A. Criteria for determining the credibility of confession

(b) The case holding that the confession made by the prosecution of the defendant cannot be deemed to have satisfied the probative value by making the truth and credibility thereof doubtful;

(c) Evidence of the protocol of seizure prepared by a judicial police assistant, in which the person making the original statement was not admitted as evidence, and the authenticity of the protocol has not been admitted as evidence;

A. In determining the credibility of a confession, it shall be determined in consideration of the following: (a) whether the contents of the confession per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason for the confession; and (c) what is the reason leading to the confession; and (d) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

B. The case holding that the defendant's confession at the prosecutor's office does not have any other circumstantial evidence in light of other circumstantial evidence, and the contents of his statement conflict with or conflict with other circumstantial evidence, and the prosecutor prosecuted a crime more than 60 times on the basis of his confession in the investigative agency, and most of the defendant's academic background, career, living environment, etc. were left open to the prosecutor, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's confession and credibility of his statement have any extremely doubtful probative value.

C. The protocol of seizure prepared by the assistant judicial police officer that "the defendant seizes the articles in the attached Form (the articles written in the indictment) to be submitted at will by the defendant," cannot be used as evidence unless the defendant did not agree to be admitted as evidence in the courtroom and the defendant was admitted as authentic by testimony at the date of trial of the person making the original statement.

(b)Article 308(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 312 and 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Decision 90Do827 delivered on June 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 2182), Supreme Court Decision 90Do827 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1638 delivered on June 16, 1990)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 94No66 delivered on April 29, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the judgment of the court below, can be recognized as the facts charged in attached Tables 1 through 7 of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance, in full view of the timely evidence, and the judgment of the court of first instance rendered a conviction against the defendant as to the above facts charged. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance on the remaining facts charged except the facts charged in the list 8 of the crimes committed in violation of the rules of evidence and dismissed the appeal.

2. However, the evidence stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used to find guilty of the crime as stated in 1 to 7 of the above list of crimes, is examined in order of comparison with the record.

A. According to the records in the first protocol that recognized the authenticity of the interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor, the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case, and considering all circumstances such as the defendant's educational background, career, intelligence level, etc., it is not recognized that the confession of the defendant is not voluntary.

However, in determining the credibility of a confession, it is necessary to consider whether the content of the confession itself has objectively rationality, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the reason leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do873 delivered on June 12, 192, 1992). Accordingly, it is necessary to consider the credibility of the confession before the public prosecutor.

(1) Crime motive

The Defendant stated that he was the head of a kindergarten who had decided to admit his children as to the motive for the instant crime, and that he stolen goods that he was aware of, by creating a booming to the things on which articles stored in a lot department store were displayed during the commission of the gift in order to boost the gift.

However, in light of the records, the facts charged of this case against the defendant is all stolen from the above department store food department and possessed at the time when the defendant is arrested (including the visible visibility of the defendant in his arms) and all of them are stolen on the day of the case, and this is inconsistent with the motive of the above crime that the defendant states.

(2) Details and circumstances of the crime

The defendant stated that his visibility was stolen even after he had been faced by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor testified that it is difficult to steals the above part of the facts charged after the non-indicted scambling who was the scam point of view during the trial of the court of first instance, was present as a witness in the court of court of first instance and testified that "It is difficult to steals because the things of the scambling point are kept in the display room and it shows it only when there is a customer's request."

The Defendant stated that one of the stolen goods listed in the attached list 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance was stolen at the pande store on the sixthth pande store of the above department store. However, the Defendant stated that the above pande store was a witness at the court of first instance and was confiscated from the Defendant, and that the above pande store was not dealt with at the above pande store among the goods returned from the safety control office.

The Defendant stated that: (a) during the period from 14:0 to 15:40 on the day of the instant case, seven larcenys were kept in the custody of the stolen articles on the first floor of the first instance judgment, as described in the attached Forms 1 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) again, the Defendant did not go through the calculation unit after filling in the food department of the first instance at 18th, Saturdays, 300g, Bana hand, etc., and did not pass through the calculation unit; (c) but the Defendant was arrested at around 15:50 on the same day; (d) however, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s confessions and other valuables that were stolen at seven times from seven stores located on the second and sixth floors of the said department store during the period from 14:00 to 15:40 on the day of the instant case, and that there is lack of time to keep the aforementioned stolen articles on the first floor of the department store at intervals of 10 minutes.

(3) Educational, career and living environment etc. of the defendant

기록에 의하면 피고인은 강원도 횡성의 유복한 가정에서 태어난 여자로서 1982. 2. 25. 성균관대학교 사범대학 한문교육학과를 우수한 성적으로 졸업하였고, 1986. 8. 30. 서울대학교 대학원 석사과정을 졸업하여 문학석사의 학위를 받았으며, 덕성여자대학교에 시간강사로 출강한 사실까지 있는데, 1989. 봄경 망 공소외 1과 결혼하여 그 사이에 아들 공소외 2(1990. 2. 5.생)을 두고 안산시에서 단란한 가정생활을 하여 오던중 1991. 12. 29. 발생한 불의의 교통사고로 인하여 승용차를 운전하던 남편이 현장에서 사망하고, 위 승용차에 타고 있던 자신과 아들도 중상을 입어서 3개월이상의 치료를 받았으며, 그 이후에는 시댁과 친정을 오가면서 공소외 2를 자신의 유일한 희망으로 삼고 살아가고 있는 자인바, 피고인은 이 사건 당일 경찰에서 조사를 받음에 있어서 주거지 부근의 놀이방에 맡겨 둔 3세 남짓한 자신의 아들을 18:00까지 놀이방에서 찾아와야 한다는 나름대로의 절박한 사정이 있었으므로, 경찰관의 유도심문에 따라 경찰관이 원하는 대로의 진술을 하고서라도 빨리 그 자리를 모면하고 싶어 하였고, 또한 백화점의 지하 식품부에서 과일을 절취하다가 검거된 피고인으로서는 이러한 사실이 시댁은 물론 자신의 형제들에게 알려지게 될 것을 두려워한 나머지 자포자기의 심정에서 경찰관의 추궁에 따라 허위의 자백을 하였을 가능성을 배제할 수 없다고 할 것이고, 이와 같은 심리상태는 피고인이 구속되어 검찰에서의 조사를 받을 때까지 연장되어 스스로 자포자기한 나머지 허위의 자백을 하였을 가능성도 있다고 할 것이다.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant shows that he is being treated as a patient with depression, and this is more so in consideration of this point.

