A. Criteria for determining the admissibility of evidence of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor who recognized the authenticity of the petition and the voluntariness

(b) Degree of the corroborating evidence of the confession;

A. The suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant in the preparation of the prosecutor's protocol is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not voluntary, in case where the defendant's statement in the protocol is acknowledged to have been made in the court room, and where the voluntariness is disputed, the court shall judge it with free evaluation by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, intelligence, etc. of the

(b) Reinforcement evidence of confessions is not processed, but sufficient to prove that the facts of confession are true, as well as circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence.

Articles 312 and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983, 86Do2127 delivered on December 9, 1986.B. Supreme Court Decision 83Do2436 delivered on November 8, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 87Do432 delivered on May 26, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Doh-yang

Seoul High Court Decision 87No1753 delivered on August 25, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

35 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the accused's statement recorded in the protocol is not free of discretion when the accused's statement in the protocol is acknowledged as having been made in the courtroom, and in the event that the admissibility of the protocol is disputed, the court shall render a judgment with free conviction by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol, the educational background, career, intelligence of the person who made the statement, etc. according to the specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248, Mar. 8, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Do2436, Nov.

According to the records, the defendant has made a detailed statement on the facts charged while being investigated five times by the prosecutor, and there are no circumstances to suspect the voluntariness of the place of interrogation, method of interrogation, and contents thereof, and further, the defendant did not have any threat or assault when being investigated before the prosecutor in the court of first instance. Since being investigated before the prosecutor, the defendant was under investigation at the court of first instance, he was able to see that the defendant's statement before the prosecutor was imprudented by being humbly humbly and so, the defendant's academic background, career, intelligence level, etc.

In addition, even if physical restraint and testimony were long-term and forced by the police, there is no evidence to deem that it had influenced the prosecution's investigation process. Reinforcement evidence of confession is not processed, but it is sufficient not only to directly prove the fact of confession but also to prove circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2436, Nov. 8, 1983). In light of the records, the evidence of the first instance court, cited by the court below, is recognized as evidence of confession of the defendant.

Ultimately, according to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, criminal facts against the defendant can be recognized. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the discretion of confession, reinforcement evidence, and burden of proof on the facts charged

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)