Voluntaryness of the defendant's legal statement

Articles 309 and 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A and 2 others

Prosecutor

Attorney B (Court in charge of the defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Reno4 delivered on July 24, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the defendant asserts the voluntariness of the defendant's statement entered in the suspect interrogation protocol and the defendant's statement on the trial date, the court shall, without being subject to the method of examination of evidence or restriction on the admissibility of evidence, determine whether the defendant's educational background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence level, contents of the statement, the protocol of interrogation of suspect interrogation protocol, etc. was made arbitrarily by free examination of evidence in consideration of all the circumstances such as the defendant's academic background, career, occupation, social status, contents of the statement, and the form of the protocol (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do705, May 30, 2003; 200Do1216, Feb. 9, 200; 97Do2084, Nov. 25, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the defendants' confessions as to the theft of military supplies and the robbery preparation against the defendants A and C among the facts charged in this case, without the warrant, and found the defendants guilty on the following grounds: (i) confessions made by the military police branch in the military police branch for not less than seven days after the defendants were arrested without the warrant and were illegally detained in the military police camp; (ii) the confessions made in the military police branch did not go against the suspicion of suspicion by the military judicial police officers; and (iii) the confessions made in the military prosecutor's office did not have any arbitrity; and (iv) the confessions made in the military police branch did not have any arbitrity upon the transfer of the defendants to the military prosecutor's office, but the examination protocol of the contents of the confessions was not prepared; (iii) the confessions made in the military police branch before the military prosecutor was forced to confession from the military police branch; and (iv) the confessions made in the court of first instance cannot be admissible as evidence for all of confessions and evidence evidence.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the discretion or credibility of confession.

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)