Whether indirect evidence can also be corroborated as evidence of confession

Reinforcement evidence of confession is sufficient not only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence because it is sufficient to prove that the confession is true.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Do2569 Delivered on September 28, 1976

Defendant

(National Office) Attorney Park Young-young (Law Firm Private, Attorney Lee Jae-soo)

Seoul High Court Decision 80No1551 delivered on November 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The sixty days, from among those pending trial prior to the pronouncement of judgment, shall be included in the principal sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the counsel.

Examining the evidence cited by the original judgment along with the records, the court below's decision that recognized the facts of each crime like the original judgment against the defendant cannot admit that the deliberation was unlawful in the incomplete hearing, such as the motive for murder, the fact of murder, the fact of attempted larceny, and the method of means of crime, etc., and even according to the records, there is no reason to recognize that confession by the defendant at the prosecution is not a voluntary confession, and the reinforcement evidence for confession is a evidence that is not a processed fact of the defendant's arbitrary confession but a true fact, and it is also an indirect evidence or indirect evidence (refer to Supreme Court Decision 76Do2569 delivered on September 28, 1976). Accordingly, considering the evidence at the time of the original judgment, it shall be deemed that the evidence at the time can be evidence of the confession of the defendant, as stated in the original judgment, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the evidence at the time of the original judgment has any illegality in the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the evidence evidence, and it shall not be justified in the judgment of mistake of facts.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act with respect to the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)