[1] Standard for supporting a confession / Whether indirect evidence other than direct evidence or circumstantial evidence can also be a supporting evidence (affirmative), and whether confession and supporting evidence can be a evidence of guilt if facts constituting a crime can be acknowledged as a whole as a whole as a whole because they are inconsistent with each other (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for violation of the Narcotics Control Act by providing psychotropic drugs to Gap even though he is not a person handling narcotics, the case holding that the judgment below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged on the grounds that it was sufficient to guarantee the authenticity of the confession on the grounds that the defendant's voluntar administered and provided them to Gap, and that the prosecutor's statement of Eul, etc. on the ground that it was sufficient to guarantee the authenticity of the confession, etc., was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence supporting confession

[1] Even if the evidence of confessions is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts constituting an offense, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confessions of the accused are true rather than processed. Also, indirect or circumstantial evidence may serve as evidence of guilt, other than direct evidence, and if confessions and supporting evidence are mutually sound and thus, criminal facts can be acknowledged as a whole, it is sufficient to prove evidence of guilt.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted on charges of violating the Narcotics Control Act on the ground that he provided psychotropic drugs to Gap three times more than twice, and provided psychotropic drugs for two times, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Defendant’s deposition and its admissibility on the grounds that, although the Defendant knew that the previous criminal records of the same kind of crime were more than four times and that he would be subject to more unfavorable punishment if he confessions the facts charged, the Defendant provided some of them to Eul, and provided them to the investigation agency, and that the remaining ones were consistently stated on the method of medication and motive until the lower court, and that the Defendant maintained the statement to the prosecution and the investigation report (related to the message restored from the suspect cell phone) on Eul’s cell phone, and that there was sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant provided her a confession to the prosecution or the prosecutor’s office, and that it was not guilty of the facts charged.

[1] Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 4 (1) 1 of the Act, Article 61 (1) 5 of the Act, Articles 307, 309, and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3041 Decided July 12, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7883 Decided November 27, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17628 Decided December 28, 2017 (Gong2018Sang, 465)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Dong-ju

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017No601 Decided November 16, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. Reinforcement evidence for confessions is sufficient to acknowledge that the confessions of the accused are not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient to the extent that the confessions of the accused can be recognized as true. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence may be used as evidence, other than direct evidence, and if confessions and corroborative evidence mutually constitute the crime as a whole, it is sufficient to prove evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3041, Jul. 12, 2007; 2008Do7883, Nov. 27, 2008).

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty, on the ground that the violation of the Narcotics Control Act due to the provision and medication of Rusas among the facts charged against the Defendant constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.

C. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept, as it is, examining the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly admitted.

1) On June 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and two months with prison labor due to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Chuncheon District Court on November 23, 2015, and the same criminal records were more than three times on November 23, 2015, and thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the confession of this part of the facts charged would be subject to more unfavorable punishment.

2) Nevertheless, the Defendant, at an investigative agency, has received approximately 1,00 U.S. 1,00 U.S. psychotropic drugs from Nonindicted 1 and provided some of them to Nonindicted 2. There is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the confessions by maintaining consistent statements from the date when he made a concrete statement on the method and motive for medication, etc. to the original judgment.

3) According to the prosecutor’s statement and investigation report (related to the message restored from the suspect’s cell phone) adopted by the lower court as evidence, Nonindicted Party 1, around September 17, 2016, when the Defendant first administered the automobile, sent one plastic message containing approximately KRW 1,000,00 to the Defendant, instead of paying the Defendant’s debts corresponding to KRW 50,00,00, and Nonindicted Party 2 sent Nonindicted Party 1 the Defendant with the Kakao Kakao Stockholm’s statement and investigation report to the effect that Nonindicted Party 1 was sent to the Defendant. It is sufficient to guarantee the authenticity of the confession that the Defendant administered the automobile received from Nonindicted Party 1, and provided it to Nonindicted Party 2.

D. Ultimately, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged against the Defendant, was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the evidence supporting confession or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. Scope of reversal

Of the judgment of the court below, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to the provision and medication of a Russia to the defendant who is not guilty shall be reversed on the grounds as seen earlier.

As seen earlier, the appeal against the guilty portion of the defendant is groundless, but the part which the court below found the guilty guilty and the not guilty guilty should be sentenced to a single punishment for the whole guilty in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)