The case holding that the confession in the suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor was voluntary, but no credibility is found.

If the prosecutor did not impose any harsh treatment against the defendant and did not participate in the investigation police officer who conducted harsh acts once more than 20 days when the defendant was examined more than five times, the prosecutor’s testimony before the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have no voluntariness, but if it is difficult to accept several points in the motive, time, etc. of the crime, the confession of the defendant before the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have been true.

Articles 308 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Masan District Court of the first instance (85 Mau24 decided)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention days before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The seized Bank of Korea notes 25 (No. 1) shall be returned to the victims' property successors.

Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the charge of murder is acquitted

The gist of the defendant's appeal is that the court below found the defendant guilty of murder even though the defendant did not murder the victim. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the reasons for appeal by the state appointed defense counsel is too unreasonable.

As examined below, the judgment of the court below should be pronounced not guilty because there is no proof of crime as to murder as seen below, but it affected the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty. Thus, the decision on the remaining grounds for appeal under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is omitted, and the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal is omitted under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and one sentence is imposed on larceny as it constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below'

At around 04:50 on October 6, 1986, the Defendant, while drunk at the second studio located in the main place of the (trade name omitted) Gosung-gun (dong name omitted), 340,000 won in cash owned by the Defendant, was stolen.

The facts of the ruling shall:

1. Statement consistent with the facts stated in the original judgment by the defendant;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the prosecutor;

1. As evidence can be found in full view of the existence, etc. of 25 copies (No. 1) seized Bank of Korea notes, there is proof.

The so-called "the defendant's judgment" falls under Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant is selected to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor within the prescribed period of punishment, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the limit of eight months, and by applying Article 57 of the same Act, 125 days out of the number of detention days prior to the declaration of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment, and 25 copies (Evidence No. 1) of the court below's detention right shall be returned to the victim as stolen property acquired by the crime of larceny in the judgment of the court below

As to the summary of the facts charged regarding murder in the instant case

The Defendant, from around June 198 to the point of view, was working as a manager at (trade name omitted) Nonindicted Party 1’s main store located in Seongbuk-Eup (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”). From October 6, 1986 to the point of view 2, the Defendant was able to kill the victim in the same village, and the victim (the age of 20, remaining) who was frightened with the above main store 100, she was able to kill the victim with his/her free will to kill the victim with his/her free will, and he/she was able to kill the victim with his/her free will to kill the victim with his/her remaining 10,000, and he/she was able to kill the victim with his/her free will and to kill the victim with his/her free will on his/her own, and thus, he/she was able to kill the victim with his/her free will and her free will to kill the victim with his/her free will.

each evidence of the prosecutor’s submission that corresponds to the facts charged;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol, self-written statement, written statement, written evidence prepared by a judicial police officer on February 2, 200 and written evidence of verification prepared by a judicial police officer on March 3, 200 and written evidence of autopsy prepared by a prosecutor on the private person in support of the interrogation protocol prepared by a judicial police officer on July 7, 200, and written evidence of autopsy prepared by a prosecutor on the private person. The other evidence attached to the records are related to the circumstance, and it cannot be acknowledged only to the facts of the defendant's crime of murder. Thus, the above 4-A evidence

(1) The suspect interrogation protocol, statement, and written statement of the defendant in the preparation of the judicial police assistant

The defendant, who denied the first offense in the police and led up to two days after the first offense, led to the confession that he killed the victim for the same reason as shown in the facts charged, but the defendant denies the contents of the interrogation protocol in the police, which is not admissible, and also made it in the police investigation process even though it was written in the protocol of statement or self-written statement and self-written statement, so it is not different from the interrogation protocol in the police investigation process, so long as the defendant denies the contents of the protocol of statement or self-written statement in the court of original instance

(2) Inspection records prepared by judicial police officers;

Of the evidence verification protocol prepared by a judicial police officer, the part on which the statement of the defendant was written and the part on the photographic image of the crime (the machine part is not directly related to the crime in this case) is the original person who made the original statement, and it is not acknowledged that the statement or re-verification was made by the defendant, who is the actor, and there is no evidence to deem that the statement and re-performance of the crime was made under particularly reliable circumstances. Rather, when comprehensively considering the defendant's standing and Non-Indicted 1's testimony which are shown in the court below's trial court, the defendant was given a serious counsel from the police officer on the ground that he denies the crime during the investigation conducted by the police, and thus, the field verification conducted around that time was conducted under the external appearance unless there are special circumstances, and thus, it cannot be considered as evidence of guilt as it is inadmissible.

(3) Examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

First, it is examined whether this evidence is admissible or not.

