False statements of witnesses and crime of escape of criminals in an investigative agency;

Even though a witness, who is under an investigation by an investigative agency, silents or makes a false statement about an offender, if it is not sufficient to make it difficult or impossible to detect or arrest an offender by actively entering an investigative agency by deceiving him/her, it does not constitute an offense to escape. In addition, in cases where a witness thought that he/she would not be an offender in an investigative agency in a situation where he/she actually knows that he/she is not the offender in a situation where he/she actually knows that he/she is not the offender, but makes a false statement indicating that he/she is the offender, even though the person identified as an offender by false statement of a witness brings about the result of the actual offender's escape by being detained, it alone does not mean that the witness had an intention to actively escape the actual offender and make it difficult to operate the national criminal justice system, and thus, he/she cannot be punished as an offense to escape the witness.

Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3288 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 864) Supreme Court Decision 85Do897 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 475) Supreme Court Decision 91Do1441 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong191, 2466)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 97No90 delivered on June 4, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On September 195, Co-defendant 1, 1995, the court below decided that Co-defendant 2 visited the defendant from time to time to time at the bus stops located in the J. S. J. J. J. J. J. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. L. Y. Y. Y. L. 2:0 on Oct. 13, 1996, Co-defendant 2:00 on Feb. 13, 1995, the court below decided that Co-defendant 2 had sexual intercourse with the defendant at his body of 02:0 on Feb. 20, 1996, after which Co-defendant 3:0 became aware of the defendant's body at the bar of the defendant's body, he did not have sexual intercourse with the defendant's body at the bar of the defendant's body and the defendant's body, and thus, he did not have sexual intercourse with the defendant's body and the defendant's body.

The defendant, on June 13, 1995, was aware that he had sexual intercourse with him, was the above co-defendant 1, and his appearance and body were 1 year prior to his elementary school and middle school, and that he did not know that he was flick at home and she was flick, and that he was flick at the village bus stop, etc., but he tried to rape himself on the day of this case, and even if he was well aware that he was flick at the above trial court, he would have it be hard for the above co-defendant 1 to view that he would have been flick at the above court's office, and that he would have been flickly flick at the defendant's office, and that he would have been flickly flick at the above court's office, and that he would have been flicked by the above co-defendant 1, who was flicker of the above case and would have been flick at the defendant's office.

2. The judgment of the court below

As to the facts charged in this case, the court of first instance found the defendant guilty on the grounds that the defendant and the co-defendant in the court of first instance written some statements in the court of first instance in the court of first instance, the witness title of the court of first instance in this case, some statements in the protocol of examination of the defendant in the court of first instance in the court of first instance, the protocol of examination of the defendant in the court of first instance in the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, the protocol of examination of the defendant in the prosecutor's protocol, the defendant in the protocol of examination of the defendant in the prosecutor's protocol, the non-indicted 1, the Lee Dowon, the defendant in the protocol of examination of the defendant in the court of first instance in the prosecutor's protocol, each statement in the protocol of statement in the court of first instance in the prosecutor's protocol, the defendant in the protocol of examination of the defendant in the court of first instance in the prosecutor's protocol, the defendant in the judicial police officer's protocol of statement in the court of first instance, the defendant and the above co-defendant in the above protocol

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Even if a witness, who is under investigation by an investigative agency, silents or makes a false statement about an offender, he/she does not constitute a crime of escape if it is not sufficient to make it difficult or impossible to detect or arrest the offender by actively deceiving an investigative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1441 delivered on August 27, 191).

In addition, when a witness thought that he is not an actual offender in an investigative agency when he knows that he is aware of who is actually an offender, but makes a false statement indicating him as an offender, even though he is detained by a person identified as an offender by a false statement of a witness and resulting in the actual offender's easy escape, it cannot be deemed that the witness alone has an intention to actively flee the actual offender and make it difficult for the State to act as a criminal justice, and thus the witness cannot be punished as an offense of attempted criminal.

