Confession of the defendant, which is the only evidence unfavorable to him, and the circumstances as supporting evidence

A. According to the provisions of Article 10 of the former Constitution (amended on December 26, 62) and the main proposal, in a case where the confession of the defendant is the only evidence unfavorable to him, the confession is limited to the confession in the courtroom, or the testimony of the investigator as the suspect, or the admissibility of evidence of the confession is restricted, and it cannot be the evidence of guilt independently or independently. Thus, even if the confession is combined, it is not sufficient to render a judgment of conviction.

B. A confession favorable to the defendant can also be admitted as evidence of guilt if there is any supporting evidence, and the circumstantial evidence as a supporting evidence is also admissible as well as the direct evidence.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant and one other

Prosecutor Hong Pung-chul

Attorney Shin Jae-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 65No194 delivered on April 12, 1966

A duplicate against the permitted period of defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in this case, the part of the judgment of the first instance on the admission of the defendant to the anti-government organization is reversed, and the appeal is dismissed.

Of the original judgment, the remainder of the original judgment against the Defendant shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

All appeals on the part of the original judgment against the defendant's highest right of jurisdiction are dismissed.

The Prosecutor’s First Ground of Appeal

Since the defendant permitted the defendant to join the Joseon Labor Party on February 10, 1952, it is the same as the theory of the lawsuit that the statute of limitations has already been expired at the time of the prosecution of this case in accordance with Article 1 of the former National Security Act and Article 249 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act at the time of the act. In such a case, it should be judged prior to the substantive adjudication, but the original judgment that rendered the verdict of innocence should be in violation of the law, and there is no argument of the appeal.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2, as to the facts charged in the defendant's attempted diving in February 1963, the original judgment was acquitted on the grounds that there is no other evidence than the defendant's unfavorable confessions against him, but such confessions may also be used as evidence of guilt, if any, as evidence of reinforcement, and the situation evidence may also be admitted as evidence of guilt. Since each evidence (excluding each defendant's statement) adopted by the original judgment as evidence which recognizes each fact in 1-1 (1) through (4) of the original judgment (which is admitted as evidence) may be considered as evidence of circumstance and it can be considered as admissible evidence because it recognizes the criminal facts of the attempted diving. However, as to the facts charged in the above attempted diving, the original judgment which ruled that there is no other evidence than the confession of the defendant, there is a error of law as to the admissibility of evidence as evidence of reinforcement, and there is a ground for appeal on this point.

As to the third ground for appeal

Defendant 1’s act of entering the Korea War Party on September 5, 1963 as a candidate, constitutes Article 1 subparag. 3 of the National Security Act. The fact of education itself, which received education necessary for the South-North espionage activities and the South-North espionage dispatch, does not correspond to any of the crimes under Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the National Security Act, and the fact that the act of joining the Korea War Party as a candidate of the Korea Labor Party as a candidate of the Korea Labor Party is not considered as the fact of receiving the above education and the fact of having received the above education as a candidate of the Korea Labor Party, and there is no violation of laws and subordinate statutes in the original judgment, which did not regard

The issue is groundless.

같은 상고이유 제4점에 대하여 국민의 기본적 인권을 보장하기위하여, 헌법 제10조 제6항 후단은 피고인의 자백이 그에게 불리한 유일한 증거인때에는 이를 유죄의 증거로 삼거나 이를 이유로 처벌할수 없다고 규정하므로서, 사법절차에 있어서 자백의 증거능력을 제한하였으며, 이 자백은 그것이 공판정에서의 자백뿐만 아니라 공판정의의 자백까지도 말하는 것임은 인권을 보장하려는 헌법의 기본정신이나 헌법 제10조 제6항 전단규정의 문언에 비추어 명백하며, 형사소송법 제310조 또한 피고인의 자백이 그 피고인에게 불이익한 유일의 증거인때에는 이를 유죄의 증거로 하지못한다고 규정하여 그 자백이 공판정에서의 자백뿐만 아니라 수사관에게 대한 자백까지도 포함하는 것임은 위 헌법의 규정이나 형사소송법 제309조 의 규정에 비추어 명백한바로서 피고인의 자백이 공판정에서의 자백이던 피의자로서의 수사관에게 대한 진술이던 그 자백이 증거능력이 제한되어 있고, 피고인의 공판정에서의 자백이나, 피의자로서의 수사관에게 대한 진술 기타 공판정에서의 진술은 그 어느것이나 독립하여 유죄의 증거가 될수 없음을 위 헌법의 규정이나 형사소송법이 명백히 규정하고 있어 독립하여 유죄의 증거로 할수 없는 자백들을 암만 합쳐보았댔자, 그 합친 자백을 유죄의 증거로 할수 있는 독립된 증거능력이 생긴것이라 할수 없는바이므로 공판정에서의 자백과 수사관에게 대한 자백이 있다고하여, 그것만으로 유죄의 판결을 할수 없는 법리(이러한 견해는 본원이 이미 1965. 6. 29. 선고 65도405 판결 에서 판시한바있다)라 할것이며 이와같은 견해를 취한 원판결에 소론 위법이 있을수 없고 논지는 이유없다.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Choi Dong and his defense counsel

In light of the records of the evidence in the original judgment, there is no error in the judgment in the original judgment in the case where the defendant did not recognize the criminal facts in the principal case against him as being forced to commit a crime, and there is no obvious reason to recognize the punishment in the original judgment as significantly excessive.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, without any need to decide on the grounds of appeal other than the prosecutor, the original judgment against the defendant should not be reversed. The part of the facts charged for joining the above anti-state organization against him is sufficient to directly decide on the original judgment, and this part of the judgment of the first instance which rendered a substantial judgment on the facts charged should not be reversed, and as described above, the formal judgment should first be reversed, and the judgment of acquittal should be rendered pursuant to Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act. As mentioned above, the part of the judgment of the first instance which made a substantial judgment on the facts charged should be sentenced first, and the judgment of acquittal should be rendered pursuant to Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The defendant's appeal against the permitted period of the original judgment except the acquittal portion is remanded to the original judgment, and the prosecutor

Therefore, according to Articles 390, 396, and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

The Supreme Court Judge Yang-Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 2018Hun-Ga, Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, Lee Ho-song