(영문) 대법원 2019.8.29. 선고 2019도6198 판결

1. Reinforcement evidence of confessions is sufficient to support the whole or essential part of the facts constituting a crime, even if it is not sufficient to support the truth that the confession of a criminal defendant is not a processed one. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence may serve as evidence, other than direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence. If confessions and corroborating evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove facts constituting a crime as a whole as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3041, Jul. 12, 2007; 2017Do20247, Mar. 15, 2018).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charges, on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s confession as to the part of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. from Smoking (hereinafter referred to as “the charges”), as indicated in the Attachment Nos. 1 through 15 of the List of Crimes (4) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

3. However, the following circumstances may be revealed in accordance with the evidence duly admitted:

A. The Defendant consistently acknowledged this part of the facts charged from an investigative agency to the lower court.

The Defendant stated, at the convenience store, that he dumped marijuana in a way of removing the existing tobacco and smoking it by inserting it, and thereafter, at the convenience store, that he dumped it into the coffee stuff, and dumped it on the ground of the smoking method searched by searching it on the Internet, and smoked marijuana 14 times as soon as possible by attaching a fire. As to the part of smoking with Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial found guilty, the Defendant purchased pipe and made a statement that he dump smoked it into the pipe. In light of the fact that the Defendant made a different detailed statement depending on the passage of time, the above statement is deemed to have credibility and voluntariness in the confession statement with the content that it is difficult to make a statement without direct experience.

B. All the facts charged revealed that the Defendant purchased marijuana on or after the date on which the Defendant acquired it, or on or after a few hours thereafter, the date and time of smoking, and that the Defendant’s act of purchasing marijuana was proved as the details of remitting the bitcos. The Defendant confirmed the details of remittance, which the Defendant purchased for smoking marijuana, and paid in return for the purchase of marijuana, and specified the date and time of smoking marijuana. The mere fact alone does not deny the credibility or arbitability of the statement of confession as to smoking.

C. After the purchase of marijuana related to this part of the facts charged, and the acts in this part of the indictment, the Defendant was found guilty of purchasing and smoking marijuana in collusion with B, and there is no circumstance to deem that the method of the purchase of marijuana and the circumstances leading up to smoking were almost similar to this part of the indictment, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the Defendant again sold marijuana to others.

D. According to the copy of each protocol of interrogation of S and each protocol of interrogation of S adopted by the court below as evidence and the specification of transactions of Bitcoin, S stated that S had received payment as bitcos and sold marijuana at C site, and the Defendant sent the bitcos to S or nameless persons by purchasing marijuana through C site at the time of the act of this part of the charges. A copy of each protocol of interrogation of S and each protocol of transactions of Bitcoin to S are sufficient to guarantee the authenticity of confession that the Defendant smoked marijuana purchased from S or nameless persons.

4. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is deemed that there is evidence to reinforce the confession of the Defendant as to this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence of confession, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Prosecutor’s ground of

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.