The statement of a co-defendant is different from his/her confession and has independent value of evidence.

The statement of co-defendant in co-defendant is different from the confession of the defendant, and there is an independent value of evidence, and the statement of the accused can be used as reinforced evidence for the confession.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 70No643 delivered on September 13, 1970

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The judgment on the first ground of appeal by the defendant Park Jong-do's defense counsel for the defendant Lee Byung-chul;

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, in the case of a conviction in the crime of bribery, the money and other valuables contributed to the bribe should be confiscated as necessary, and if confiscation is impossible, the money and other valuables contributed to the bribe should be collected as additional collection. This case is a violation of the law under Article 134 of the Criminal Act, which provides that no appeal for confiscation or additional collection shall be filed in the text of the case. Although there is an obvious illegality as argued in the arguments, the punishment imposed by the defendant cannot be changed to the disadvantage of the defendant in the case of the main case which only the defendant appealed against the judgment, the purport of appeal is without merit

judgment on the second ground of appeal by the defense counsel;

However, the court below's protocol is just, and there is no error in the violation of the law and there is no ground to argue that there is no error in the violation of the law.

on the third ground of appeal by the defense counsel;

As the statement of co-defendant is different from his confession, there is an independent value of evidence, and there is no error of law as to whether the statement of the above defendant is a supporting evidence of the confession of the defendant. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

Judgment on the grounds for appeal by attorney-at-law (appointed)

When comparing and reviewing all the evidence cited in the judgment of the first instance, which cited by the original judgment, the facts constituting a crime against the crime of delivering a bribe against the defendant's gambling, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the first instance, can be sufficiently recognized. Thus, the decision that the original judgment made with the same purport is justifiable, and the argument that the sentencing is excessive shall not be a legitimate appeal in this case where the defendant was sentenced for six months of imprisonment, and the original judgment does not contain any misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or

Judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant Lee Young-gu and his defense counsel's both scores;

However, if all the evidence cited by the original judgment is compared to the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts of the offense against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance. Thus, the original judgment with the same purport is just and it can be said that the original judgment does not contain any judgment inconsistent with the Supreme Court's precedents. The original judgment does not contain any misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or any illegality in the incomplete hearing. Thus, all the arguments are without merit

Therefore, each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)