[1] Criteria for determining the credibility of confession

[2] The case rejecting the credibility of confession made by the mental retardation in the investigative agency and the court

[1] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2408) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924 Decided September 26, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2121) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1419 Decided May 31, 2007

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Yellow-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 2007No2172 decided Feb. 15, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

It cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the investigation agency of the defendant or in the court of first instance differs from the testimony in the court of appeal or in the court of appeal. In determining the credibility of a confession, in light of the following: (a) the contents of the confession’s statement per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason behind the confession; and (d) the circumstance leading up to the confession in other circumstantial evidence than the confession, and (e) whether there is any conflict or conflict with the confession, as provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or any circumstance leading up to a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confession (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant retired from the first grade of elementary school based on the adopted evidence, and recognized the fact that the current intelligence index was 67 and was in a situation where the meaning of the sentence is significantly reduced compared to normal persons without knowledge of Korean language, and that the basic knowledge, language, and understanding ability, etc. are considerably less than normal persons. In light of the circumstances where the defendant's question and answer at the time of questioning and answer at the court of the court below, the court below determined that the confession is not reliable since there is no criminal power, and there is no possibility that the defendant who was investigated at the police station at one time in the past was arrested as this case and was investigated at the investigation agency and the court of first instance after he was investigated at the police station, and there is no possibility that he made a statement to the effect that he was aware of the crime when he did not understand the meaning of the questions given to him.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below seems to have stated that the defendant's credibility of confession may be rejected on the grounds as stated in its ruling, among the situations where the defendant's motive or process of confession in this case is likely to have a reasonable doubt, and even in light of the records, the court below's rejection of credibility of the confession is justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of experience, such as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)