[1] The standard for determining admissibility and voluntariness of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor

[2] Criteria for determining the credibility of confession

[3] In a case where the defendant denies the part of his statement or the photograph of the crime committed by a judicial police officer, whether the part of the evidence is admissible (negative), and in such a case, whether the measure that cited the whole verification protocol as evidence of guilt (negative)

[4] Reinforcement evidence of confession

[5] The criteria for determining whether or not there is a mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Code

[1] The protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any ground to suspect that the statement of the defendant recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily made in case where the defendant who was the suspect is a signatory in the court room and the authenticity of the protocol is acknowledged. In case where there is a dispute as to whether it is voluntary, the court shall make a decision with free conviction by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, and degree of intelligence of the person who made the statement,

[2] The mere reason that the confession, etc. at the prosecution is different from the statement at court does not necessarily mean that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination of the credibility of the confession should be made based on the following factors: (a) whether the content of the confession itself has an objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the reason leading up to the confession; and (d) whether there is any conflict or conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and (e) whether there is a situation to have a reasonable doubt about the motive or process of the confession under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[3] In the case where the defendant consented to the evidence inspection protocol prepared by a judicial police officer only as evidence, and the defendant cannot find out the contents of the statement and the part of the crime that were stated in the evidence inspection protocol as evidence in the court room, and in the case where it is denied, it cannot be admitted as evidence. Thus, the court below's measure which admitted the whole part of the evidence as evidence of guilt without distinguishing the parts of the evidence inspection protocol and the part that were stated in the defendant's statement consistent with the crime from the evidence inspection protocol and the part that was not refited as evidence of guilt is unlawful.

[4] Reinforcement evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can not be indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence.

[5] In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Code, the court may independently determine the existence and degree of mental disorder by taking into account the following factors: the details and means of the crime, the related materials and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the defendant's legal attitude.

[1] Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [4] Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [5] Article

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 114), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2084 delivered on November 25, 197 (Gong1998Sang, 175) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2425 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 673 delivered on July 26, 1991), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1270 delivered on September 29, 197 (Gong1991, 2289) 94Do1979 delivered on November 26, 1994 (Gong194, 302 delivered on November 4, 1994) / [24] Supreme Court Decision 94Do97989 delivered on September 29, 195

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Lee Ho-con et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 97No1864 delivered on December 24, 1997

The final appeal is dismissed. 49 days out of detention days after the final appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. As to the admissibility of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

The protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement of the defendant recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily used in case where the defendant who was the suspect is a signatory at the public trial court and the authenticity of the protocol is acknowledged. In case where there is a dispute as to whether it is voluntary, the court shall make a decision free evaluation of the protocol by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and content of the protocol, the academic background, career, and intelligence of the person who made the statement according to the specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2084, Nov. 25, 1997; 92Do2972, Feb. 23, 1993).

According to the records, the defendant acknowledged the facts without signing at the court of first instance as to each interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, and considering the progress that led to the confession of the facts of the crime of this case since the police, the contents of the protocol, the academic background and intelligence of the defendant, etc., such as the theory of litigation, the defendant, like the theory of litigation, led the police to the death of his father and led him to the police, led him to make a confession differently from the facts, and such psychological state continued to the prosecution. Thus, there is no reason to discuss it.

B. Regarding the credibility of the confession

The mere reason why the confession, etc. at the prosecution is different from the statement in the court cannot be deemed to be the reason that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination of the credibility of the confession should be made based on the following factors: (a) whether the contents of the confession in itself have objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession in question; (c) what is the motive or reason of the confession; and (d) the reason why the confession does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and (e) whether there is a situation in which there is a reasonable doubt about the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1957, Oct. 12, 195).

According to the records, the defendant continued to make a confession from the date of the death of the victim to the prosecution stage. The defendant had the same confession from the date of the death of the victim, and the purpose of his confession was to listen to the victim's face at one time due to extreme contingent drinking, after hearing the victim's severe humiliation while he was in a state of being frightening against his father's alcohol, which is the victim's father, while he was in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of drinking, and there is no

C. As to the admissibility, etc. of the evidence inspection protocol prepared by judicial police officers

The "verification protocol prepared by a judicial police officer of the first instance court" as being duly investigated and adopted by the court below includes the part of the defendant's statement, which is a suspect corresponding to the crime of this case, and is accompanied by a photograph reciting the crime. However, according to the records, the defendant merely consented to the above verification protocol as evidence, and cannot be viewed as a scambing figure that recognizes the authenticity and contents of the establishment as to the contents of the statement and the part of the crime committed in the courtroom, and rather, it cannot be admitted as evidence. Thus, the court below should adopt only the part of the defendant's statement, which corresponds to the crime of this case, and the remaining part of the crime, except for the part which retermed as evidence among the above verification protocol, as evidence, without distinguishing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1303, Jul. 24, 190; 87Do2692, Mar. 8, 198; 2014Do1794, Apr. 1, 198, 198).

However, according to the records, it is sufficient to recognize the defendant's crime of assault and death of this case by the remaining evidence except for the part of the above verification protocol among the various evidences cited by the court below (According to the examination report of the doctor's best form of the National Science Investigation Agency affiliated with the National Science Investigation Agency, it is "in and surrounding the victim's body" that the victim's body shows a broad range of free-of-faceing opinion, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the court below stated that "the victim's opinion of free-of-faceing" as to the upper part of the right side of the victim's body recognized as the direct cause of the victim's death. However, according to the attached image of the reference picture, the body that caused a wide range of free-to-faceing free-to-faceing blood is clearly delegated to the right side and also falling under the conclusion of the appraisal report, it is hard to conclude that there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as a result of the judgment of the court below and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2084, Nov. 25, 1997).

The court below held to the effect that the evidence employed by the court of first instance in addition to the confession made before the public prosecutor was sufficient as evidence to prove the confession. According to the records, the court below's measures are just, and there is no error of law that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case only with the confession without any supporting evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the expert’s appraisal is not necessarily dependent on the expert’s appraisal, and the court can independently determine by taking into account the relevant materials, such as the background, means, the defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the defendant’s legal attitude (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do1142, Jul. 25, 1997).

According to the records, although the defendant has been drinking for three consecutive days, the amount of drinking does not seem to have been excessive compared to the amount of normal drinking, and the circumstances at the time of the crime are physically memoryd, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was measured at the time when a considerable time has passed after the crime, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had been in the same degree or more state of drinking at the time of the crime. In light of these circumstances, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability or mental disability because the defendant was recognized to have been under the influence of drinking for three consecutive days, but the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, or did not have the ability to do so, even though he did not have the ability to do so, it is acceptable to the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability or mental disability, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)