Whether the existing fact of seizure of the damaged goods can be a supporting evidence of confession (affirmative)

The existing facts of seized damaged goods may be the reinforced evidence of a confession.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Ho-ju

Seoul High Court Decision 85No168 delivered on March 19, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

The first ground of appeal is that it is unlawful to find the defendant guilty of 1 and 2 acts in the list of crimes attached to the indictment even though there is no evidence other than the confession of the defendant and the damaged goods. However, since the present existence of the seized damaged goods can be the reinforced evidence of confession, it is not reasonable to discuss.

The second ground of appeal is that the court below's punishment is excessive, but in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years of imprisonment is imposed, unreasonable sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 40 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)