All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purport of denying the admissibility of evidence of a statement without voluntariness lies in preventing not only the statement itself, which was made under a dangerous condition that causes or is likely to cause a false statement, but also in advance, from causing misjudgments because it does not fit the substantive truth. Thus, when there is a dispute over the voluntariness, a prosecutor does not prove reasonable and specific facts, but must prove that the defendant has removed the question of voluntariness. If a prosecutor fails to prove that the question of voluntariness is removed, the admissibility of evidence is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do517, Jan. 26, 2006). Meanwhile, in cases where the defendant contests the voluntariness of the defendant's statement and trial date stated in the suspect interrogation protocol and dispute about it as a false confession, the court should consider the defendant's academic background, career, occupation, social status, content of the statement, and the suspect interrogation protocol's free confession of voluntariness, and thus, it should be deemed that the confession without 3005 of the protocol.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1603, Oct. 27, 2011). The lower court acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and the Defendants and Co-defendant AB were detained unlawfully without a long-term warrant after they were committed to the Central Information Division investigator.