Court Rules "Without a Warrant, Black Box Evidence from Hit-and-Run Vehicle Cannot Be Admitted"

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Jung-yoon] The court ruled that even if the vehicle was involved in a hit-and-run accident, evidence collected from a black box without the driver's consent or a warrant cannot be used as evidence.

On the 22nd, Judge Lee Hyung-joo of the Seoul Eastern District Court Criminal Division 2 sentenced Han Mo (38), who was indicted for violating the Road Traffic Act (failure to take action after an accident), aiding and abetting a criminal, and insult charges, to four months in prison with a one-year suspended sentence and 40 hours of community service, recognizing only the charge of insulting a police officer.

In February last year, Han, while driving under the influence, hit a parked motorcycle on a road in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, then drove for about 10 more minutes before crashing into a nearby road shock absorber. After the accident, Han switched seats with his sister, who was in the passenger seat, to hide the fact of drunk driving, and the sister testified to the police that she was the driver. This criminal act was recorded on the vehicle's black box. Han's blood alcohol concentration was 0.048%, which did not meet the punishment criteria at the time.

However, the court acquitted Han of the hit-and-run and concealment charges, ruling that the black box was used as evidence without a warrant. According to the court, after the accident, the tow truck driver moved Han's vehicle to the police station and voluntarily submitted the black box at that time.

The court stated, "It is illegal to arbitrarily handle items inside the vehicle, such as the black box, unrelated to the transportation task," and judged that "since it was seized without a warrant, it is illegally collected evidence." The court recognized Han's guilt for insulting three police officers at the accident scene, saying, "Both the circumstances and the nature of the crime are bad."

The prosecution also explained that the evidence obtained through the black box could not be used because the crime was recognized and the evidence was collected through it. The prosecution argued that items voluntarily submitted by the owner, possessor, or custodian, or items lost by someone, can be seized without a warrant, but this was not accepted.