A. Whether confessions, etc. made by the prosecutor at the prosecution are not different from the legal statement, and whether the credibility of confessions is doubtful or not, and the standard for determining credibility of confessions

B. The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the credibility of a confession in determining that the credibility of the confession of the defendant is doubtful

(c) Degree of the corroborating evidence of the confession;

A. The mere reason why the confession, etc. at the prosecution is different from the legal statement does not necessarily mean that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination of the credibility of the confession should be made based on the following factors: (a) whether the content of the confession itself has an objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason for the confession; (c) what is the reason why the confession was made; and (d) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confessions, and (e) whether there is a situation in which a reasonable doubt exists in the motive or process of the confession under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the credibility of confessions, where the court below did not properly clarify whether the contents of the confessions of the defendant themselves are objectively rational, and whether they are contrary to or contradictory to the confessions among circumstantial evidence other than confessions, etc.

(c) Reinforcement evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the accused is not processed, even though it is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the facts of the crime, and it can also be indirect evidence other than direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.

(b)Article 307 and Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Do873 delivered on June 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 2182) 93Do120 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1035) 94Do1587 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1366). Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1114) 94Do93 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2678) 95Do1148 delivered on July 25, 1995

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 94No4634 delivered on June 9, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that, although the defendant made a confession to the facts charged of the larceny of this case 4 times at the prosecutor's office, the defendant was a volunteer member working in the same office as the victim of this case, and was aware of the fact about the theft accident by citing the fact about the fact at each time when the theft accident occurred in the above office, the confession of the defendant does not contain any statement that he could not be identified, and as long as the confession of the defendant was changed to that of the remaining false confessions which he had been detained, the confession of the defendant cannot be identified, it is doubtful about the credibility of the above confession. In such a case, the court below confirmed the objective facts that the defendant was stolen only in relation to the larceny charges of this case Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 4, and each of the larceny charges of this case, the victim's statement, in relation to the larceny charges of this case, or the statement that the above theft checks were exchanged in cash at the National Federation of NAndong branch of this case, it cannot sufficiently prove evidence sufficient to prove the facts charged of this case.

The mere reason why the confession, etc. of the defendant in the prosecution is different from the statement in the court cannot be deemed to be the reason that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, considering the fact that the contents of the confession's statement per se are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the reason why the confession is caused, and what is the reason why the confession does not conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, it is necessary to determine whether the confession of the defendant has a situation where there is a rational doubt about the motive or process of the confession as provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1587 delivered on February 10, 195).

Nevertheless, the court below did not properly clarify whether the contents of the confession of this case per se are objectively rational, and whether it is contrary to or contradictory to the confessions among circumstantial evidence other than confessions, etc., and did not properly clarify the above facts, and there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the credibility of confessions in the light of the above reasons.

On the other hand, the supporting evidence for confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed one, even though it is not sufficient to acknowledge all or part of the facts of the crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence can be used as supporting evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993). If the defendant does not have a reasonable doubt about the credibility of confession of this case, the statement of the victim of this case, etc. of this case, which confirms the fact of damage, can be sufficient supporting evidence to secure the authenticity of confession of the defendant, and therefore, it is clear that the above illegality affected the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)