The defendant's defense counsel did not give any suspicion to the defendant when the prosecutor prepares an interrogation protocol against the defendant, but the police officers sent confessions to the defendant at two times in advance or before the prosecutor's office before forwarding the defendant to the prosecutor's office (at that time, the interrogation protocol was not prepared) and then sent the defendant to the prosecutor's office after making it impossible to reverse the confessions on the back date (at that time, the interrogation protocol was not prepared). Thus, even when the defendant confessions the defendant before the prosecutor's office, the defendant made a false confession of the same contents as that of the police's suspicion, and thus, the above confessions before the prosecutor's office are inadmissible as there is no voluntariness.

However, in the absence of the prosecutor's participation of the investigating police officer who conducted harsh acts once he was examined by the defendant for about 20 days, as the defendant is the defendant, there is no suspicion against the defendant, or for about 20 days, the statement of the defendant before the prosecutor cannot be readily concluded that the statement of the defendant before the prosecutor is not voluntary.

However, according to various evidence examined by the lower court and the trial court, it is difficult to readily conclude the Defendant as the offender of this case, as seen below, as the motive, time, etc. of the crime, and thus, it is difficult to accept the confession of the Defendant in the prosecutor’s office as evidence for the recognition of guilt.

I will first examine this point in order.

(1) As to the motive for committing the crime:

According to the facts charged, the defendant committed the crime of 340,000 won of the victim's money to steals 20 minutes prior to the death of the victim, and the victim had the victim feel her scarb and her scarb with the said money, and had the defendant feel her scarb, and had the defendant feel her scarbly killed.

However, in full view of the statements made by Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3 at the police station and the statements made by the Defendant, the victim had been able to receive the Defendant and her familiarly with the Defendant while living in Handong, and her day, drinking alcohol in an unburled atmosphere. The victim called the victim at around 05:00 on the 10th day before the death of the defect that the victim wants to sleep, and called the victim to be her to her to her to her to her to her with the victim. The Defendant worked as the manager of the club (trade omitted) operated by Changwon junior college after the completion of 2 years and completing military service, and the situation that the victim she her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her with the victim at around 05:00.

Therefore, the motive of the defendant's murdering of a victim who has satisfly been satisfling for a long time on the ground that he or she was aware of 340,000 won of money or of satisfying the same as that of his or her birth.

(2) As to the possibility of suicide:

According to the facts charged, at around 04:50 of that day, the Defendant sent 100,000 won to the victim who was aware of the 3.44,00 won of money from the victim and would have the victim receive the 3.4,000 won of money to the 100 A (name omitted) with good width, instead of the money. On the other hand, the Defendant took a note of the purport that the 100 AC had loved the 100th day, and used a copy of the 10th day.

This part seems to contain the purport that the victim's death does not commit suicide and that the defendant killed the victim by pretending to commit suicide, even though it is recognized that the knife and knife were found at the scene of the crime and the knife were found at the 1st room of the above main place and the knife of the knife was

However, if the above book was prepared according to the circumstances as stated in the facts charged, it is common that the contents of the book will begin with respect to AC immediately 100, but if the contents of the book are shown in the page 412 of the record, there is personnel for the lower-ranking personnel, relatives, and relatives for the parents, and last 100 Eass, it is difficult to see that the above book was prepared as the background of the written indictment, and therefore, it is hard to see that it is possible to see it as the basis of the victim's suicide, but it is not clear that it can be viewed as the criminal intent for the Defendant's disguised suicide.

(3) As to the method of crime:

According to the facts charged, at around 05:10 of that day, the defendant spawned the victim's bat and spawnd with his head in the toilet wall, and the victim spawned his body and spawned his body back to the back of the victim of the old spawn and spawn with his left arms.

However, according to the written appraisal by Nonindicted 4, the victim's blood alcohol concentration was 0.14% at the time of the victim's death, and the degree of the blood alcohol level was 0.14% as the so-called narcotics condition, and according to the statement by Nonindicted 2 and 5, the victim's physical health was acknowledged, and the victim's physical health was found to have been a man who works as a part of the body. Thus, according to the testimony by Nonindicted 6 at the court room where the defendant appears to have no physical condition than the victim's body condition was found to have been satisfyed or satisfyed, according to the victim's testimony at the first trial of Nonindicted 6 of the doctor non-indicted 6 who first checked the body, the body was testified that there was no physical credit, and even at all, the body was able to kill the body as the part of the toilet.)

(4) As to a private person,

According to the facts charged, a private person of the victim's private life is a crypology due to pressure, and according to the testimony at the court below and the court below of the trial of the non-indicted 7, which is the autopsy doctor, the victim's testimony at the trial of the court below, it is concluded that the private person is a crypology due to pressure, and that the private person is a crypology due to pressure, and that there

However, comprehensively taking account of Nonindicted 6 and 8’s testimony, the fact that there is a danger of resistance alone that the text of the trial witness is open does not readily conclude it as a crypology (all the body is so different, but all the body is open due to the death) and that it cannot be readily concluded that the body is a crypology, even if the body is deemed to be a crypology. Moreover, even if the body was a crypology by the body of Non-Indicted 7 as shown in Non-Indicted 7’s testimony, it may lead to a crypology. Moreover, even if the body was a crypology by the body of the body of Non-Indicted 7, it may not be ruled that even if the victim committed suicide, even if the body of Non-Indicted 6 and 8’s crypology appears in the scene of the crime, it is difficult to readily conclude that it was a private person.

