Reinforcement evidence of confession

The reinforcement evidence of confession is sufficient not only the direct evidence, but also the circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence if it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the accused is not processed but also true.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do643 Decided June 10, 1969 decided September 28, 1976

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul High Court Decision 81No1302, 81No1702 decided August 25, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

According to the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below, the facts constituting the above defendant are recognized as lawful and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and even after examining the records, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to non-taxation practices affecting the judgment, omission of judgment, lack of reasoning, etc., and the judgment of party members in the lawsuit, etc. are different from the facts of this case, and it is not appropriate to this case. Thus, the judgment of the

2. Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence at the time of the decision of the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the above defendant are duly recognized, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the reinforcement evidence of confession is sufficient not only to be a processed fact but also to the circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence, so the evidence at the time of the decision of the court below is sufficient. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence such as the theory of lawsuit in the decision of the court below. Further, the court below's decision that the so-called "Defendant 2 who evaded the national tax at the time of the original decision in collusion with the defendant 1, constitutes Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by unlawful means such as the time of the original decision is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as the theory of lawsuit

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)