A. Admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor who recognized the authenticity

(b) If there is a series of doctors in succession among several persons, the surname of the accomplice’s relationship.

(c) Responsibility for an accomplice who does not directly participate in a crime;

A. The protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor who admitted the authenticity in the court by the accused who was the suspect is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement of the accused in the protocol is not made voluntarily or it is made under a particularly reliable condition.

B. In relation to co-offenders who conspired two or more persons to jointly process crimes, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a certain crime. Thus, if there was a series of co-offenders in order among several persons, even if there was no specific conspiracy between the two, there is no obstacle to the establishment of co-offenders.

C. Even if some of the co-offenders did not directly participate in the conduct of a crime after several co-offenders conspired, they are jointly and severally liable for the conduct that other co-offenders shared.

A. Article 312(1) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Do378 delivered on May 29, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Do1718 delivered on November 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Do1446 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Dong) 85Do2002 delivered on November 12, 1985

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Yoon Tae-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 87No570 delivered on June 17, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be 35 days each included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the defendant who was a suspect in the court, which recognized the authenticity of the protocol in the public prosecutor's court, is admissible unless there are any grounds to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily or in a particularly reliable state (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1718, Nov. 25, 1986). According to the records, the defendant 1 acknowledged the authenticity of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant as prepared by the public prosecutor in the court of first instance, and it is impossible to find any materials to suspect that the contents of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect are not reliable because the protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's statements are non-recognizable as a non-regnent statement as made by the public prosecutor's investigator, and there are no materials to see that the defendant's suspect's interrogation of the defendant's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's protocol was made in

2. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 2, Defendant 2’s ground of appeal, and Defendant’s ground of appeal by state appointed defense counsel

In full view of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime as stated in its reasoning, and the facts cannot be found to be erroneous because it violated the rules of evidence and failed to exhaust all the deliberation, and therefore there is no reason to discuss the facts. Since there are two or more co-offenders in a joint-processing crime, conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize any crime. Thus, if there is a combination of opinions in order among several persons, even if there was no process of conspiracy between several persons, there is no obstacle to the establishment of the relation of co-offender (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2002 delivered on Nov. 12, 1985), and even if some of the co-offenders did not directly participate in the execution of the crime, the court below's measures against the co-principal with the purport that there is no illegality in the conspiracy between the Defendants.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)

The judge of the Supreme Court is unable to sign and seal by overseas business trip.