A. Admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor and the standard of judgment on voluntariness

B. Admissibility of evidence of illegal seized articles

A. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor on the suspect who became the defendant is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily made when it is acknowledged that the defendant's statement, etc. is authentic by the defendant's statement, etc. in the court room. In the event that the defendant contests that the defendant's statement is not made at will, the court should judge whether the defendant's statement is voluntary as a documentary evidence by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career

B. Even if the seized articles are illegal, there is no change in evidence as to form, etc., even though they are not changed in the nature and form of the articles themselves.

Articles 309, 312(1), 215, and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1215), 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1114), 93Do1435 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2479), 68Do932 delivered on September 17, 1968, 87Do705 delivered on June 23, 198 (Gong1987, 1265)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 93No2393 delivered on November 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

The protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by a public prosecutor against a suspect who became the defendant is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily made, in case where it is acknowledged that the defendant's statement is authentic by his statement, etc. in the court room. In case where the defendant contests that his statement is not made at will, the court must judge whether the defendant's statement is voluntary by free conviction, taking into account all the circumstances such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993). The seized articles do not change the nature and form of the articles itself even if the seizure procedure is unlawful, and therefore there is no evidence as to the form and form thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do705 delivered on June 23, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on the evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the fact that the defendant purchased, sold, delivered, delivered, delivered, delivered, possessed, administered psychotropic drugs, and stored and possessed cathos, which are narcotics, as well as the above fact-finding by the court below, can be justified. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no reason to suspect that the cathos decision-making body 170g(No. 34) and cathos (No. 35), which are seized articles adopted as evidence in the process of fact-finding, or that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office, has no voluntarsiness, and there is no illegality of finding the above criminal facts only by the confession of the defendant without supporting evidence, and it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence preparation or fact-finding, and thus,

The statement in the police of the defendant pointed out that the theory of the lawsuit was adopted as evidence by the court below.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number 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 Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)