(a) A summary of the prosecutor's proof regarding the defendant's voluntary statement;

(b) Method of additional collection under the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act on several criminal offenders;

A. In a case where the defendant contests the voluntariness of a statement, the court may use it as evidence if it obtains a conviction as a result of the investigation conducted by a reasonable method, and it does not necessarily require the prosecutor to prove the voluntariness.

(b) The additional collection under the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act is a disposition having the punitive nature against the person who commits the crime as prescribed by the Act, and if there are many persons who have committed the crime, the additional collection shall be ordered against each other in full.

A. Articles 309 and 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 48 of the Criminal Act; Article 47 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2055 Delivered on November 9, 1981

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Park Jong-soo, Kim Jong-Gyeong

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1064 delivered on November 22, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in each principal sentence for 60 days.

The Defendants and their defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

(1) According to the evidence of the court below, the facts of the judgment are duly recognized and there is no error of law by either failing to exhaust all the deliberation as in the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence. In a case where the defendant contests the voluntariness of statements, the court may use it as evidence if it obtained a conviction as to the voluntariness as a result of an investigation conducted by a reasonable method, and it does not necessarily require the prosecutor to have the prosecutor prove the voluntariness. In this case, in full view of the facts revealed in the prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol as to the defendants, the prosecutor's statements at the prosecutor's office are acknowledged to be a voluntary statement, and there is no other evidence to find that there is no reason to suspect that the defendants' statements at the prosecutor's office have no voluntariness or that there is no voluntarinessiness.

(2) If the defendants, as determined by the court below, conspired to manufacture and sell psychotropic drugs together with the defendants and non-indicted 1 of the court below without the qualification to handle psychotropic drugs, and jointly manufactured 28.2 kilogram of chograms as stated in the judgment of the court below at the original time, at the original time, at the place, and at the same time, the defendants cannot be exempted from the criminal liability of co-principals of crimes under Article 40 (1) 3 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, such as the defendants in the court below's decision.

(3) Since additional collection under the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act is a disposition having the punitive nature against a person who committed a crime under the relevant Act, if there are several persons who committed the crime, the court shall order the additional collection of the entire price to each person (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2055 delivered on November 9, 1981). Thus, it is justifiable that the original court ordered the defendants to collect additional collection, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to additional collection, such as the theory of lawsuit.

(4) The argument that the sentencing is too excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case. Therefore, this point is groundless.

(5) Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in each principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)