Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Admissibility of a suspect's confession in a seizure record and in counsel's opinion
Supreme Court, May 30, 2024, 2020Do16796 (judgment)
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적다중이용장소침입)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendant denies the substance of a confession recorded by a non-prosecutorial investigating body, whether in the circumstances of its seizure record or in counsel's opinion submitted to that body, does the confession have evidentiary capacity under Article 312(3) of the former Criminal Procedure Act?
Holding
No. A document recording a suspect's statement and prepared by an investigating body in the course of its investigation is, whatever its form, not to be treated differently from a suspect's interrogation record, so the confession in the seizure record has no evidentiary capacity once the defendant or counsel denies it. 'Recognising the contents' means that what was said accords with the actual facts, not merely that the record transcribes it, so a defendant who denies the charge has not recognised the contents of the admitting part of an interrogation record. A statement cited in counsel's opinion cannot acquire independent evidentiary capacity, so where the interrogation record is inadmissible the same statement quoted in the opinion cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
수사기관이 작성한 압수조서에 기재된 피의자였던 피고인의 자백 진술 부분은 피고인 또는 변호인이 내용을 부인하는 이상 증거능력이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of statements of confession made by the defendant when he or she was a suspect and recorded in a record of seizure prepared by an investigative agency has no admissibility of evidence insofar as the defendant or counsel denies the content.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피의자의 진술을 기재한 서류 내지 문서가 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 것이라면 그 서류나 문서의 형식과 관계없이 피의자신문조서와 달리 볼 이유가 없으므로
Unofficial English translation
Where a document or record containing the statements of the suspect was prepared in the course of the investigation conducted by an investigative agency, there is no reason to treat it differently from a record of examination of the suspect, irrespective of the form of the document or record, and
Factors
- 피의자의 진술을 기재한 서류 내지 문서가 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 것이라면
- 그 서류나 문서의 형식과 관계없이 피의자신문조서와 달리 볼 이유가 없으므로
- 그와 같이 진술한 내용이 실제 사실과 부합한다는 것을 의미하므로
- 변호인의견서에 기재된 이러한 내용의 진술은 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 ‘피의자의 진술이 기재된 신문조서나 진술서 등’으로부터 독립하여 증거능력을 가질 수 없는 성격의 것이고
- 피의자 등의 보호를 목적으로 하는 변호인의 지위나 변호인 제도의 취지에도 반하게 된다
Unofficial English translation
• Where a document or record containing the statements of the suspect was prepared in the course of the investigation conducted by an investigative agency,
• there is no reason to treat it differently from a record of examination of the suspect, irrespective of the form of the document or record, and
• it means that the content of such statements accords with the actual facts,
• statements of such content recorded in the written opinion of counsel are of such a nature that they cannot have admissibility of evidence independently of "records of examination, written statements, etc. containing the statements of the suspect" prepared in the course of the investigation conducted by an investigative agency, and
• they also run counter to the status of counsel and the purpose of the attorney system, which aim at protecting suspects and others
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1983. 7. 26. 선고 82도385 판결, 대법원 2006. 1. 13. 선고 2003도6548 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 82Do385 decided July 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6548 decided January 13, 2006; etc.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1983. 7. 26. 선고 82도385 판결(공1983, 1367), 대법원 2006. 1. 13. 선고 2003도6548 판결(공2006상, 277), 대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010도5040 판결(공2010하, 1529), 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2023도2102 판결(공2023상, 994)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a suspect's statement to defence counsel during the investigation, rather than to the investigating body, is cited in an opinion submitted later, may it be used as evidence of guilt?
An amendment to Article 312(3) of the former Criminal Procedure Act that reached records of statements drawn up by prosecutors or changed the meaning of recognising the contents would require this entry to be read again. So would a later decision revisiting the use of counsel's opinion as a route to a suspect's statement.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw 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 Uijeongbu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 19 November 2020 (2020No207), reversed the first-instance acquittal on the charged filming and found the defendant guilty. It relied on the confession entered in the circumstances section of the seizure record the judicial police officer wrote on 2 August 2019 when the defendant voluntarily handed over a mobile phone, and on the confession recorded in counsel's opinion submitted to the police, and treated the defendant's consent to admit both documents given at first instance as covering them.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the evidentiary capacity both of the confession the judicial police officer entered in the seizure record and of the confession cited in counsel's opinion submitted at the investigation stage, and that the error affected the judgment. The entry in the evidence list recording consent to the seizure record could be understood either as a mistaken entry or as the record having wrongly summarised as consent the defendant's acknowledgement that he had made statements to the same effect as recorded, so the defendant's statement part could not be used as evidence of guilt. Since the charged filming was held concurrently with the remaining convictions under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment had to be reversed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A record of a suspect's statement drawn up by a prosecutor rather than by another investigating body, which Article 312(3) does not govern.
- A defendant who does not deny the charge and recognises the contents of the record, so that Article 312(3) admits the statement as evidence.
