The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds that the Defendant’s entire confessions at the prosecution and partial confessions at the court of first instance are recognized, and the evidence of reinforcement exists.

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The purpose of denying the admissibility of evidence of a false statement is to prevent not only the statement itself made under a dangerous condition that causes or is likely to cause a false statement but also the illegal or unjust pressure that infringes on the fundamental human rights of a person who has made a statement by leaving the truth is likely to cause a false statement. Thus, when there is a dispute over the voluntariness, the evidence of the statement is denied if the prosecutor fails to prove reasonable and detailed facts to suspect the voluntartariness, but the prosecutor does not prove that there is a removal of the question of the voluntariness.

Furthermore, in a case where the defendant made a confession without voluntariness from the police due to harsh treatment, etc., and later made a confession of the same contents in the prosecutor's office or court, each confession shall be deemed as a confession without voluntariness.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15405, Dec. 11, 2014). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was committed by the investigator of the Central Information Department immediately after the return of September 9, 197, and the warrant was issued on October 15, 197.