[ad_1]
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it was illegal to seize and search the cell phone and laptop of former Channel A reporter Dong-jae Lee, who is on trial in the “probate confusion” case.
The third party of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yoo-sook) rejected the reopening of the prosecution on the 13th, which rejected the court case that partially cited the former reporter’s quasi-appeal. A quasi-appeal is a procedure for disagreeing with a judge’s judgment or prosecution.
The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, the first criminal division, attempted to seize and search the former reporter’s residence and Channel A headquarters on April 28, but could not be completed due to protests from other journalists. On May 14, he met with a Channel A official at a hotel on May 14, was handed two mobile phones and a laptop from the former reporter, and executed a seizure and search warrant.
On May 22, former reporter Lee went to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office to observe the seized forensics and rebelled after learning that his cell phone and laptop were confiscated. Former reporter Lee argued that the search for the seizure was not legal, saying: “We do not present a court order to the owners and users, and we do not guarantee the right to participate in the real estate of the suspect and the lawyer.” On May 27, he filed a quasi-appeal requesting the prosecution to cancel the seizure and search order.
In July, the Seoul Central District Court said, “In order to carry out a seizure and search outside of Channel A, we must have notified the former reporter of the date and location and given him the opportunity to participate.” “(The seizure and search) was illegally canceled.” We decided to cite some of the party’s quasi-appeals.
In response, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office said: “The (former reporter’s) mobile phone book was already formatted before the prosecution was confiscated and had no value as evidence, and was not used as the primary data for the previous reporter’s arrest warrant. In light of the relevant regulations and existing procedures, the seizure and search are considered legitimate. ”
The Supreme Court dismissed the reopening of the prosecutor’s office on the 13th, and the former reporter’s mobile phone and laptop could not be used as evidence. This is because the conclusion was based on evidence gathered through inappropriate procedures.
Meanwhile, former reporter Lee, along with Channel A junior reporter Baek Amugae, threatened former Value Invest Korea representative Lee Chul to denounce the corruption of passport staff such as Roh Si-min, chairman of Roh Moo Hyun. -dan, and he’s on trial on trial charges.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
