Whether a confession of co-defendant as an accomplice is included in "a confession of the defendant" as stipulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative), and whether each statement of co-defendant as an accomplice becomes reinforced evidence among them (affirmative)

As the statement of co-defendant is not included in "a confession of the defendant" stipulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statement of co-defendant as an accomplice can be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime against the other co-defendant, and each statement of co-defendant as an accomplice can be reinforced evidence between them.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do951 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985,151) 86Do1773 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986,3161) 87Do973 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987,1358) 87Do1020 delivered on December 222, 1987 (Gong1988,378)

A and 3 others

Defendants

Attorney B

Seoul High Court Decision 90No1042 delivered on July 12, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be calculated by adding one hundred days to the original sentence.

1. Determination on the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, it is clear that the defendants filed each protocol of suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor on the third trial date of the first instance trial and the statements recorded in each protocol have been made arbitrarily. In addition, it is evident that the defendants received the prosecutor's investigation and made a detailed statement about each of the facts charged in this case and the facts related thereto. In light of the defendants' academic background, career, occupation, intelligence level, etc., it is not deemed that the defendants' statements recorded in each protocol of suspect examination of the defendants prepared by the prosecutor are not arbitrarily made. Thus, there is no reason to argue that each protocol of suspect examination of the defendants prepared by the prosecutor is disputed the admissibility of evidence of each protocol of suspect examination of the defendants.

2. The Defendants’ grounds of appeal No. 2, Defendant A’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal, Defendant C’s ground of appeal No. 3, and Defendant D’s ground of appeal No. 1

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records and records of the evidence admitted by the court below, the robbery injury charges against Defendant A, the robbery death charges against Defendant C and D, each special robbery and special larceny charges against Defendant D, and each special larceny charges against Defendant E may be fully recognized. The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal or causation, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts contrary to the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there are no grounds for

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal No. 1 and Defendant E as to Defendant C’s defense counsel

As stated in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statement of co-defendant as an accomplice is not included in the confession of the defendant, so the statement of co-defendant as an accomplice can be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting an offense against the other co-defendant, and each statement of co-defendant as an accomplice can be admitted as evidence with each other (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do951, Jul. 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Do1773, Oct. 28, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Do973, Jul. 7, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Do973, Dec. 22, 1987; and Supreme Court Decision 87Do1020, Dec. 22, 1987). It is not acceptable to accept all arguments that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the

4. Determination on the second ground for appeal as to Defendant C by the defense counsel

Since the lower court acquitted Defendant C on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts as to the injury by robbery among the facts charged in the instant case, it is evident that there is no reason to criticize the lower judgment on the premise that the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged in this regard.

5. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4 as to Defendant C by the defense counsel, and the ground of appeal No. 2 as to Defendant D

Examining the following circumstances: (a) the age, conduct, intelligence, and environment of the above Defendants; (b) relationship with the victims; and (c) motive, means and consequence of each crime; and (d) circumstances surrounding the sentencing indicated in the records, such as circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel, the determination of the sentence against the above Defendants is deemed appropriate; and (c) the determination of the sentence against the said Defendants cannot be deemed as significantly unfair;

6. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and some of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)