(a) Degree of the corroborating evidence against the confession;

B. Whether it is a decision to hold a public prosecution where a consul and Korean Ambassador stationed in a foreign state promised not to punish the defendant (negative)

A. Reinforcement evidence is sufficient if it is sufficient to support that the confession of the defendant is true, not to require the whole criminal facts or the essential part of the criminal facts or the confession and reinforcement evidence, or to the extent that only one of the criminal facts or the result can be recognized.

B. In the process of cancelling the network name procedure, the decision of deferment of prosecution cannot be deemed as having been made on the ground that the defendant promised not to punish the defendant by the Korean Ambassador in Sweden and consul in the Republic of Sweden.

A. Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 20 of the National Security Act, Article 16 of the former National Security Act, and Article 16 of the Anti-Public Law (repealed by Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980)

Supreme Court Decision 67Do1084 Decided December 18, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 69Do643 Decided June 10, 1969, Decision 69Do1419 Decided December 26, 1969, Decision 76Do2569 Decided September 28, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 81Do2596 Decided March 9, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 83No171 delivered on April 13, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after appeal shall be included in imprisonment for 25 days.

The grounds of appeal in the defendant's and defendant's defense attorney Kim-ho are classified as follows and reviewed together.

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or mistake of facts:

First, if evidence is collected at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it shall be sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of this case at the time of original adjudication, and it shall not be possible to reveal the grounds for illegality such as the point of theory of

According to the records, the court below's protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor as evidence following the lawful process of examination of evidence is based on the grounds that the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of its establishment on the trial date of this case and the protocol in which the prosecutor made the statement of a suspect is admitted as evidence when the person making the original statement is admitted as the authenticity of its establishment on the trial date. Thus, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no arbitracy in the confession of the defendant.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides an exception to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, which provides that a confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him/her, shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt, and Article 308 of the same Act provides that the reinforcement of the confession is a provision that restricts the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In light of the above, it means that the authenticity of confession is guaranteed. Thus, evidence of reinforcement does not require the whole or essential part of facts constituting an offense, or evidence of confessions and reinforcements to the extent that it can be recognized, or that at least one of the facts constituting an offense can be recognized, but it is sufficient to say that the confession of the defendant is true (see Supreme Court Decisions 559, Feb. 27, 1959; 69Do643, Jun. 10, 1969; 167Do10649, Dec. 18, 1967; 206Do1964, Jun. 16, 1966).

All appeals are without merit.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to self-denunciation and mistake of facts:

원심판결에 의하면, 원심은 피고인이 1982.5.3 제1심판시 제7항 기재의 범죄사실을 저지른 다음 스웨덴 주재 이재석 영사가 귀국하도록 설득하고 스웨덴 외사담당 경찰관도 귀국을 종용하는 태도여서 가족이 있는 고국으로 돌아가기로 결심하고 망명신청을 철회한 다음 스웨덴 주재 한국대사관에서 하룻밤을 자고 그 다음날 이재석 영사와 같이 파리까지와서 단독으로 대한항공기편에 탑승 같은달 5일 15:55경 김포공항에 도착 귀국한 사실은 이를 자수로 인정하고 다만 피고인이 1982.4.30 스웨덴 주재 한국대사관에 자수한 점은 이를 자수를 위장한 것으로 판시하였는바, 피고인이 1982.4.30 스웨덴 주재 한국대사관에 자수한 전후 사정을 기록에 의하여 살펴보면 위 자수는 자수를 위장한 것이라고 봄이 상당하여 원심조치는 정당하다 할 것이고 이에 소론과 같은 위법이 있다고 할 수 없으므로 상고논지는 제1심 판시 제7사실을 부인하는 취지에 불과하여 받아들일만한 것이 되지 못한다.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to overseas crime:

The purpose of the final appeal on this point is that the defendant is a political refugee and becomes a citizen of Sweden by obtaining a network name card from the Sweden government, and therefore it is not possible to exercise the right of investigation of the Republic of Korea under international law. Thus, it is clear that the defendant guilty of facts other than foreign exchange crimes should be determined by misapprehending the legal principles of foreign crime, and it is clear that there is no jurisdiction in that it is a mistake in misunderstanding the legal principles of foreign crime, or that there is no right of investigation in the Republic of Korea. However, even if there is no right of investigation in the Republic of Korea, the criminal jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea is against a national who commits a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Korea and a foreigner who commits a crime outside the territory of the Republic

4. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withholding of public prosecution:

The so-called postponement of public prosecution under the National Security Act, the former National Security Act, and the former anti-public law shall be suspended by a prosecutor in consideration of the facts under Article 51 of the Criminal Act against a person who committed a crime of the jurisdiction of each law, so even if the defendant promised not to punish the defendant, such as the theory of the lawsuit, even though the defendant committed a motion not to punish the defendant, it shall not be deemed a decision of the postponement of public prosecution, and there is no ground for not allowing a public prosecution without the revocation of this decision by analogical interpretation. Therefore, the argument of the lawsuit shall not be employed merely as an independent opinion.

5. As to confiscation:

According to the court below's duly confirmed facts of crimes Nos. 2 through 7 at the time of the defendant's original adjudication, since from February 1, 1982 to April 22, 1982, when the defendant had been able to know his name, the court below recognized the seizure articles of the novel as those provided in the series of criminal acts of the defendant and confiscated them as just and there are no errors of law such as the argument of the lawsuit. The arguments also do not contain any grounds.

6. Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, twenty-five days of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)