Voluntary confessions made before the examination after confessions made by advisers to investigation agencies;

Even if the defendant was forced to make a confession before the prosecutor at the time of the examination, if he/she has not been forced to make a false confession that is not voluntary by adviser at the time of the investigation by an investigative agency other than the prosecutor, and if he/she continues to make a false confession during the examination stage by the prosecutor, the confession before the prosecutor shall not be voluntary.

Articles 309, 312, and 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2160 delivered on October 13, 1981, 83Do1953 Delivered on September 27, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Cho Young-young

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1565 delivered on January 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Although the Defendant was forced to make a confession before the public prosecutor, if the Defendant, other than the public prosecutor, made a false confession without any arbitrity by adviser at the time of the investigation by an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor, and the state of arbitrity is pending before the public prosecutor’s investigation stage, then the confession before the public prosecutor’s investigation results in the absence of arbitrity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do2160, Oct. 13, 1981; 83Do1953, Sept. 27, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant and co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court below committed a false confession without voluntariness because they were forced to make confession from the above narcotics surveillance team members due to violence, etc. to the staff of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office and the Boliban drug surveillance team in the underground room in the building near Busan District, and used a false confession without voluntariness, and on the following day or the following day, the suspect interrogation protocol of the same contents as the above suspect interrogation was prepared by the prosecutor at the relevant place, and it was prepared twice as simple to confirm the above suspect interrogation statement to the extent that the contents of the suspect interrogation were confirmed, and the confession before the prosecutor, as well as the confession prepared by the defendant, was made in the situation where there is no voluntartarinessiness at the time of investigation by the narcotics monitoring team members, and denied the admissibility of evidence.

Furthermore, as above, the court below rejected the admissibility of the confession made by the defendant and the co-defendants in the court below, and judged that there is no fact that the testimony of the above Kim Jong-sik and the second instance court and the arrest of the defendant together with the defendant's co-defendant 1 are recognized in the record that one of the two Japanese co-defendant 1 and the other Japanese co-defendant 2, who want to purchase the paper mulberry of this case from the co-defendant 2 of the court below, stated that the defendant's admission as evidence of guilt against the defendant is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case. In light of the records, the above judgment below is also acceptable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that the judgment below violated the rules of evidence and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)