This photo, provided by Yonhap News TV, shows the Supreme Court. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
SEOUL, Jan. 9 (Korea Bizwire) – The Supreme Court of South Korea has made a landmark ruling that the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations as evidence in court cases may be denied if they significantly invade personal privacy.
The judgment came in the case of an individual referred to only as Choi and three others, who were convicted of violating the Public Official Election Act. The case stemmed from allegations of illegal election campaigning and bribery during a local fisheries cooperative association election in March 2019.
Prosecutors obtained numerous recorded phone conversations from Choi’s mobile phone, which were secretly recorded by Choi’s wife. She had activated the phone’s automatic recording feature without her husband’s knowledge, suspecting infidelity. As a result, numerous conversations were recorded over three years.
The lower courts had convicted the accused, relying largely on the recorded conversations as evidence. Both the prosecution and defense appealed to the Supreme Court. The key issue in the appeal was whether the conversations between Choi and his wife, recorded without his knowledge, could be used as evidence.
The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was admissible in this specific case. Although the wife’s actions could be seen as an invasion of Choi’s privacy, the nature of the direct conversations and the covert nature of election crimes warranted the use of the recordings.
However, the court emphasized that if the evidence collection process significantly invades personal privacy or individual dignity, it should not be readily accepted solely because it is necessary for criminal prosecution.
This ruling implies that in typical cases where one party secretly records a conversation and uses it as evidence in a criminal case against the other party, the admissibility of such evidence could be denied if it significantly invades privacy or personal dignity.
The Supreme Court did not provide specific criteria for determining when evidence would be inadmissible, suggesting that future court decisions will need to clarify this.
A Supreme Court official highlighted the significance of the ruling, noting it’s the first time the court has indicated that secretly recorded phone conversations could be inadmissible if they significantly invade privacy or personal dignity.
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
