A. Where the same conclusion of the judgment of the court below prior to the remand was made based on new evidence after the remand, the binding force of the judgment of the remand.

B. Probative value of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor

(c) Quantity and quality of reinforced evidence;

A. The binding force of the judgment of remanded case on the lower court takes place only in a passive sense that the judgment of the lower court, which became the ground for reversal, is not justifiable, so if there was a change in the relation of evidence, which is the basis for binding judgment, by presenting new evidence during the deliberation process after remanding case, the binding force does not reach this, and even if it was paid the same conclusion as the judgment prior to remand by another possible opinion based on new evidence, it cannot be said that there was an error in violation of Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act on the binding force of the judgment of remanding case.

B. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible, unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office was made in a particularly reliable state because the statement in the prosecutor's office is not made arbitrarily and it is not reliable.

C. The corroborating evidence of confessions is sufficient not related to the whole facts of crime, but to the extent that it can be recognized that the defendant voluntarily made a confession is not processed, but true, and such evidence is sufficient not only by direct evidence but also by indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence.

(a) Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act; Article 312 (c) Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do2672 delivered on February 8, 1983, 82Do754 delivered on June 8, 1982, 81Do2596 delivered on March 9, 1982, 83Do176 delivered on April 26, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 84No468 delivered on May 30, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for fifty days.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the above grounds of appeal).

1. The court to which the case was remanded from the Re-appeal Court is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the court of final appeal shall have jurisdiction over the factual and legal judgment based on the grounds for reversal. However, since the binding force of the lower court's judgment on the remanded judgment is only derived from the passive aspect that the lower court's factual and legal judgment is not justified, if new evidence is presented during the deliberation process after remand and there is a change in the evidential relationship that served as the basis for prompt judgment, the binding force is not limited, and even if the court avoid erroneous judgment that served as the grounds for reversal, it cannot be said that there was an error of violation of Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act with regard to the lower court's binding power of the remanded judgment, even if it received the same conclusion as the judgment prior to remand based on new evidence. (See Supreme Court Decision 82Do2672 delivered on February 8, 1983).

According to the records, the court below, prior to the remanding of the case, should examine and determine whether the confessions of the defendant in the prosecutor's office are reinforced or not in the process of confirming the truth of the contents of the above fidelity Guarantee or the Statement, since each of the contents of the written evidence prepared by the defendant's prosecutor's office, the court below, after the remanding of the case, acknowledged the criminal facts of this case against the defendant, based on legitimate evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance after the remanding of the case according to the reasons for reversal of the judgment of remand, after examining the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court below's judgment after the remand of the case clearly admitted the facts of this case by adopting new evidence after the remand and taking into account the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it cannot be said that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of the binding force of the judgment of remand after remanding of the case.

2. The suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant who was the suspect has affixed his signature and seal in the court and affixed his signature and seal in the trial court, and it is not reliable (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do754 delivered on June 8, 1982). According to the records, the defendant's protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the defendant prepared by the prosecutor in the court of first instance is acknowledged as the authenticity of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant in the court of first instance, and it is impossible to find any material to suspect that the contents of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect cannot be reliable as it is a statement without arbitability. Furthermore, even after the suspect's interrogation of the suspect was sent to the prosecutor, there is no other material to view that the defendant's confession made by the investigative agency is a confession in the remaining psychological extension, so it is not proper to admit that there is no evidence of the first instance court that adopted the protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor as evidence, or that it is hard to prove that it is sufficient to prove evidence of the defendant's evidence.

3. According to the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below after the remand and the judgment of the court of first instance, the facts constituting the crime against the defendant are lawfully recognized and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of the legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. Even if considering the motive, means and consequence of the Defendant’s instant crime, the nature and content of the instant crime and all the circumstances where the arguments are asserted, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the Defendant is too unreasonable.

5. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)