(b) Violation of public law;

(c) Spy;

Law Firm D.

Attorney BD, E, BE, BF

The purport of denying the admissibility of evidence of a false statement is to prevent not only the substantial truth but also the illegal and unfair pressure that infringes on the fundamental human rights of a person who has made a statement regardless of the authenticity, as the purport of denying the admissibility of evidence of a false statement is to prevent in advance, so if there is a dispute over the voluntariness, the prosecutor must prove the doubt about the voluntariness, and if the certificate is not submitted, the evidence of the statement is inadmissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do517, Jan. 26, 2006, etc.).

Meanwhile, in a case where the defendant contests the voluntariness of the defendant's statement entered in the suspect examination protocol and the defendant's statement on the trial date, the court should judge the voluntariness of the defendant's statement with free trial evidence by taking into account all the circumstances such as the defendant's academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence degree, contents of the statement, and the form of protocol (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705 delivered on May 30, 2003

In addition, if the defendant made a confession without voluntariness at an investigative agency due to harsh treatment, etc., and the defendant continued to make a confession of the same contents in the court, the confession made in the court shall be deemed to be a confession without voluntariness (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1603, Oct. 27, 201, etc.).

After recognizing the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant and Co-Defendant F, T, U,V, and W were forced to proceed to the investigators of the Central Information Department of Korea, and then made a confession without a long-term warrant in the process of being subject to adviser and cruel acts, etc., and that the prosecutor’s investigation and the court’s trial stage have continued to have made the same statement in the same contents. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and Co-Defendant F, T, U, V, and W made a confession without any voluntartariness in the process of being detained, and that the prosecutor’s investigation and the court’s trial stage were continued to have made the same statement at the same time

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is correct, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the discretion of confession and the admissibility of evidence beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548

Justices Kim Jong-il