Whether the confession of the co-defendant is included in the confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

The confession of the accused prescribed in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include the confession of the co-defendant (no question as to whether the accused is a co-defendant).

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Do185 Delivered on July 25, 1963

Defendant 1 and four others

Attorney Park Jong-chul (Jon), Park Jong-chul, Park Jong-chul, Attorneys Park Jong-chul (Law No. 1,2, and 3) (Law No. 1,2, and 3)

Daegu High Court Decision 80No782 delivered on October 16, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5 shall be included in the calculation of 85 days from among the days of detention pending trial after appeal.

1. Defendant 1, 2, and 3’s defense counsels are examined as to the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel, rably, and leaps.

With respect to the first to fourth points:

Even according to the records, each statement made by the prosecution of the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5 at the prosecutor's office is not deemed to have been made arbitrarily by considering the details and contents of the statement, the confession of the above defendants in the first trial and the court of original trial, and according to Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the confession of the defendant is an unfavorable evidence against the defendant, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. However, the confession of the defendant in this context is not limited to a grammatic interpretation to the purport that the confession of the other co-defendant (not in the case of a criminal defendant) is included in the confession of the defendant in the other co-defendant (not in the case of a criminal defendant), but in the real issue, the right to cross-examine the confession of the co-defendant is sufficiently guaranteed, and there is no different evidence, so the confession of the co-defendant is not admissible for the reason that it is disadvantageous evidence to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 63Do185 delivered on July 25, 1963).

In addition, the author argues that Defendant 5's house located in Seo-gu, Busan, which was the place of crime under Paragraph 1 (1) (A) of the above decision, had already been disposed of and relocated to the office, and that the defendant did not reside in the house on the date of the crime, and then examined the testimony of the family resident registration card and the witness of the court below at the seat of the defendant Kim. The above certified copy of the register is about the site of another Dong located in the same location as that of the above domicile, not the above domicile, and the resident registration card of the above household is about the above defendant's wife, not the above defendant, and the above evidence does not interfere with the recognition of the crime, and the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-dong was not reliable in light of the above certified copy of the register, so there is no error in the measures of the court below which did not adopt the above evidence. Accordingly, there is no error

With respect to the fifth point:

In determining a case prosecuted for the sale, acceptance, or export of damp drugs, it cannot be appraised unless there is any substance in the determination of the case, and therefore, it can be judged by the judge's free evaluation of evidence, such as the defendant's statement. In this case, it cannot be said that the parties to the transaction have to examine how to determine whether it is a damp drug by means of a simple experiment method or an actual administration, etc., as the parties to the transaction asserted the issue. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is justified in maintaining the first instance court's decision that recognized that the above defendants exported the goods to be a crime of this case by considering the evidence at the time of the first instance court's decision to the effect that the sale and purchase of this case is a saphere, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing (the party's decision citing the arguments is not appropriate in this case).

With respect to the sixth Ground:

Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act refers to the sale and purchase of foreign currencies and the purchase of travelers' checks issued in a foreign country (Article 4 (15) of the same Act). Article 8 (1) of the same Act refers to the sale and purchase of foreign currencies and the purchase of foreign currencies (Article 4 (1) of the same Act, and the operation of foreign exchange business means the operation of business between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country for the payment and collection, and the activities incidental thereto (Article 4 (14) of the same Act). However, as long as a certain act is to be continuously conducted, it is not possible to continue to be conducted by repeating the prescribed acts 2 and 3 times. Under the circumstances acknowledged by the court of first instance, the court below's decision maintained by the court of first instance does not contain any continued purchase of foreign currencies or checks in Japan, such as the facts, and therefore, it does not constitute a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 35 (1), Article 10 (1), Article 10 (1) and Article 38 (1) of the same Act.

2. Defendant 5’s grounds of appeal are examined.

After examining records, the first instance court's decision maintained by the court below did not violate the rules of evidence that found facts against the above defendant's decision 4 (1) (b) and there is no evidence in violation of the rules of evidence that found the above defendant's facts (the theory that the defendant already disposed of and relocated to another defendant's house located in Seo-gu, Busan, the place of crime, which was indicated as the place of crime prior to the date of crime as stated in the above decision, is the same as the judgment of the court below on the testimony of the resident registration card and the witness of the court below's decision in the above paragraph (1)). Thus, the theory of mistake of facts

3. The defendant 4's attorney's best and the grounds of appeal for gambling are examined together.

Defendant 2 and 3’s statement at the prosecution is not recognized as not voluntary, and the records are examined, and the statement at the prosecution of the prosecution of the defendant 4 is not recognized as voluntary, in light of the contents of the statement at the trial of the defendant and the part of the statement at the trial of the court of the court of the first instance and the court of the court of the original instance. In addition, even according to the records, it cannot be found that the first instance court’s decision maintained by the court of the court of the first instance violates the rules of evidence or lacks sufficient deliberation to recognize criminal facts such as the above defendant’s statement at the time of the trial of the court of the first instance, and it cannot be found that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or lack of sufficient deliberation, and it is sufficient to recognize the value of the criminal facts in order to calculate the additional collection amount of the criminal facts impossible. Thus, it is sufficient to prove that there is a lack of strict proof, and there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the object of the crime of export of damp drugs should not enter the export partner’s territorial sea or discharge stage.

4. Therefore, the arguments are inconsistent with the facts and opinions of the judgment of legitimate judgment of the court of first instance that the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by them, and are groundless, and all appeals are dismissed, and they are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)