A. Admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor and the standard of judgment on voluntariness

(b) Degree of and qualifications for the corroborating evidence of the confession;

A. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily made when it is acknowledged that the defendant's statement, etc. is authentic by the defendant's statement in the court room, and where the defendant contests that the defendant's statement is not arbitrarily made, the court should determine whether the defendant's statement was made arbitrarily by free conviction, in consideration of the form and contents of the protocol in question, the academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, etc.

(b) Reinforcement evidence of confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the accused is not processed, even though it is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the facts of the crime, and it can also be indirect evidence other than direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.

A. Articles 309 and 312(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Do741 delivered on June 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1623) (Gong1625 delivered on December 21, 1990). Supreme Court Decision 90Do2425 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2281) (Gong1991, 2281 delivered on September 25, 1990), Supreme Court Decision 90Do1613 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong190, 2235) (Gong191, 2754 delivered on February 23, 1993).

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Seoul High Court Decision 91No4652 delivered on March 2, 1992

Supreme Court Decision 92Do769 delivered on June 23, 1992

Seoul High Court Decision 92No2618 delivered on November 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the Defendant and his defense counsel

The protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by a public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement of the defendant recorded in the protocol is not made voluntarily, in case where it is acknowledged that the defendant's statement in the protocol is authentic by the defendant's statement in the court room. In case where the defendant contests that his statement is not made voluntarily, the court should judge whether the defendant voluntarily made the statement by free conviction in consideration of the form and contents of the protocol and the academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, etc. according to specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2425 delivered on December 21, 190; 91Do1270 delivered on July 26, 199, etc.). According to related evidence and records, the court below's judgment as to the confession of the defendant as stated in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect prepared by the public prosecutor (Articles 1 and 2) is not made arbitrarily. Considering the age and educational background of the defendant, the court below's judgment that the confession of the defendant as mentioned above cannot be acknowledged as voluntary confession and voluntary evidence.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant and defense counsel

If the relevant evidence is compared with the record and examined, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the probative value of confession, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below that judged that the statement made by the defendant before the prosecutor conforms to the truth. Therefore, there is no reason to

3. Judgment on the three grounds of appeal by defense counsel

In light of relevant evidence and records, the court below's judgment that held that the evidence other than the above confession adopted by the court of first instance was sufficient as supporting evidence for the above confession without any supporting evidence as to the above confession, if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed evidence, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence can be used as supporting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do191, May 25, 1990; 91Do1734, Oct. 8, 191; 91Do1734, Oct. 1, 1991; 2008Do4, etc.).

4. Judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3

If the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court and each of the evidence employed by the lower judgment are reviewed by comparing them with records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the crime resulting from rape in this case, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit,

5. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.