B. Among the evidence cited by the court below and the court of first instance, evidence that corresponds to the fact that the defendant, even though he was aware that he was the co-defendant of the crime of attempted rape in this case, made a false statement that Non-indicted 1 was an offender, at the police station, even though he was aware that he was the co-defendant of the court below, the above co-defendant's prosecutor's office, the court's statement, and some of the defendant's prosecutor's office made a false statement.

(1) The statement of the court below

According to the records, on June 13, 1996, at the time of the first investigation by the police and the prosecution, Co-defendant only made a statement to the effect that he tried to rape the defendant and attempted to commit a crime. At the time of the second investigation by the prosecution, he denied the previous confession and had several sexual intercourses since September 1995. At the time of the instant case, Co-defendant stated that at the time of the instant case, he tried to have sexual intercourse with the defendant's house with the defendant's consent of entering the defendant's house and tried to have sexual intercourse with the defendant's house and escaped from the body, but at the time of the instant case's occurrence, he was changed when he made a statement to the effect that he resisted the defendant at the time of the instant case as well as about the time, place and frequency of the instant case, and about whether the defendant was the defendant at the time of the instant case. The above co-defendant as a co-defendant who was under the suspension of the execution of the execution of the execution of the crime of this case cannot be admitted as evidence.

(2) Defendant’s confessions at the prosecution

In determining the credibility of a confession, in consideration of the fact that the contents of the confession themselves are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the background leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, it is necessary to determine whether the confession can be reliable with the free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2656, Jan. 12, 1993; 94Do1476, Jan. 24, 1995).

The main contents of the confession of the defendant stated in the first written protocol of examination of the prosecutor of this case against the defendant in the first written protocol of examination of the prosecutor of this case reveal that the defendant was not a criminal but a co-defendant of the court below, at the time when he was investigated as a witness in the case of the defendant's attempted rape with the non-indicted 1, but the co-defendant of the court below was a criminal defendant, but if the co-defendant of the court below stated that he was a criminal defendant, it would be obvious that he was able to be rape in 95 years by the co

However, according to the records, the defendant consistently made a statement at the police on two consecutive occasions on August 20, 196, and on two consecutive occasions on August 21, 1996, to the effect that he was unaware of the defendant's attempted rape of this case as the co-defendant. On the same day, he was investigated as the first suspect at the prosecutor's office for the first time on the same day, and subsequently changed the previous statement and led the confession at the time of interrogation of the second and third suspect. However, in light of the consistent statement and attitude before and after the confession of the defendant, the defendant's single confession is reversed, and it is doubtful that it is not consistent with the truth as leading the prosecutor to the prosecutor's own mind, and it is also doubtful in light of the contents of the confession as well as the following facts.

(3) Therefore, if co-defendants' statements in the above court below's prosecutor's office and court and confessions in the prosecutor's office cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt because they are not reliable, the remaining evidence cited by the court below alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case.

C. Rather, according to the records, the defendant could not be found to have been raped by the co-defendant 1 at the court below's time on October 13, 195, but the defendant could not have known that he had been raped by the defendant's defense, and the above co-defendant 1 at the court below's cell phone number was known by finding out the name of the defendant's father who was used in the defendant's house door door door from his phone number at the court below. On several occasions, the court below did not clearly reveal the defendant's personal information and want to go back to the defendant's name without any reply when the co-defendant 1 was found to have been raped by the defendant, or when the defendant knew that he was not guilty of the defendant's cell phone, it was hard to find that the co-defendant 1 was the defendant's cell phone name without any reply (other than the statement of co-defendant 1 at the court below, it is hard to find that Co-defendant 1 was the defendant's attempt to have sexual intercourse with the defendant's new wall.)

D. Therefore, the court below should have sufficiently examined whether the contents of the confession made by the defendant in the prosecutor's office and the contents of the statement made by the co-defendant in the prosecutor's office and the court of the above court below can be reliable, but it is not sufficient to complete all necessary deliberations and find the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, it is reasonable to point this out.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)