[자동차손해배상보장법위반·도로교통법위반][공2000.11.15.(118),2264]
[1] The degree of evidence supporting the confession
[2] The case holding that the fact that the owner of a vehicle registered and recorded as the defendant in the motor vehicle registration certificate can be reinforced evidence for the confession part of the defendant's driving of the motor vehicle, and that it is sufficient to prove the defendant's whole criminal facts such as the defendant's unauthorized driving
[1] Reinforcement evidence of confession is not processed, but is sufficient if it can be guaranteed that the facts of confession are true, and it does not require all of the facts constituting an offense or the whole of the important parts thereof as a whole.
[2] The case holding that the fact that the owner of a vehicle registered and recorded as the defendant in the motor vehicle registration certificate can be reinforced evidence for the confession part of the defendant's driving of the motor vehicle, and that it is sufficient to prove the defendant's whole criminal facts such as the defendant's unauthorized driving
[1] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1146 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2917) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do470 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1521) Supreme Court Decision 97Do2084 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 175), Supreme Court Decision 98Do159 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 116), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2890 delivered on December 222, 198 (Gong199Sang, 275), Supreme Court Decision 9Do98939 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong199Do98939 delivered on September 19, 198)
Defendant
Defendant
Suwon District Court Decision 99No2141 delivered on April 17, 2000
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Examining the Defendant’s statement in the court of the court below and the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below’s finding the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting the Defendant’s crime is just, and the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the
Reinforcement evidence of confession is sufficient if it can be guaranteed that a confession is not processed but true (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1146 delivered on September 30, 1994). The whole of the facts constituting an offense or its essential part is not necessary to be reinforced (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1146 delivered on September 30, 194).
According to the registration certificate entered in the judgment of the court of first instance, since the instant vehicle is registered as owned by the Defendant, it can be the corroborative evidence for the confession part of the Defendant’s driving of the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant. As a result, it is sufficient to prove that the Defendant was driving without a driver’s license. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of corroborative evidence as to confession.
Furthermore, the ground of appeal, which is the same as the summary order case of KRW 500,00,00, which was pronounced on the preceding day, is without merit, since the driving without a license from March 6, 1998 is subject to criminal facts.
All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)