A. Admissibility of admissibility of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor on the date of case interrogation

B. Method of determining whether the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor is voluntary or not

C. Evidence of the confession statement of the defendant and the fact that the facts were recorded on the basis of the confession statement of the defendant and the evidence when the defendant was committed.

A. The protocol of interrogation of the accused in the protocol prepared by the public prosecutor which recognized the authenticity of the protocol in the court by the accused who was the suspect is admissible unless there are grounds to suspect that the statement of the accused in the protocol has not been made voluntarily or it has been made under a particularly reliable condition. The first protocol of interrogation of the accused was prepared on the date when the case was forwarded, and the time when the protocol was prepared in such protocol alone cannot be denied as evidence because it is doubtful that the confession statement of the accused in the protocol was made under no arbitracy or it was made under a particularly reliable circumstance.

B. In a case where the existence or absence of discretion is disputed in the court as to the statement of the suspect which became the defendant stated in the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the public prosecutor, the court shall determine the existence or absence of discretion with free conviction by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol in question, the academic background, career, intelligence level, etc. according to the specific case.

C. The actual fact investigation document prepared by a senior judicial police officer denies all the statements, contents of the statement, and the fact that the defendant made in the actual fact investigation report in court and the fact that the defendant made a confession in the presence of a senior judicial police officer, made a statement, re-written at the scene of the crime, made a statement, made again by the senior judicial police officer, entered the situation of the statement, re-written, or taken photographs, if not, then the actual fact investigation document shall

(b)Article 312(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570 delivered on December 23, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 82Do754 delivered on June 8, 1982, 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel Lee Jae-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2652 delivered on January 30, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal No. 1 by defense counsel and the grounds of appeal by the defendant related thereto:

(1) An interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the suspect in the court room, which acknowledged the authenticity of the defendant's statement, shall be admissible unless there are reasons to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol was not made voluntarily or in a particularly reliable state. It is evident that the first interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor was prepared on the day when the case was forwarded, but the time when the first interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant was prepared was prepared on the day when the defendant's statement was sent, and it cannot be denied the admissibility of evidence because it is doubtful that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol was not made in a reliable state, and it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's oral testimony was made in an arbitrary manner, such as prolongedization, adviser, assault, threat, etc. of the defendant's appearance before the public prosecutor, and it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's oral testimony was made in an unreasonable manner as evidence of the defendant's oral testimony or that it was made in an unreasonable manner as to the defendant's oral testimony, etc. It cannot be acknowledged that there was no reason to suspect that the defendant's statement was made in advance.

(2) According to the records, upon examining the statement of fact-finding prepared by a judicial police officer, the statement, re-written investigation is made by the defendant who was a suspect in the presence of a judicial police officer, and the judicial police officer made a statement, made a statement, made again according to the scene of the crime, and made the statement, made again, or made a photographed by the judicial police officer. Since the defendant denies not only the contents of the statement written in the protocol of suspect interrogation prepared by the judicial police officer in the court but also all the contents of the statement and the circumstances of the occurrence of the crime in the above fact-finding report, it shall be deemed that the actual fact-finding document is inadmissible. The statement of fact-finding cited by the court below is merely a statement about the investigation process of this case, but it shall not be a evidence of the fact of a counter-espionage crime against the defendant. Thus, it is like

However, since the fact of a counter-espionage crime against the defendant can be acknowledged by the remaining evidence cited by the court below, the above judgment below's illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the confession of the defendant as to a counter-espionage crime listed in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the public prosecutor does not constitute a processed fact, but a confession by the defendant is supported by the defendant's confession without any supporting evidence in the judgment of the court below, because it is supported by the contents of the witness statement prepared by the judicial police officer, and it is not a processed fact, and it cannot be said that there is no supporting evidence in the judgment below. Thus

2. As to the defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal related thereto:

According to the evidence cited by the court below, since all facts of each crime in the judgment against the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, there is no evidence supporting the facts in the judgment below without evidence. Moreover, even after examining the records, it cannot be readily concluded that the confession of the defendant stated in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor is contrary to the empirical rule, such as the theory of litigation, and without credibility, and it cannot be readily concluded that the confession of the defendant is a espionage who is a disguised self-denunciation and a espionage activity after the disguised self-denunciation of the defendant, and that the testimony made by the court of the second instance and the judicial police officer in front

In the end, the court below adopted the statements of the witness as evidence and recognized all facts of the facts of the judgment against the defendant, and examined the process of the evidence preparation and fact-finding, there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the principle of trial on evidence, abuse of free trial securities, or mistake of facts due to the abuse of free trial securities, and therefore, the arguments are groundless.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 6 by the defense counsel

It is difficult to view that the determination of the original judgment is extremely unfair, even if considering the circumstances cited in the theory of action, the determination of the original judgment cannot be deemed to have been considerably unfair, since the distorted dissemination of false facts and distorted facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, merely discussed the defendant's simple influence or the subjective opinion on the attitude of the general society. The lower court, which recognized the defendant's criminal facts as stated in its holding, accepted the measures of the rate under Article 1 (1) 6 of the National Security Act, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the appeal is groundless.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)