A. Whether an investigation conducted before a complaint or accusation is made in a crime subject to prosecution upon complaint or a tax official’s accusation is unlawful in a case where the complaint or accusation is filed

(b) Admissibility of evidence of prosecutor's records and certified copies of records prepared before the accusation of the head of a tax office is filed;

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

(d) Whether the defendant or his/her defense attorney does not investigate the evidence requested;

A. With respect to a crime that can be discussed only upon a complaint subject to prosecution or a tax official’s accusation, a complaint or accusation is merely the condition of prosecution, and is not the requirement for establishing the pertinent crime or the conditions of investigation. Thus, even if an investigation was conducted before a complaint or accusation was filed in relation to the above crime, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that the investigation was conducted under the condition that there is no possibility of a charge or accusation, the investigation cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the investigation was conducted before a complaint or accusation was filed.

B. Even if the protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the prosecutor, each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the other suspect, and each protocol of statement of the third party were prepared before the accusation by the head of a tax office against the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, if there is no evidence to deem that the interrogation of the accused, the suspect, and the third party was conducted under a situation where there is no possibility of accusation against the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the admissibility of evidence of the protocol or each protocol cannot be denied solely on the ground that the interrogation was conducted before accusation

C. The corroborating evidence of a confession is sufficient if the confession of the defendant is not processed, but can be recognized as true, even if it is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the crime.

D. Whether to adopt a party's application for examination of evidence belongs to the court's discretion, and the court may not conduct an investigation when it considers that the evidence requested by the defendant or his defense counsel is unnecessary.

(b)Articles 195 and 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act, § 6(b) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, § 307, § 312(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, § 310(d) of the Act, § 295, and § 296 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 90Do1613 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2235) 91Do1734 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2754) 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1114). Supreme Court Decision 77Do814 delivered on April 26, 197, 83Do1419 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 120), 93Do2505 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong194, 228)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Ba-young

Busan District Court Decision 93No2724 delivered on December 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

With respect to a crime that can be discussed only when a tax official files a complaint, such as an offense subject to prosecution or the instant case, a complaint or a accusation is merely the condition of prosecution, and is not the requirement for establishing the relevant crime or the conditions of investigation. Thus, even if a criminal investigation was conducted prior to the filing of a complaint or an accusation, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that the investigation was conducted under a situation that there is no possibility of a charge or accusation, the investigation cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the criminal investigation was conducted prior to the complaint or accusation.

According to the records, among the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the protocol of examination of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, each protocol of examination of the suspect against the non-indicted 1, and each protocol of statement against the non-indicted 2 were prepared prior to the accusation by the head of the tax office on the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, there is no evidence to deem that the interrogation of the defendant, the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 2, etc. was conducted under the condition that there is no possibility of accusation against the crime of this case. Thus, the admissibility of evidence of the above protocol or each protocol of the non-indicted 1 cannot be denied solely on the ground that the interrogation was conducted before the accusation was made, and there is no other evidence that the court of first instance or the court of first instance asserted to the effect that the theory

In addition, there is no evidence that can be recognized that the investigation procedure of this case was conducted in violation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the prosecution investigators arrested and detained the defendant without a warrant, and searched the place of business and seize accounting books, and the defendant did not notify the defendant of criminal facts, the right to appoint a counsel, and the right to refuse to make statements at the time of arrest. Therefore, the argument about the admissibility of evidence collected in the investigation procedure of this case cannot be accepted without the need to further examine. The argument about the issue is without merit.

2. On the second and third points

According to the relevant evidence and records, the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor was prepared in the situation where the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant was illegally detained as in the lawsuit theory and forced the confession by the prosecutor's investigator was made in the pending situation. Thus, it is not acknowledged that there is any reason to suspect that the statement is not arguable or reliable, and the reinforcement evidence of the confession is sufficient if the confession of the defendant is recognized as not arguable nor true even though it is not sufficient to recognize all or important parts of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993). In light of the records, since the remaining evidence cited by the court of first instance is insufficient to be arguable evidence, it is just to find the defendant guilty of the crime of this case according to the above evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the admissibility and probative value of confession and by exceeding the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as pointed out in the lawsuit theory.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

The issue of adoption of the party's application for examination of evidence is the discretion of the court, and therefore, when the court deems that the evidence requested by the defendant or the defense counsel is unnecessary, it may not investigate the evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2505 delivered on November 26, 1993). Thus, even if the court below adopted the prosecutor's investigator applied by the defense counsel as a witness and examined it, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal theory. There is no reason for this issue.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)