[2] The case holding that it is unlawful for the court of the first instance to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the evidence examined and adopted by the court of first instance sufficient to support the confession of the defendant, although the court of first instance did not produce any supporting evidence to support the confession of the defendant in the summary of the evidence

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court of the first instance, which held that the error of the court of the first instance did not have any influence on the result of the judgment, was reversed on the ground of violation of Article 310 and Article 361-5 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the evidence duly adopted by the court below was sufficient to support the confession of the defendant, although the court of the first instance did not produce any supporting evidence to support the confession of the defendant in the summary of the evidence

1. When the confession of the defendant is the only evidence against the defendant, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, in case where the defendant was found guilty on the sole ground of the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law that affects the conclusion of the judgment

Nevertheless, the court below erred by failing to obtain reinforcement evidence to support the confession of the defendant for each crime described in Articles 7 and 8 of the facts charged in the summary of the evidence, but according to the statement of the interrogation protocol of the Kim Gyeong-sung prepared by the court below, which is each evidence duly admitted by the court below, by the prosecutor, and according to the investigation report prepared by the judicial police assistant, it is sufficient to support the confession of the defendant for each crime described in the facts charged, so the court of the first instance maintained the judgment of the court of the first instance on the ground that the above mistake of the court of the first instance did not have any influence on the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation and application of Articles 310 and 361-5 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and since it is deemed sufficient to render a judgment based on the examined evidence up to the records of trial and the court of original judgment, the Supreme Court shall render a judgment

In the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s confession alone without supporting evidence is found guilty, and the first instance judgment is reversed without examining the remaining grounds for appeal, and the following another judgment is to be rendered:

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence is as follows: (a) the statement of the interrogation protocol of a suspect of a suspect on the Kim Gyeong-Gyeong, who is prepared by the assistant judicial police officer as evidence of the facts charged under Articles 7 and 8; and (b) the investigation report (which is prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, No. 197 pages and No. 198 pages of the investigation record) is added; and (c) it is identical to the corresponding column in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Article 225, Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that each public document among the acts of the defendant's holding shall be held as follows; Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act provides that each public document of the judgment shall be held as follows; Articles 231, 30 of the Criminal Act provides that each private document of the judgment shall be held as follows; Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act provides that each private document of the judgment shall be held as follows; Articles 314 (1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act provides that each crime of interference with the functions of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be held as follows; Articles 314 (1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of uttering of forged public document of the first instance as stated in paragraph (1) and the crime of uttering of forged public document of the first instance as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be punished for each crime of uttering of the preceding public document of the judgment; Article 7 of the same Act provides that punishment.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the lower judgment is reversed and remanded as above. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)