유류물의 압수 절차에 관한 소고 - 임의제출물과 달리 취급할 필요성 내지 근거를 중심으로 -

The Supreme Court distinguishes the seizure procedures for lost or abandoned property (yuryumul) from those for voluntarily submitted items, based on the concept of the person subject to seizure. Specifically, it applies different standards regarding the right of participation of the person subject to seizure and the requirement of relevance between the seized item and the investigation. While both voluntarily submitted items and lost property can be taken into custody by investigative authorities without a warrant, there are three key differences between them. First, in the case of voluntarily submitted items, there is a clearly identifiable person subject to seizure. In contrast, for lost property, even if the investigative authority has made reasonable efforts to identify the owner, the owner may remain unidentified, making it difficult to assume a specific person subject to seizure. Second, voluntarily submitted items are considered seized at the moment of voluntary submission, meaning the timing of submission and seizure coincide. However, in the case of lost property, the timing and methods for identifying the owner may vary depending on the investigative agency or the nature of the item. Therefore, the point at which possession is acquired and the point at which seizure is deemed to occur may not align. Third, for voluntarily submitted items, whether the voluntariness requirement is met or not, it is generally difficult to recognize the necessity of seizure as required for the issuance of a warrant. In contrast, with lost property, the time at which it is determined to be lost or can reasonably be treated as such is often unclear. Thus, when investigative authorities refrain from taking custody without a warrant and instead apply for a seizure warrant, it is appropriate for the court to respect that judgment and recognize the necessity of seizure. In this context, the Supreme Court’s position - to treat the right of participation and the relevance requirement differently in seizure procedures for lost property compared to voluntarily submitted items - is reasonable and appropriate.