Supreme Court acquits in drug trade case over illegally obtained evidence

A person accused of involvement in the illegal drug trade has been acquitted by the Supreme Court, after the court decided that the evidence against the defendant was collected via illegal means and could not be presented in a court of law.

South Korea's highest court said Sunday it had ruled in favor of the defendant, surnamed Im, who was accused of involvement in the distribution of synthetic cannabinoids on June 3, 2023. Investigators believe that Im took a cartridge carrying the drug left by the dealer at a location in Yongsan-gu, central Seoul, and handed it off to another person in Jung-gu, Daegu, the same day.

It was by a happenstance that authorities found out about Im's alleged drug dealing. Im lost his mobile phone on Aug. 7, and a police officer trying to find the owner ran across a Telegram conversation that suggested the aforementioned deal.

Korea's Narcotics Control Act bans the use, distribution and possession of what it defines as narcotics, along with the unregulated use of what it defines as psychotropic drugs.

But the police officer who found the evidence was not authorized to search Im's phone at the time, as Im was not under criminal arrest. Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act states that any evidence obtained in violation of due process shall not be admissible.

The district court acquitted Im based on the fact that the aforementioned evidence is inadmissible, but the appellate court sentenced him to three years in jail based on his testimony to the lower court.

But the Supreme Court said that Im's testimony to the court was based on illegally obtained evidence, saying the existence of the messenger conversation would likely have affected Im's statements in trial.

"It would have been difficult to conduct an investigation or indict (the defendant) without the illegally obtained evidence, and the prosecution has not proven that (the defendant) admitted to the charges based on other evidence," the court said in its verdict.