Scope and degree of supporting supporting evidence for confessions

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3041 Decided July 12, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7883 Decided November 27, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1272 Decided December 23, 2010 (Gong201Sang, 281)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney corrective machine

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016No3699 Decided March 29, 2017

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on conviction against the defendant and the part on the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to medication shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court. The remainder

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The argument that the lower court erred by exceeding the limit of discretion in sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. Each psychotropic drug medication part

1) Reinforcement evidence for confessions is sufficient to the extent that it can only be recognized that the confession of a criminal defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the criminal facts is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the criminal facts. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence, other than direct evidence, may serve as corroborative evidence, and if confessions and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the criminal facts as a whole as a whole, it is evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3041, Jul. 12, 2007; 2008Do7883, Nov. 27, 2008).

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined, the following circumstances are revealed.

A) On March 29, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Daejeon District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and was sentenced to imprisonment, etc. on June 8, 2014 at the ○○○ Detention House on June 8, 2014, and the career of the same crime was more than five times, and thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the confession of

B) On December 28, 2015, the Defendant’s receipt of 0.7g merpta from the Nonindicted Party via the Nonindicted Party on December 28, 2015 at an investigative agency and delivery of some of them to the Nonindicted Party free of charge is on the day immediately following the confession that the Defendant administered the medication at △△△△△△, and stated the method of medication, motive, etc. in detail, and thereafter, did not find any circumstances to suspect the voluntariness of the confession by maintaining consistent statements until the lower court.

C) According to each police interrogation protocol and the prosecutor’s protocol of statement adopted by the lower court as evidence, the Nonindicted Party received shopping bags containing the mail bags transported through buses from the bus terminal on December 28, 2015 on the day when the Defendant’s first metropty administration took place, and delivered them to the Defendant, and immediately received part of the mail bags, and the Defendant returned to the △△○○○, and the Defendant went back to the △△△△△△△○. The Nonindicted Party’s statement is sufficient to secure the authenticity of the confession that the Defendant administered the mail bags two times on December 28, 2015 and the next day.

3) Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, each protocol of interrogation of the Nonindicted Party and each protocol of statement against the Nonindicted Party are sufficient to serve as a supporting evidence for the confession of the Defendant. Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1794 Decided February 13, 1996 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3813 Decided June 28, 2007 cited by the lower court are different from the case, and it is not appropriate to rely on the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the confession of the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B. Part on trade of psychotropic drugs of August 7, 2015

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) on August 7, 2015, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the ground that there was no proof of a crime. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending

C. The guilty part

Although the prosecutor appealeds the entire judgment of the court below, the guilty portion is not indicated in the petition of appeal, and the appellate brief does not contain any grounds for objection.

3. Scope of reversal

As seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by medication of psychotropic drugs should be reversed, and there is no reason to appeal on the guilty part of the defendant. However, the part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty and the above part of the judgment that acquitted the defendant should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment

4. Conclusion

Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part against the defendant and the not guilty part of the judgment of the court below, each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by medication, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)