[1] The degree of evidence supporting the confession

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the defendant's smoking of marijuana was not proven as to the confessions of the defendant five days prior to the date of recovery from the base of the request for appraisal by the Director of the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute and the result of simplified urine test, which was found in the urine taken from the defendant without a review of the period during which marijuana ingredients are detected in the urine test

[1] The corroborating evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can also be indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. Further, if confessions and supporting evidence are mutually recorded and it can be recognized as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the defendant's smoking of marijuana prior to five days from the time of its recovery cannot be the supporting evidence of the defendant's confessions, where the result of the appraisal request and the summary urine test conducted by the head of the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute, which found the detection of marijuana ingredients in the urine taken from the defendant without a review of the period during which marijuana ingredients are detected in the urine test

[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 222, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 275) (Gong199Sang, 275)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 99No568 delivered on April 15, 1999

The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The corroborating evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of a defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can also be indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, if confessions and corroborating evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the facts of the crime as a whole, it would suffice as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do338, Mar. 23, 199; 98Do2890, Dec. 22, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the part of the facts charged in this case against the defendant's violation of the marithic Control Act that the defendant smoked 0.5g of marijuana at the defendant's office located in the Yeonsu-gu Incheon National Institute of Scientific Investigation, around 18:00 on October 25, 1998, on the part of the defendant's violation of the marithal Control Act, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence other than the above part of the facts charged as to the confession other than the confession of the defendant's confession, which was found to have been detected in the marithal from the river taken by the defendant around 00:20 on November 4, 1998, on the ground that the period during which the marithic component was detected in the marithal in the marithal of marijuana, and since the period was merely 4 to 5 days on the part of the defendant's request for appraisal and the examination of simplified.

However, the court below did not have any grounds to acknowledge the probative value of the relevant reinforced evidence in its records that the period from the date of habitual medication, the main substance of which is marijuana, is detected, is only a maximum of five days from the date of smoking, as determined by the court below, in the urine test on the inseminators of marijuana. If there is no doubt as to the probative value of the relevant reinforced evidence, the court below should have further deliberated in detail on the period during which marijuana ingredients are detected in the urine test on the inseminators of marijuana, and further determined whether there is no possibility to bring about the marijuana, which is discovered in the Defendant’s urine, and further determined that the above request for appraisal and the result of a simplified urine test on the request for appraisal could not be reinforced as to the confession of the facts in violation of the marith Control Act by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged because the above appraisal request report and the result of a simplified test cannot be the evidence to prove the defendant's violation of the mariana Control Act, and found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged, because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reinforcement evidence of confession in light of light of the fact, or by mismisunderstanding the facts with sufficient deliberation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)