Moreover, the prosecutor seems to be difficult to recognize the credibility of the confession, considering that most of the crimes have been prosecuted more than 60 times on the basis of confessions made by the defendant in the investigation agency, and most of them have been withdrawn.

In light of the above, the confessions by the defendant at the prosecution do not seem to have the motive for the crime in light of other circumstantial evidence, and the contents of the statement conflict with or conflict with other circumstantial evidence, and if the defendant's educational background, career, living environment, etc. as seen above are neglected, it shall not be deemed that the authenticity and credibility of the statement have very doubtful probative value.

(b) The statement of the witness evidence of the first instance court and the compliance with the preparation of the assistant judicial police officer of the first instance court; the statement of the witness column of the second trial of the first instance court; the statement of the witness column of the second trial of the first instance court; and the statement of the witness statement of the newly prepared assistant judicial police officer of the first instance court;

(1) A statement of compliance;

At the court of first instance, since the defendant was present as a witness in the court of first instance and was contacted by the safety control office of the above department store, and was displayed on the spacker, which he had worked as a person in charge of sales, and the defendant confiscated 2 points and 1 point of the spacker dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong. However, the above evidence is deemed stolen because it was not attached if the goods sold normally are attached. However, if the defendant led to the confession that he stolen the above spacks, it is worth as supporting evidence. However, in this case where the defendant denies the above crime by asserting that he purchased the above goods at the above department store before he is arrested, it is insufficient to prove

(2) Statement of leaptable disturbance

In light of the statements made at the prosecutor's office and the statements made at the court of first instance in this case, the police officer was present during the process of seizing the goods that were stolen at the department store from the Defendant to the Defendant on the day of the instant case, and returned the goods that were temporarily seized and returned to the prosecutor at the request of the prosecutor, but it was presented to the prosecutor again. When the Defendant first made a statement at the safety control office, he was present during the statement at the prosecutor's office and at the court of first instance on the day of the instant case, he testified that he was fluent, and that he was fluent of the Defendant's behavior at the time, and that he did not have the words.

In addition, the articles kept in custody and the articles seized at the defendant's office are all stolen. The reason is that the price list was cut on the articles that were normally sold at the department store, and the articles that were usually presented were attached to the price list. The police officers brought the defendant's goods at the department store and did not have any receipts issued at the department store, and the articles that were promptly put in the name of the defendant's goods at the department store.

However, in the above evidence station, if the defendant led to the theft of the above goods, the value as supporting evidence should be deemed to exist. However, in the case of this case where the defendant denies the above crime by asserting that he purchased the above goods immediately prior to the arrest of the above department store or brought them at his office, the probative value should be considered as evidence of conviction against the defendant, and it would rather be consistent with the empirical rules that the defendant who was arrested and led to the safety management office after theft and arrest of the defendant. Rather, the clothes brought to the custody of the statement in the leleland were included in the old US department store, not in the shopping bags in the lethum department store, but in the old USP department store, the above clothing, etc. is consistent with the defendant's defense that the defendant had been contained in the shopping bags in the lethum of the U.S. department store from his house.

(3) A statement of SIS.

The panty store of the sixth floor of the above department store in the police, and the defendant did not have a memory to sell bags and dynamics, and the bank and the picture that were returned from the safety control office was the object to be handled at his own store, and the bank and the picture were returned from the safety control office to the court of first instance, and if the witness was present at the court of first instance, the bank from the safety control office was the bank of another store, which was not treated at the above panty store.

However, if the above evidence proves that the defendant stolen the above goods, it is value as supporting evidence. However, in this case where the defendant denies the above crime by asserting that the above goods were purchased immediately before the arrest of the above department store, the evidence of conviction against the defendant is lacking probative value. Rather, among the above statements, the part that the above goods were returned from the safety control office was the bags of another store and that they were not treated at the above panty store is consistent with the defendant's defense suit that the defendant purchased 15,000 won a set of 15,00 won away from the 1st floor below the department store.

(c) Entry of seizure records prepared by a judicial police officer;

On March 11, 1993, the above seizure protocol contains that "the defendant seizes the articles listed in the attached Form (the articles stated in the indictment) which are submitted voluntarily by the defendant." The defendant did not consent to the seizure protocol as evidence in the courtroom, and the defendant cannot use it as evidence since it was not proven by the testimony at the date of the original statement's trial, and even according to the contents itself, it is merely that "the defendant has possessed the same articles at the time of arrest." Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge the crime of this case.

3. According to the records examined as above, it is difficult to readily conclude the defendant guilty on the facts charged in the attached Tables 1 through 7 of the List of Crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance only with the statement of the court of first instance, but the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court of first instance, which found the defendant guilty on the facts charged in the above facts charged only with the above evidence which has no admissibility or credibility. Thus, there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument

However, since the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below was sentenced to a single punishment for each of the larceny of this case against the defendant as concurrent crimes, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)