<Anchor>
A person who illegally filmed a woman's body 20 times was arrested and handed over to trial, but was acquitted. It became a problem that the investigative agency excluded the accused from participating in the process of securing evidence.
Reporter Han So-hee covered the story.
<Reporter>
In April 2018, Mr. A was handed over to trial on charges of photographing women's legs or under skirts 20 times in a month, including filming the body of a female student with a cell phone camera inside a city bus.
There was also a confession, but Mr. A was acquitted in the first and second counts.
This is because the illegal recordings on the mobile phone, the evidence to prove the charges, were illegally collected.
When the police received a warrant, they confiscated A's cell phone and found several photos and videos of illegally filming women, but they could not find any material related to the crime that was specified when the warrant was issued.
The police, who thought they had obtained illegal filming, sent Mr. A to the prosecution, and the prosecution also took the data in the cell phone as evidence of guilt and handed Mr. A to trial.
Unlike the first and second trials, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal filmed footage secured by the police and prosecutors could be used as indirect or circumstantial evidence.
However, the fact that Mr. A did not participate in the process of securing evidence became a problem.
The Supreme Court said, "Unless there is an offense in which the right to participate is not guaranteed to the accused, the video in this case falls under the illegal collection of evidence and cannot be used as evidence of guilt."