Effect of the lack of voluntariness of confessions in the police on the discretion of confessions in the prosecution.

The defendant confessions the crime at the time of the prosecutor's first and second investigation, and the discretion of confessions at the police and the prosecutor's office in the court of first instance.

The court acknowledged the facts of appeal and the court of appeal that confession at the police did not become an adviser. The confession at the prosecutor's office is forced to make a confession at the police, and even if it is not acknowledged that confession at the police is forced to make a custody claim, barring any other circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the state without voluntariness at the time of the prosecutor's investigation is continued, barring any other circumstances. Thus, the contents of the prosecutor's statement at the prosecutor's office naturally recognized his act and there is no possibility to suspect voluntartariness in the protocol.

Article 312 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1713 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Do3348 delivered on March 8, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Hong-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1754 delivered on October 25, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below found that the confession from the police of the defendant was a ground for suspecting that the confession from the police of the defendant was made in the absence of voluntar and continued at the time when the prosecutor prepared the suspect examination protocol of the defendant on January 20, 1982, where the defendant's personal injury was sent to the police at the time of preparing the suspect examination protocol of the defendant's suspect examination as to the defendant's suspect examination of the defendant, which corresponds to the facts charged in this case where the defendant habitually stolen five soldiers owned by the victim's personal injury in combination with the non-indicted. Thus, the court below found that the defendant's confession from the police of this case, such as the proviso to the investigation of this case, the defendant's confession from the police, the circumstance that the defendant made confession from the police, and the collection of evidence in the process of investigation, and the defendant strongly denied the facts of this case's confession in the first instance court and the court below's decision that the confession from the police of this case is not admissible as evidence, or there is no other evidence to prove credibility.

However, it should be reasonably determined by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the process of the lawsuit whether there is a reason to suspect that the confession of the defendant in the prosecutor's office is not voluntary statement. According to the records of this case, the defendant, under investigation conducted by the prosecutor of the prosecutor's office on January 20, 1982, led to the confession of the defendant from the police station to the Daejeon correctional institution on the same day, and was transferred from the head of the Daejeon Police Station to the Daejeon Police Station, but the defendant confirmed the above confession while he was investigated by the prosecutor in the first instance court, and the defendant argued that the confession in the prosecutor's office at the appellate court, the appellate court, made a confession in the prosecutor's office, which was nothing more than an adviser about the confession in the police court, and the facts that the confession in the prosecutor's office, as the appellate court did not make a request for custody and custody, did not admit that the confession of the defendant was voluntary testimony at the time of investigation of the suspect's suspect examination, and it cannot be seen that there was no other circumstances to acknowledge the prosecutor's voluntary testimony.

The court below's decision on the suspect examination of the defendant by the prosecutor on the ground that the suspect examination of the defendant at the time of the police investigation continues to have no voluntariness until the time of preparing the suspect examination protocol of the defendant by the prosecutor is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the voluntariness of confession and the violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that this affected

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)