Over 5,400 mobile evidence images registered in NDFaaS system of Supreme Prosecutors' Office last year

Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok speaks during the March monthly meeting at the Supreme Prosecutors\' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on March 28. Provided by the Supreme Prosecutors\' Office

The number of mobile evidence images registered in the “National Digital Forensics as a Service (NDFaaS)” system on the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's server has skyrocketed under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration.

According to the data released by Park Joo-min, a lawmaker from the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), on May 1, the number of mobile evidence images registered on the NDFaaS system recorded 9,355 in 2016 and dropped to 2,984 in 2021 during the Moon Jae-in government, before increasing again to 3,799 in 2022 and 5,427 in 2023 when Yoon took office. As of April 24, a total of 13,793 mobile evidence images have been stored on the system, and 120 of them have been stored for more than 10 years.

The problem is that there is a high possibility that information outside the scope of the warrant and information unrelated to the immediate criminal charges are mixed. A controversial example is that prosecutors investigating the defamation case against President Yoon posted the entire mobile phone information of Lee Jin-dong, CEO of Newsverse, on the system. There are also concerns that prosecutors may use the information to investigate other cases. Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the original court's conviction in an appeal of a Wonju branch official, who was charged with violating the Solicitation Prohibition Act and leaking official secrets. The prosecution had conducted a separate investigation using electronic information obtained during the investigation of another case. The Supreme Court found that "the violation of the principles of warrant requirement and due process is quite serious."

The Supreme Court’s precedent holds that electronic information unrelated to the charges cannot be seized from storage media such as cell phones. Nevertheless, the prosecution posts information that is not related to criminal charges on the NDFaaS system based on the "Regulations on Collection, Analysis, and Management of Digital Evidence," which is a rule for the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

Article 37 (1) of the rule states that "the court may request the storage of image files reproduction or verification of digital evidence," and Article 54 (2) states that "digital evidence may not be discarded if the use of evidence is expected to be used in related cases." In other words, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office nullifies the Supreme Court's precedent with its own rule. The Judicial Policy Research Institute said the rule “violates the principle of warrant requirement” in its report released in March 2021.

This is not the only arbitrary rule of the prosecution. Under the Public Prosecutors' Office Act, the prosecution cannot directly investigate defamation cases. However, prosecutors have been investigating media organizations for eight months for defaming Yoon based on the “Guidelines for Prosecutors' Initiation of Investigations.” They even do not make the rules public. This does not mean that the precedent is public. Taking this opportunity, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office should abolish its rules that are contrary to higher laws or Supreme Court precedents and establish pre- and post-control measures so that prosecutors cannot make and use rules at will.

※This article has undergone review by a professional translator after being translated by an AI translation tool.