(a) Method of determining the probative value of an arbitrary confession;

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to view that the confessions made by the defendant at the prosecution have probative value because the motive for the crime is not open to the prosecution, and the contents of the statement conflict with other circumstantial evidences;

A. The admissibility of the confessions of the defendant is granted due to arbitracy, and the authenticity and credibility of the confessions should also be recognized as a matter of course. In order for the confessions to have probative value, the contents of the confessions should be determined in consideration of the motive and reason of the confessions and the circumstances leading to the confessions, what is the motive and reason for the confessions, and what is the circumstance leading to the confessions should be determined by considering the circumstantial evidence

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to view that the confessions made by the defendant at the prosecution have probative value because the motive for the crime is not open to the prosecution, and the contents of the statement conflict with other circumstantial evidences;

(b)Articles 308 and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 89No1974 delivered on October 16, 1989

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

We examine the defendant and public defender's grounds for appeal.

According to the statement of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor more than two times, the defendant is making a detailed confession of the crime of this case. In light of the record, since the defendant is subject to investigation by the police at the time of being investigated by the police, making a confession without arbitrity, and his state without arbitrity is deemed to have continued until the prosecutor's investigation stage, the confession made before the prosecutor cannot

The argument pointing this out is groundless.

However, since the confession of a defendant is granted the admissibility of evidence due to arbitrity, the authenticity and credibility of the confession should be recognized as a matter of course, and in order for the confession to have the probative value, the contents of the confession have objective rationality, and the motive and reason of the confession and the circumstances leading to the confession should be determined in consideration of what is the motive and reason of the confession and the circumstances leading up to the confession, whether it is in conflict with or inconsistent with the confession among circumstantial evidence, etc. Therefore, the confession in the prior prosecutor of the defendant

1. criminal motive;

The Defendant, before the public prosecutor, was living together with the Nonindicted Party living together with the Defendant who had been living together for one year before the Defendant, and had scambling with his female, and had scambling his scam. As such, the Defendant stated that the victim, who was living together with the Nonindicted Party, was scambling and obstructed by slandering the Defendant several times, and that the victim was scambling with the victim by scambling the Defendant before the crime of this case was committed.

However, in an investigative agency and a court of first instance, the Nonindicted Party stated that there is no means for the victim to oppose the victim to kill him/her, and that the Defendant also made a bad speech to the victim, and that there is no evidence to consider that the victim has made a serious bath to the Defendant or that there was a person, and even if he/she made such a bath, it is difficult for the Nonindicted Party to easily understand that he/she is using the motive for the instant crime after the lapse of the several days.

2. Methods and tools of crime;

On December 3, 1988, the Defendant: (a) wraped with the Nonindicted Party on his her home, and (b) wraped back the clothes of his her female in the same room in order to confirm whether she went away because she did not go back to his house; (c) found the electric bridge under her clothes; and (d) stated that the Defendant killed the victim at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, it can be known that the first end of the seizure bridge is sufficient to obtain Central Central Central Police Agency, and each of the subordinate parts of the Central Police Agency. According to the doctor Kim-ju's body appraisal letter, it is presumed that it was excessive by a relatively strong body, and it is difficult to conclude that it was caused by the electrical bridge, considering the shape and depth of the upper body as shown in the records.

Furthermore, it is evident in the record that the Defendant was 2 heading down the escape from the electric bridge after the crime, and that the suspension was seized. However, considering the degree of the victim's upper part and the structure of the bridge, the body of the bridge, especially the knife electric line on the knife part of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife of the knife, it cannot be easily understood that the Defendant was gird by the knife of the knife as to the knife of the knife of the knife, and

3. The circumstances after crimes;

According to the statement of the Nonindicted Party in the investigative agency and the court of law, he was in the room with the Defendant from June 11, 12.6.00 in which the accident of this case occurred, but he did not see any see, even though he was in the room from the time of the occurrence of the accident of this case. The Defendant was aware of the victim’s death, and confirmed the body by entering the room, and was informed of the situation at around 11:00 following that day, the Defendant was in the village of engagement located in the area of Pakistan-gun, Pakistan-gun, and was informed of the situation. Thus, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime of this case was committed is very natural as the offender of this case, unless

4. Educational, career, living environment, etc. of defendants.

According to the records, the defendant, who was born in 1947, retired from the second grade of the national school and was able to use only his name after leaving his school in the middle of 1947, seems to have been divorced around 1982 and have been living in a situation where he was aware of his children's wife at around 1982, with no certain place of work, or her child's family or her family or her family or fright and living at his family or her family or frightit. The defendant cannot be ruled out that he made a false confession at the end of his self-conc

5. In this regard, the confession by the defendant at the prosecution is contradictory to not only the motive of the crime but also the relation between the contents of the statement or other circumstantial basis. If the defendant's academic background, career, living environment, etc. are discovered, it is difficult to see that the authenticity and credibility of the statement have probative value because it is doubtful, and other evidence alone cannot be found to constitute the crime of this case.

Ultimately, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of a confession, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the court below deemed the probative value of a confession made by the defendant at the prosecutor's office and recognized the facts constituting the crime of this case based on the confession and other evidences. The allegation contained in

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)