Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Circumstantial proof and the prosecution's burden in a murder case
Supreme Court, July 27, 2023, 2023Do3477 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 살인·컴퓨터등사용사기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a criminal trial, must guilt rest on strict evidence leaving no room for reasonable doubt, with the burden of proof on the prosecution, and may a conviction for a grave offence such as murder rest on circumstantial evidence alone, and on what conditions?
Holding
The prosecution must prove the offence with strict evidence that produces certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and where its proof does not reach that level the defendant's claim or explanation must be taken in the defendant's favour even if it is inconsistent or unsatisfying. A conviction for a grave offence such as murder may rest on circumstantial evidence alone, but each indirect fact that presupposes the main fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, must not contradict the others, and must be supported by logic, experience and scientific laws. Taken together, the indirect facts must carry an overwhelmingly superior degree of proof, and the rebuttal of the presumption of innocence must reach a level comparable to that of direct evidence.
Points at issue, verbatim
형사재판에서 범죄사실을 인정하기 위한 증거의 증명력 정도(=합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도) 및 증명책임 소재(=검사) [2] 살인죄와 같이 법정형이 무거운 범죄의 경우에도 직접증거 없이 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
The degree of probative value of evidence required to establish the facts of a crime in a criminal trial (= to the extent that no reasonable doubt remains) and the party on whom the burden of proof rests (= the prosecutor) [2] Whether, even in the case of crimes carrying heavy statutory penalties such as murder, guilt may be found on circumstantial evidence alone without direct evidence (affirmative), and the requirements for finding guilt on circumstantial evidence alone
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
유죄의 인정은 범행 동기, 범행수단의 선택, 범행에 이르는 과정, 범행 전후 피고인의 태도 등 여러 간접사실로 보아 피고인이 범행한 것으로 보기에 충분할 만큼 압도적으로 우월한 증명이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
A finding of guilt requires proof that is overwhelmingly superior, sufficient to regard the defendant as having committed the crime, when viewed in light of various circumstantial facts such as the motive for the crime, the choice of the means of commission, the process leading to the commission of the crime, and the defendant's attitude before and after the crime.
Factors
- 형사재판에서 범죄사실을 인정하기 위한 증거의 증명력 정도(=합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도)
- 증명책임 소재(=검사)
- 살인죄와 같이 법정형이 무거운 범죄의 경우에도 직접증거 없이 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
• the degree of probative value of evidence required to establish the facts of a crime in a criminal trial (= to the extent that no reasonable doubt remains)
• the party on whom the burden of proof rests (= the prosecutor)
• Whether, even in the case of crimes carrying heavy statutory penalties such as murder, guilt may be found on circumstantial evidence alone without direct evidence (affirmative)
• the requirements for finding guilt on circumstantial evidence alone
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 5. 30. 선고 2017도1549 판결(공2017하, 1417)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1549 decided May 30, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 1417)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2017. 5. 30. 선고 2017도1549 판결(공2017하, 1417), 대법원 2022. 6. 16. 선고 2022도2236 판결(공2022하, 1412) / [1] 대법원 2012. 6. 28. 선고 2012도231 판결(공2012하, 1367)
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
형사재판에서 공소사실에 대한 증명책임이 검사에게 있는 이상
Unofficial English translation
In a criminal trial, insofar as the burden of proof as to the facts charged rests with the prosecutor
Open question and revisit condition
If further hearing on remand leaves the time and manner of the fatal ingestion unresolved, what additional record would make the circumstantial proof overwhelmingly superior?
The judgment of the Suwon High Court after remand will show how this standard is applied to the same record. Any later Supreme Court decision revising the degree of proof for convictions resting on circumstantial evidence, or an amendment to Article 307 or Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading states the general requirements for a conviction on circumstantial evidence, while the independent reading applies those requirements to the facts of this case. The difference is in the form of the standard, a stated rule against an applied test.
간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정하기 위한 요건Raw 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 Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 9 February 2023 (2022No495), acquitted the defendant of administering the nicotine drink and the congee, holding that it could not reasonably be excluded that the symptoms the victim reported were not the result of nicotine ingestion, so that this part of the charge was not proved. It convicted on the final act of handing the victim cold water containing a large amount of nicotine, from which the victim died of acute nicotine poisoning, relying on the forensic view that a further oral dose was needed after the hospital visit, the affair and the financial gain as sufficient motive, the repeated purchases of nicotine products, and the absence of any trace of suicide at the scene.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the acquittals on the prosecution's appeal. On the defendant's appeal it held that the post-mortem and the expert opinions proved only that a lethal dose of nicotine was detected and that a further oral dose was needed after the hospital visit, not that the defendant put nicotine into the cold water, since the opinion presupposed that the drinking occurred at no time other than when the defendant handed over the water. It pointed to the victim checking a phone screen at about 02:45, the cup left two thirds full, the absence of any identified high-concentration source or test of the seized product, doubts about whether an alert victim would have drunk the water without resistance, and unresolved questions on the motive and on the conduct after the death. Because those doubts remained and could still be examined, the conviction for murder misapprehended the required degree of proof and left what was needed untried; since that conviction was sentenced together with the remaining convictions in concurrence and the reasoned acquittal stood in one-offence relation to it, the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which direct evidence of the death and its circumstances exists, so that the requirement of overwhelmingly superior proof from indirect facts does not arise.
- A case in which each indirect fact that presupposes the main fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt, does not contradict the others, and is supported by logic, experience and scientific laws.
- A case in which the prosecution's proof itself reaches the level of certainty beyond reasonable doubt, so that doubts need not be resolved in the defendant's favour.
Record verification notes
Set each circumstantial fact against the timeline the file shows: when the victim drank, when the symptoms would appear and pass, and what the phone log records at each moment, since the indirect facts must not contradict one another. Then check whether the nicotine actually used was identified and its concentration tested, whether the motive is shown with the intensity the Court demanded for a planned killing of a spouse, and whether any further hearing could still resolve the remaining doubts, because the Court reversed on the footing that the indirect evidence was not sufficient as affirmative proof, that questions remained, and that further hearing on those questions was possible, so that the conclusion below could not stand as it was.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형사재판에서 범죄사실을 인정하기 위한 증거의 증명력 정도(=합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도) 및 증명책임 소재(=검사) [2] 살인죄와 같이 법정형이 무거운 범죄의 경우에도 직접증거 없이 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 간접증거만으로 유죄를 인정하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
[1] The degree of probative value of evidence required to establish the facts of a crime in a criminal trial (= to the extent that no reasonable doubt remains) and the party on whom the burden of proof rests (= the prosecutor) [2] Whether, even in the case of crimes carrying heavy statutory penalties such as murder, guilt may be found on circumstantial evidence alone without direct evidence (affirmative), and the requirements for finding guilt on circumstantial evidence alone
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제307조, 제308조 [2] 헌법 제27조 제4항, 형법 제250조, 형사소송법 제307조, 제308조
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