Secretly Filmed Illegal Currency Exchange with Police "Glasses Camera"... Supreme Court: "Admissible Even Without a Warrant"

Lower Court Acquittal Overturned on Appeal...Guilty Verdict Finalized by Supreme Court
"Lawful if Entry Is Ordinary and Recording Is Limited to Crime Scene"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a secretly recorded video taken by police officers disguised as customers inside a game arcade suspected of illegal currency exchange is admissible as evidence even without a warrant. The court held that evidence cannot be deemed illegally obtained if investigators enter the premises in an ordinary manner and record the crime scene in a limited way.

The Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on February 13, the Third Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Ma Yongju) upheld the lower court ruling that imposed a fine of 20 million won on game arcade owner A, who had been indicted on charges of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act.

From March 2020 for about two months, A was brought to trial on charges of exchanging customers' game points for cash after deducting a 10% commission at the game arcade. At the time, the police officers in charge of the crackdown entered the arcade disguised as customers and secretly filmed A’s currency exchange activities using a car-key-shaped camera and a glasses-shaped camera.

The court of first instance acquitted A. It held that "the video secretly recorded by the police constitutes illegally obtained evidence for which it is difficult to recognize an exception to the warrant requirement," and that "the investigative results produced on the basis of that video likewise have no evidentiary value."

However, the appellate court reversed this judgment and found A guilty. The second-instance court held that "the police officers entered the premises in the same manner as ordinary customers, and only scenes related to the criminal conduct were recorded in a limited way, leaving little room for infringement of personal rights." It also found that "there is no circumstance to regard this as an unlawful entrapment investigation that induced illegal business operations," and imposed a fine of 20 million won.

The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. The bench held that "if the recording is made immediately after the crime is committed, when there is a need to preserve evidence, and by means that are generally acceptable and reasonable, it cannot be deemed unlawful even in the absence of a warrant."

It went on to state that "one must comprehensively consider whether the investigators entered the place of recording by ordinary means, and whether the location is an area where protection of the privacy and freedom of private life can reasonably be expected," and found that the covert recording in this case fell within the scope of lawful investigation.