[1] The degree of evidence supporting the confession

[2] The case holding that it is sufficient to prove that Eul's statement that the Mesatopian sold to Gap was a corroborative evidence for the confessions made by the defendant Gap concerning the Mesamina medication

[1] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897 decided Jan. 8, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 496) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8704 decided Jan. 27, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 380) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2343 decided May 29, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 959)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2008No885 Decided August 21, 2008

The non-guilty part of the judgment below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Reinforcement evidence for confessions is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, even though it is not sufficient to acknowledge all or some of the facts constituting a crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, if confessions and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the facts of a crime as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to prove evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897, Jan. 8, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges, and acquitted the Defendant ex officio, on the ground that there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession as to the facts charged that “The Defendant, on August 2007, 200, sold phiphones to the Defendant, who sold phiphones.”

However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

According to the records, although the defendant knew that he had been punished for committing a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act three times more and was subject to repeated crimes, and that he would suffer additional disadvantages by confessioning this part of the suspected facts, the above police interrogation protocol against the non-indicted 1, who was the above police officer, could not be taken into account circumstances to suspect the voluntariness of confession because he consistently maintained the method and motive of medication, etc. since the non-indicted 1, as stated in the judgment below, consistently from the fact that he purchased a part of the suspected facts from the non-indicted 1,00 won before the day before the above medication, and subsequently, it appears that the contents of the statement made by the non-indicted 1,00 won in the above police officer, received 1,00 won in money from the defendant immediately before the above medication, and took two injections containing the above ones, which are sufficient to secure the authenticity of the confession of the defendant. In light of the above various circumstances, it is sufficient that the above interrogation protocol against the non-indicted 1, 2007Do4717.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged because there is no evidence to prove the above confession. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the evidence to prove the confession, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)