[1] The degree of evidence supporting the confession

[2] The case holding that reinforcement evidence can be made on all the psychotropic drug medication acts which had been conducted two times prior to the examination

[1] Even if the evidence of confessions is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts of the crime, it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is not a processed one, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, as well as indirect or circumstantial evidence. Further, it is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime as a whole as evidence of guilt if the confessions and corroborative evidence are mutually sound, and it is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime as a whole.

[2] The case holding that, in a case where the results of the examination on the urine taken on October 19, 2000 showed the detection of the Mesamino ingredients, the above urine examination results can be proven evidence for the confession that the Mesamin have administered the Mesamin on October 17, 200, and as well as evidence for the confession that the Mesamin has administered the Mesamin on October 13, 200

[1] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do470 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1521), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2084 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 175) Supreme Court Decision 98Do159 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1116), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2890 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 275), Supreme Court Decision 9Do338 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 810), Supreme Court Decision 200Do2989 delivered on August 24, 199 (Gong199Sang, 200, 209Do32989 delivered on August 24, 2019).

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2000No4458 delivered on March 29, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics,

A. On October 13, 200, approximately 0.03g of psychotropic drugs, received from sexual influenites (one-name caton paper) received from customers in the resting room operated by the Defendant located in Nam-gu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, by hanging them in coffee;

(b) around 23:00 on the 17th day of the same month administered approximately 0.03 g of Mesamina in the same manner at the same place.

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the confessions at the court of first instance and the preparation of the test report at the public health and environment research institute at the court of first instance at Daegu Metropolitan City as evidence of the defendant's conviction of the part concerning the medication on October 13, 200 of the above paragraph (1) (A), i.e., the above facts charged against the defendant, but according to the investigation records, the defendant confessions the two-time medication during the investigation process at around 21:30 on October 19, 200, and responded to 21:50 on the same day, and the above test report at the court of first instance stated the result of appraisal on the administration of the crypine at the court of first instance as evidence of the defendant's non-indicted 1, which is the only evidence for the administration of the crypine 200, which is the only evidence for the defendant's non-indicted 1, 2000. Meanwhile, the above c.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

The corroborating evidence against confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is true, not as a processed evidence, even though it is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, if confession and corroborating evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the crime as a whole, it shall be sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do2365, Sept. 26, 200; 99Do214, Dec. 8, 200; 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001).

The results of the examination conducted by the head of the Health and Environment Research Institute in Daegu Metropolitan City, which judged that the confession of the defendant cannot be used as supporting evidence, shall be recorded on October 19, 200, that the results of the examination conducted by the defendant around 21:50 of the results of the examination conducted on the part of October 21, 200 to the effect that the Mesacam was detected as a result of the examination conducted on the part of the defendant, and the Mescamscamscams which were detected as a result of the examination conducted on October 17, 200, mainly by the defendant. However, although the Mescamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams which were administered on the part of the defendant on October 13, 200, the above Mescamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam.

Therefore, the court below should have determined that, if the probative value of the above reinforced evidence is doubtful, it could not be proven by the act of medication on October 13, 2000 where the defendant presumed that the composition of the Mesacam which was detected by the defendant's side was administered, it should have determined that the above test report cannot be a corroborative evidence for the confession of the fact of medication.

Nevertheless, without any reasonable ground to reject the possibility that the result of the medication performed on October 13, 200 as a result of the aforementioned test report, the court below, without any reasonable ground, may further be deemed sufficient as supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant, if the statement of the non-indicted in the record of the prosecutor's written statement as to the non-indicted in the record of the prosecutor's investigation as to the above indictment, even though the above statement of the test report cannot be deemed as supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant. Thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the above part of the medication performed on the ground that the above statement of the test report cannot be deemed as supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant, just because it was inside the report, shall not be deemed as supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with the prosecutor's appeal against the entire judgment of the court below, including the portion of innocence, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)