(5) As to the time of crime:

According to the facts charged, the defendant stolen the victim's money of 340,000 won on October 6, 1986 and killed the victim at around 05:10 on the same day after 20 minutes.

However, it is assumed that the time stated in the bill of indictment is correct, however, that it is unreasonable for the defendant to pay money from the victim's money for 20 minutes, to make it known that it occurred with a considerable time, to write down a note that it would result in a considerable amount of time, and to make it difficult to do so again, and to do so without any prior plan, that it would interfere with a series of actions that may cause the head to go against the toilet, to go against the wall again, and to stroke down and stroke down the wall.

However, the problem is whether the defendant was at the place of crime at around 05:10.

According to Non-Indicted 1's statement at the police station, Non-Indicted 1, who was the victim's 0 point or 4: The non-Indicted 1, who was the victim's main telephone (hereinafter referred to as "non-Indicted 5"): The non-Indicted 5's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone and the non-Indicted 2's main telephone were 0:0's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone were 0:0's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone were 40's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone were 0's main telephone and the non-Indicted 4's main telephone were 0's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone were 0's main telephone and the non-Indicted 5's main telephone were 0's main telephone, and the defendant's statement was 1 to 30's main telephone and then 8's main telephone were 40's main telephone.

그렇다면 피고인은 04:50경 제일장 여관에 전화했고(그러면 공소외 9의 진술 중 40분 뒤에 전화했다는 것은 1시간 뒤에 전화했다는 것이 되는데 그 정도의 오차는 충분히 있을 수 있는 것이고, 만약 공소사실에 맞추어 피고인이 피해자를 살해하고 샷다문을 닫고 나서 제일장 여관으로 갔다면, 전화 후 25 내지 30분 뒤에 제일장 여관으로 갔다고 해야하던지 아니면 전화를 공소외 9이 위 주점을 떠나간지 1시간 20 내지 30분 뒤에 한 것으로 해야 되는데 이는 앞서 인정되는 사실에 비추어 지극히 믿기 어렵다 할 것이다.), 05:00 전후하여 제일장 여관에 가서 김밥 등을 사먹고 05:20을 전후하여 위 여관을 나갔다고 추단할 수 있다.

In this case, at around 05:10, the criminal defendant, which is the time of committing the crime in the indictment, was in the inn of the defendant, so it is difficult to believe that the defendant was killed at the time of the prosecution.

(6) Regarding the time of the victim’s death:

According to the facts charged, it is deemed that the victim died at around 05:10. However, according to the appraiser's report prepared by Nonindicted 7, the body was without any content. According to the victim's statement made by the defendant and his employees, the victim drank the body by dividing the body into three friends and the defendant at least two friends at least 02:00 per day of the case into three friends and the defendant at least two friends at least 02:0 per day of the case. In other words, the two friends and two friends of the friends around 03:00, and the body friends were 7 friends and the body friends were friended. Meanwhile, according to Nonindicted 8's testimony, if the person drinking at least 0:10 hours after drinking the body friend to 0:00 hours after drinking and drinking the body friend at least 7:5 hours after drinking.

(7) As to the defendant's criminal records after the case:

According to the statements made by Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 10, according to the statements made by the last statement made by the Defendant, the Defendant cut off money that he stolen to the Japanese headn, and confirmed that he was the manager of his (trade name omitted) and that he was the manager of his (trade name omitted) in the future, according to the statements made by Nonindicted 14, he saw the horses that he had a fluorial fluor and fluoral fluor on several occasions. According to the statements made by Nonindicted 11, according to the statements made by Nonindicted 11, the Defendant flusing the fact of the death of the victim and fluoring the death of his own business. As such, it is sufficient that the latter statements made by the Defendant after the above case caused doubts as to whether the Defendant killed the victim.

Therefore, even if the defendant made a confession of the facts charged in this case at the prosecutor's office, there is no obvious motive for murder, and if the time of crime and the time of death are not consistent, and the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out at all, in the same case, there is the same kind of crime, there is considerable reason that the defendant's change in the prosecutor's office revealed all of the facts in the court as the defendant's change, and made a confession in the same manner as the confession made in the police in mind, and there is considerable reason for the defendant's change in the prosecutor's office to believe that the confession before the prosecutor

Thus, there is no direct evidence to believe that the defendant kills the victim as stated in the indictment, and the remaining evidence is merely circumstantial evidence in the case where the confession of the defendant is recognized as true, and such circumstantial evidence alone cannot be found guilty of the murder charge, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

Therefore, the decision of innocence is made in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Hong-won (Presiding Judge)