- Parts of counsel's opinion other than the cited statement, which the Court expressly left usable upon the defendant's consent.
Record verification notes
Identify precisely who prepared each document in the file and at what stage, since the rule turns on preparation by a non-prosecutorial investigating body in the course of investigation. Then match each confession passage with the defendant's position at trial and with the consent actually recorded, and read the file's other admitted charges against Article 37 of the Criminal Act before relying on the scope of reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수사기관이 작성한 압수조서에 기재된 피의자였던 피고인의 자백 진술 부분에 대해 피고인 또는 변호인이 그 내용을 부인하는 경우, 구 형사소송법 제312조 제3항에 의한 증거능력 유무(소극) / 위 규정에서 정한 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미 / 피고인이 공소사실을 부인하는 경우, 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서 중 공소사실을 인정하는 취지의 진술 부분은 그 내용을 인정하지 않았다고 보아야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 수사기관에 제출된 변호인의견서에 피의자가 당해사건 수사기관에 한 진술이 인용되어 있는 경우, 그 진술이 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 ‘피의자의 진술이 기재된 신문조서나 진술서 등’으로부터 독립하여 증거능력을 가지는지 여부(소극) / 피고인이 피의자였을 때 수사기관에 한 진술이 기재된 조서나 수사과정에서 작성된 진술서 등의 증거능력을 인정할 수 없는 경우, 수사기관에 제출된 변호인의견서에 기재된 같은 취지의 피의자 진술 부분을 유죄의 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Admissibility of evidence under paragraph (3) of Article 312 of the former Criminal Procedure Act as to the portion of statements of confession made by the defendant when he or she was a suspect and recorded in a record of seizure prepared by an investigative agency, where the defendant or counsel denies the content (negative) / Meaning of "where the content is admitted" as provided in the said provision / Whether, where the defendant denies the facts charged, the portion of statements admitting the facts charged, among the records of examination of the suspect prepared by an investigative agency, should be regarded as not having admitted the content (affirmative) [2] Whether, where statements made by the suspect to the investigative agency handling the case are quoted in a written opinion of counsel submitted to an investigative agency, such statements have admissibility of evidence independently of "records of examination, written statements, etc. containing the statements of the suspect" prepared in the course of the investigation conducted by an investigative agency (negative) / Where admissibility of evidence cannot be recognized for a record containing statements made by the defendant to an investigative agency when he or she was a suspect, or for a written statement prepared in the course of the investigation, etc., whether the portions of statements of the suspect to the same effect recorded in the written opinion of counsel submitted to the investigative agency may be used as evidence of guilt (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 형사소송법(2020. 2. 4. 법률 제16924호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제312조 제3항에 의하면, 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서는 그 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 그 내용을 인정할 때에 한하여 증거로 할 수 있다. 피의자의 진술을 기재한 서류 내지 문서가 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 것이라면 그 서류나 문서의 형식과 관계없이 피의자신문조서와 달리 볼 이유가 없으므로, 수사기관이 작성한 압수조서에 기재된 피의자였던 피고인의 자백 진술 부분은 피고인 또는 변호인이 내용을 부인하는 이상 증거능력이 없다. 한편 위 규정에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’란 피의자신문조서의 기재 내용이 진술 내용대로 기재되어 있다는 의미가 아니고 그와 같이 진술한 내용이 실제 사실과 부합한다는 것을 의미하므로, 피고인이 공소사실을 부인하는 경우 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서 중 공소사실을 인정하는 취지의 진술 부분은 그 내용을 인정하지 않았다고 보아야 한다. [2] 수사기관에 제출된 변호인의견서, 즉 변호인이 피의사건의 실체나 절차에 관하여 자신의 의견 등을 기재한 서면에 피의자가 당해사건 수사기관에 한 진술이 인용되어 있는 경우가 있다. 변호인의견서에 기재된 이러한 내용의 진술은 수사기관의 수사과정에서 작성된 ‘피의자의 진술이 기재된 신문조서나 진술서 등’으로부터 독립하여 증거능력을 가질 수 없는 성격의 것이고, ‘피의자의 진술이 기재된 신문조서나 진술서 등’의 증거능력을 인정하지 않는 경우에 변호인의견서에 기재된 동일한 내용의 피의자 진술 부분을 유죄의 증거로 사용할 수 있다면 피의자였던 피고인에게 불의의 타격이 될 뿐만 아니라 피의자 등의 보호를 목적으로 하는 변호인의 지위나 변호인 제도의 취지에도 반하게 된다. 따라서 피고인이 피의자였을 때 수사기관에 한 진술이 기재된 조서나 수사과정에서 작성된 진술서 등의 증거능력을 인정할 수 없다면 수사기관에 제출된 변호인의견서에 기재된 같은 취지의 피의자 진술 부분도 유죄의 증거로 사용할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 형사소송법(2020. 2. 4. 법률 제16924호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제312조 제3항 [2] 구 형사소송법(2020. 2. 4. 법률 제16924호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제312조 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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