[1] Method of determining the admissibility of confession and the credibility of confession

[2] Standard for supporting evidence for confession / Whether indirect evidence other than direct evidence or circumstantial evidence can also be corroborated evidence (affirmative), and whether confession and corroborative evidence can be admitted as evidence for conviction in a case where facts constituting a crime can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt (affirmative)

[1] A confession made by a defendant cannot be admitted as evidence, if there are reasons to suspect that the confession is not voluntarily made, as stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, when the confession is admissible, the credibility of a confession shall be determined in consideration of whether the content of the confession itself has an objective rationality, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstances leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among

[2] Reinforcement of confessions is sufficient to establish that the confessions of the accused are not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting a crime is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts constituting a crime. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence may serve as evidence of guilt, not direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence, and if confessions and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent, and criminal facts can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to establish evidence of guilt.

[1] Articles 308 and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do214 delivered on December 8, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 316) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1419 Delivered on May 31, 2007 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do159 Delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1116) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2890 Delivered on December 222, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 275) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Delivered on September 28, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 2408)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2017No85 decided October 17, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The confession of the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence if there is a reason to suspect that the confession is not voluntarily made as stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, when the confession is admissible, the credibility of the confession should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of the confession itself have objectively rationality, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do159, Mar. 13, 1998; 9Do214, Dec. 8, 2000).

Meanwhile, evidence of confession is sufficient to prove that the confession of a criminal defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the criminal facts is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the criminal facts. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence may serve as evidence of guilt, not direct evidence, and if confession and corroborating evidence are mutually consistent, it is sufficient to prove the criminal facts as a whole (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2890, Dec. 22, 1998; 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 2007Do1419, May 31, 2007).

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted in light of the evidence, the Defendant made a very concrete statement at an investigative agency about the embezzlement and embezzlement by date indicated in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant committed the instant embezzlement in order to raise insufficient funds for purchasing the instant real estate in the name of the non-indicted, as well as the process and motive of embezzlement, the user of the amount of embezzlement, etc. In addition, there is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the confession in light of the circumstances consistently led to the confession of the instant facts charged in the court of first instance and the court of original instance. Furthermore, there is sufficient reason to support the Defendant’s confession in light of the following circumstances: “the certified copy of the real estate register”, “a report on investigation (report on the result of execution of a warrant of search and inspection), “the details of temporary transactions of embezzlement and return,” “the details of the account transaction,” and “written confirmation of facts” (No. 9 of the evidence list)

Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, in addition to the confessions made at the investigative agency, the first instance court, and the court of original instance, was sufficient to serve as evidence for the confessions, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence, misapprehending the legal principles on the credibility of confessions, the degree of

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and intent of embezzlement, and the number of crimes.

4. The argument that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the sentencing and by violating the rules of evidence constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, in this case where the lower court rendered a minor sentence against the Defendant, the allegation that

5. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)