In case where the defendant made a confession without any voluntariness at an investigative agency prior to the public prosecutor's investigation agency prior to the prosecutor's examination, and the prosecutor's investigation stage continues to make a confession of the same contents without coercion, whether the confession prior to the public prosecutor's examination is voluntary (negative)

In a case where the defendant made a confession that is not voluntary due to harsh acts, such as adviser, at an investigative agency before the prosecutor, and thereafter made a confession of the same contents even at the investigation stage of the prosecutor, even though there was no coercion of confession such as adviser at the investigation stage of the prosecutor, the confession prior to the prosecutor is also deemed to be an unvoluntary confession.

Articles 309 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2160 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 14455) 84Do472 delivered on May 15, 1984 (Gong1984, 1059) 91Do1 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong192, 137)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 92No1774 delivered on August 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

In a case where the defendant made a confession without voluntariness due to harsh acts such as adviser at the investigative agency prior to the prosecutor's investigation agency, and thereafter made a confession of the same contents even at the investigation stage, even if there was no coercion of confession prior to the prosecutor's investigation stage (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2160, Oct. 13, 1981). According to the original inquiry, the first protocol of examination of the suspect examination of the defendants against the defendants by the prosecutor was prepared by the police along with the investigation records of the defendants to the prosecutor, and it was prepared by the police to recognize all the facts constituting the crime prepared by the judicial police officer. However, the confession of the defendants at the police station has a reason to suspect that the confession in the first protocol of examination of the suspect examination was made in the continuous state of hearing without voluntariness, and thus the confession recorded in the first protocol of examination of the suspect examination is also made in the continuous state of hearing without voluntariness and thus, the admissibility of evidence should be denied.

Unlike the above, it is inappropriate for the court below to deny the probative value of the confession statement of the first interrogation protocol against the Defendants by the prosecutor without credibility, but the conclusion that the court below rejected it as evidence of guilt is justified.

In addition, although the second suspect examination protocol of each prosecutor contains a confession statement, the court below rejected the credibility of the confession statement in light of the preparation process of each suspect examination protocol and the contents of each suspect's statement as stated in the court below's written statement, and rejected the defendant on the grounds that there is no other evidence supporting the defendant's criminal facts, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.