(a) A case where the confession made by the defendant at the time of investigation by the prosecution is deemed nonexistent;

B. Requirements on the premise to acknowledge admissibility of evidence as to the result of the examination by a false speech detection device

A. Although the defendant was confined to a police station cell during the investigation period of the prosecution, the prosecutor denied the crime and argued that the confession at the police was made by a serious adviser when he was examined, while there was no progress in the investigation later, the second time after the crime was led to the confession from the court of first instance, and the witness's testimony was denied again, and the witness's testimony was attempted when the defendant was arrested in the detention room, and there was a timely death from the day after the investigation was conducted, the admissibility of evidence is denied because there was a reason to suspect that the confession by the defendant was made in a state without arbitability as a result of the adviser, and that there was a lack of arbitability.

B. In order to recognize admissibility of evidence as to the result of the investigation of the falsehood detection device, first, a change in a certain psychological condition occurs, second, a change in the psychological condition must cause a certain physiological reaction, third, a premise must be satisfied to determine whether the horses of the person under investigation are false or not due to the physiological reaction. In particular, the determination of whether the falsehood detection device is false or not shall be a device that can accurately measure the physiological reaction, the preparation of the questionnaire clause and the techniques and methods of the prosecutor shall be reasonable, and the accuracy shall be secured only if the examiner has the ability to determine objectively and accurately the measuring content of the detection device, and unless the above requirements are met.

A. Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Articles 307, 308, and 171 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Do712 delivered on September 13, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Doh-yang

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1387 delivered on November 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Voluntaryity of confession:

According to the records, the direct evidence of the facts charged of rape in this case is that there is no other evidence in addition to the confession made at the time of interrogation of the second and third suspect, and other indirect evidence is based on the confession of the defendant, or it is sufficient to reinforce it. Thus, the judgment of the court below denies the admissibility of evidence by judging that the confession of the defendant is a statement without voluntariness.

According to the records, the defendant sent from the Busan Police Station to the Chungcheong Police Station of the Prosecutor's Office, and was confined to the Busan Police Station of the Prosecutor's Office during the investigation period of the Prosecutor's Office, and the defendant asserted that the crime of this case was committed during the first interrogation period from the prosecutor's office of the Prosecutor's Office, and that confession at the police station was made by a serious adviser but there was no progress in investigation thereafter, it is evident that the second and last confession of the crime was made first and the first court did not deny the crime again. In the testimony of Non-Indicted 1 of the first instance court, it was obvious that the non-indicted 1, at the detention room of the Chungcheong Police Station of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office, and that the defendant was unable to respond to the right situation of the defendant's testimony.

In light of the above details of confessions and the relation of evidence, the court below did not err in violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of appeal, since the court below judged that there was a reason to suspect that the confessions had been made in the absence of voluntariness in the second and third examinations by the prosecutor, as a result of the prosecutor's second and third examinations by the Chungcheong Police Station, which led to the confessions of this case as an adviser when the defendant was detained in the police station and was transferred to the prosecution, and thus denied the facts of the crime.

2. As to the result of the inspection of a false terminal:

The principle of inspection of a false speech detection machine is applied to a person who makes a false statement on the premise that his/her psychological condition changes occur due to the book of conscience or fear of a false salvation, and this causes a physiological reaction to pulmonary pressure, beer, skin, etc. Therefore, in order to admit admissibility as evidence with factual relevance, first, a change in a certain psychological condition occurs if he/she makes a false statement, second, a change in his/her psychological condition causes a certain physiological response and third, a change in his/her psychological condition must be determined accurately by that physiological response, and third, a three premise should be satisfied. In particular, since the last biological response is based on the premise that a false statement is made by an examiner who consented to the examination, and this is caused by a physiological reaction, it should be determined accurately that he/she satisfies all the requirements of examination and inspection under the Criminal Procedure Act and is capable of measuring the physiological response of an examiner who has agreed to the examination, and thus, it should be determined that a person who has made a false statement on his/her ability to make an accurate examination and detection.

There is no evidence acceptable as to whether the defendant was in a psychological and physiological reaction state consistent with the principle of the false terminal detection devices at the time of the inspection of the false terminal detection devices in this case, and whether the defendant was in a mechanical and biological reaction state, and whether the inspector in charge of the mechanical performance and method of inspection of the false terminal detection devices used by the defendant, and the quality and ability of the inspector in charge of the inspection are to guarantee the accuracy of the inspection results. Thus, the measure of the court below denying the admissibility of evidence of the test results of the false terminal detection devices in this case against the defendant

3. Ultimately, the grounds for appeal are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)