Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
How to Assess Probative Value When the First and Second Test Results of the Same Scientific Analysis Technique Are Contradictory
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 2014, 2013Do9605 (judgment)
Case name: 농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반·사기·사기미수
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When the first test result obtained by the same scientific analysis technique supports the facts charged and the second test result contradicts it, may the court rely on the first result alone?
Holding
The court must closely examine whether the material analyzed, the analyst, and the procedure were identical, the degree of the possibility of error, the directionality of the changed results, and the reasonableness of the reason why the contradictory results arose. Unless the difference is explained beyond reasonable doubt and it is verified that the possibility of error in the first result is so minimal as to be negligible, the court must not rashly rely only on the evidence supporting the facts charged.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그에 이르지 못한 경우라면 그 중 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증거방법만을 섣불리 취신하거나 이와 상반되는 증거방법의 증명력을 가볍게 배척하여서는 아니 된다.
Unofficial English translation
If it does not reach that point, neither shall one hastily adopt only the evidence supporting the facts charged among them, nor lightly reject the probative value of evidence contrary thereto.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the main court of Gwangju District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
각 분석결과 사이의 차이점이 합리적인 의심 없이 해명될 수 있고 1차적 증거방법에 따른 결과의 오류가능성이 무시할 정도로 극소하다는 점이 검증된다면
Unofficial English translation
if it is verified that the differences between the respective analytical results can be resolved without a reasonable doubt and that the possibility of error in the results under the primary evidence is extremely minimal to the point of being negligible
Factors
- 분석 대상물과 분석 주체, 분석 절차와 방법 등의 동일 여부
- 내포된 오류가능성의 정도
- 달라진 분석결과가 일정한 방향성을 가지는지 여부
- 상반된 분석결과가 나타난 이유의 합리성 유무
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the subject matter of analysis, the analyzing party, the analysis procedure and method, etc. are the same
• The degree of the inherent possibility of error
• Whether the changed analysis results have a certain directionality
• Whether the reason for the appearance of conflicting analysis results is rational
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
각 증거방법의 증명력을 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
the method of determining the probative value of each evidence
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In an analysis technique that uses a statistical method of determination, what degree of error rate may be regarded as so minimal as to be negligible?
If the Supreme Court sets out a different standard for assessing the probative value of scientific analysis techniques, such as determination of country of origin, this reading is to be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 6 (Relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text presents both the close examination of various circumstances and the condition for adopting only the evidence of guilt, the first reading may attend to the condition while the independent reading may attend to the overall examination.
법원은 각 증거방법에 따른 분석 대상물과 분석 주체, 분석 절차와 방법 등의 동일 여부, 내포된 오류가능성의 정도, 달라진 분석결과가 일정한 방향성을 가지는지 여부, 상반된 분석결과가 나타난 이유의 합리성 유무 등에 관하여 면밀한 심리를 거쳐 각 증거방법의 증명력을 판단하여야 한다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
Because the original text sets out specific criteria for assessing probative value but does not specify its relation to existing precedent, the first reading may read it as setting a new standard, while the independent reading may find the relation to precedent difficult to confirm.
각 증거방법의 증명력을 판단하는 방법Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below, while recognizing the fact that, after 7 of the 11 samples were determined as mixed in the first test, 3 samples determined as domestic were changed to mixed and 2 samples determined as mixed were changed to domestic in the second test conducted at first instance, held that the contradictory results alone are not sufficient to cast doubt on the probative value of the first test result, citing differences in the degree of mixing attributable to the part of the sample taken and the possibility of changes in components during refrigerated storage, and thus maintained the first instance judgment finding all of the facts charged guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found that the second test was also an analysis of the same samples by the same testing laboratory using the same near-infrared spectroscopy, so that there was no difference in the possibility of error; that the direction of the changes in the determinations was not consistent; and that the cause of the contradictory results had not been reasonably explained. Holding that the court below, which relied only on the first test result, misapprehended legal principles concerning the probative value of scientific evidentiary methods, the Supreme Court reversed the portion concerning Defendant 1 and, pursuant to Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act, also reversed the portion concerning co-defendant Defendant 2 and remanded the case.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the material analyzed, the analyst, or the method of analysis differs between the two tests, so that the results cannot be compared on the same footing
- Where the cause of the contradictory results has been explained scientifically beyond reasonable doubt
- Where it has been separately verified that the possibility of error in the first analysis result is so minimal as to be negligible
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, confirm from the expert materials the identity of the samples between the two tests and the circumstances of their storage, the statistical error rate of the analysis technique, and the direction of the changes in determination.
From the official text
Points at issue
과학적 분석기법을 사용하여 제출된 것으로서 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 1차적 증거방법 자체에 오류가 발생할 가능성이 내포되어 있고, 그와 동일한 분석기법에 의하여 제출된 2차적 증거방법이 공소사실과 배치되는 소극적 사실을 뒷받침하고 있는 경우, 각 증거방법의 증명력을 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Where the primary evidence, submitted using scientific analysis techniques, itself inherently contains the possibility of error in supporting the facts charged, and the secondary evidence submitted by the identical analysis technique supports a negative fact contrary to the facts charged, the method of determining the probative value of each evidence
Summary of the holding
어떠한 과학적 분석기법을 사용하여 제출된 것으로서 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 1차적 증거방법 자체에 오류가 발생할 가능성이 내포되어 있고, 그와 동일한 분석기법에 의하여 제출된 2차적 증거방법이 공소사실과 배치되는 소극적 사실을 뒷받침하고 있는 경우, 법원은 각 증거방법에 따른 분석 대상물과 분석 주체, 분석 절차와 방법 등의 동일 여부, 내포된 오류가능성의 정도, 달라진 분석결과가 일정한 방향성을 가지는지 여부, 상반된 분석결과가 나타난 이유의 합리성 유무 등에 관하여 면밀한 심리를 거쳐 각 증거방법의 증명력을 판단하여야 한다. 이때 각 분석결과 사이의 차이점이 합리적인 의심 없이 해명될 수 있고 1차적 증거방법에 따른 결과의 오류가능성이 무시할 정도로 극소하다는 점이 검증된다면 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 1차적 증거방법만을 취신하더라도 그것이 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어났다고 할 수는 없을 것이나, 그에 이르지 못한 경우라면 그 중 공소사실을 뒷받침하는 증거방법만을 섣불리 취신하거나 이와 상반되는 증거방법의 증명력을 가볍게 배척하여서는 아니 된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the main court of Gwangju District Court.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제308조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger