Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Co-accused interrogation records and what recognising their content means
Supreme Court, June 1, 2023, 2023Do3741 (judgment)
Case name: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)·마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)·특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)·도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)·범인도피교사[형사소송법 제312조 제1항의 해석]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as amended by Act No. 16924 of 4 February 2020, does an interrogation record made by a prosecutor concerning another accused in a co-offender relationship with the defendant fall within 'an interrogation record made by a prosecutor', does 'co-offender' include necessary joint offenders and concurring offences in the academic sense, and may it be used as evidence of guilt where the defendant denies its content?
Holding
Yes to the first two questions, and no to the third. 'Recognising its content' means that what was said matches the actual facts, not merely that the record transcribes the statement correctly. The term covers records made about a co-accused, and co-offender extends beyond general-part joint offences to academic necessary joint offences and concurring offences, which require only that concurring acts exist while each realising its own offence elements and being punished under a separate provision; where the defendant denies the content, however, the record may not be used as evidence of guilt.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 피고인이 자신과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서의 내용을 부인하는 경우에는 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에 따라 유죄의 증거로 쓸 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where the defendant denies the content of a written statement of a suspect taken by a prosecutor with respect to another defendant or suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt pursuant to Article 312, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’라 함은 피의자신문조서의 기재 내용이 진술 내용대로 기재되어 있다는 의미가 아니고 그와 같이 진술한 내용이 실제 사실과 부합한다는 것을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'when the content is acknowledged' does not mean that the content stated in the written statement of a suspect was recorded as it was stated, but means that the content so stated conforms to the actual facts.
Factors
- ‘적법한 절차와 방식에 따라 작성된 것으로서 공판준비, 공판기일에 그 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 그 내용을 인정할 때에 한정하여 증거로 할 수 있다.’고 규정하였다
- 당해 피고인에 대한 피의자신문조서만이 아니라
- 서로 대향된 행위의 존재를 필요로 할 뿐 각자의 구성요건을 실현하고 별도의 형벌 규정에 따라 처벌되는 강학상 필요적 공범 또는 대향범까지 포함한다
- 피의자신문조서의 기재 내용이 진술 내용대로 기재되어 있다는 의미가 아니고
- 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에 따라 유죄의 증거로 쓸 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• provided that 'may be admitted as evidence only where, having been prepared in accordance with lawful procedures and methods, the content is acknowledged by the defendant, who was the suspect, or by the defense counsel at the preparation for trial or at the trial date.'
• not only a written statement of a suspect taken with respect to the defendant in question,
• includes a necessary accomplice or an offense of opposing parties in doctrinal theory, which merely require the existence of mutually opposing acts, where each party realizes the constituent elements and is punished under a separate penalty provision
• does not mean that the content stated in the written statement of a suspect was recorded as it was stated, but
• cannot be used as evidence of guilt pursuant to Article 312, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2023도2102 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2023Do2102 decided April 27, 2023
Decisions referred to
대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2023도2102 판결(공2023상, 994)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the improperly used record was only one part of a body of remaining evidence that is barely sufficient, is the misuse still without effect on the judgment?
A later decision that treats the misuse of a co-defendant's record as affecting the judgment, or that narrows the meaning of recognition, would change this reading. An amendment to Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act would also call for the 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the improperly used record was only one part of a body of remaining evidence that is barely sufficient, is the misuse still without effect on the judgment?” vs Independent “How should admissibility be determined when the defendant accepts only part of an accomplice's interrogation record?”
Primary asks whether misuse is harmless when the remaining evidence is barely sufficient, while independent asks how admissibility is decided when the defendant accepts only part of a co-accused record; both concern the record's use but raise different problems.
따라서 피고인이 자신과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서의 내용을 부인하는 경우에는 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에 따라 유죄의 증거로 쓸 수 없다.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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 16 February 2023 (2022No2244), upheld the first-instance judgment that had found the defendant guilty of selling Philopon to A by relying on the copy of the prosecutor's interrogation record of A, among other evidence.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that using the record although the defendant and counsel had stated, in substance denying its content, that they did not consent to its use misapprehended the law in Article 312(1). It found that the remaining lawfully admitted and probative evidence alone was sufficient to sustain the conviction, so the defective part of the reasoning did not affect the outcome, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the defendant or counsel recognised the content of the interrogation record, since Article 312(1) permits its use only where the content is recognised.
- A record concerning a person who stands in no co-offender relationship with the defendant, since the rule extends only to co-offenders in the stated sense.
- An out-of-court statement not in the form of an interrogation record made by a prosecutor, since the provision addresses records the prosecutor drew up.
Record verification notes
First, put side by side what the defendant and counsel said about the co-accused's record, and check whether it amounts to denial of content or to recognition. Second, gather the remaining evidence separately and test whether it proves the charge on its own, because the Court treated the misuse as harmless only for that reason. Third, establish the co-offender relationship, including whether the acts were concurring acts of academic necessary joint offenders or concurring offences.
From the official text
Points at issue
2020. 2. 4. 법률 제16924호로 개정되어 2022. 1. 1.부터 시행된 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미 / 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에서 정한 ‘검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서’에 당해 피고인과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에는 강학상 필요적 공범 또는 대향범까지 포함하는지 여부(적극) / 피고인이 자신과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서의 내용을 부인하는 경우, 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에 따라 유죄의 증거로 쓸 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of 'when the content is acknowledged' in Article 312, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as amended by Act No. 16924 on February 4, 2020 and effective from January 1, 2022 / Whether 'a written statement of a suspect taken by a prosecutor' as provided in Article 312, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act also includes a written statement of a suspect taken by a prosecutor with respect to another defendant or suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant in question (affirmative), and whether the term 'accomplice' as used therein includes, in doctrinal theory, a necessary accomplice or an offense of opposing parties as well (affirmative) / Where the defendant denies the content of a written statement of a suspect taken by a prosecutor with respect to another defendant or suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant, whether it may be used as evidence of guilt pursuant to Article 312, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
2020. 2. 4. 법률 제16924호로 개정되어 2022. 1. 1.부터 시행된 형사소송법 제312조 제1항은 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력에 대하여 ‘적법한 절차와 방식에 따라 작성된 것으로서 공판준비, 공판기일에 그 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 그 내용을 인정할 때에 한정하여 증거로 할 수 있다.’고 규정하였다. 여기서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’라 함은 피의자신문조서의 기재 내용이 진술 내용대로 기재되어 있다는 의미가 아니고 그와 같이 진술한 내용이 실제 사실과 부합한다는 것을 의미한다. 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에서 정한 ‘검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서’란 당해 피고인에 대한 피의자신문조서만이 아니라 당해 피고인과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서도 포함되고, 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에는 형법 총칙의 공범 이외에도 서로 대향된 행위의 존재를 필요로 할 뿐 각자의 구성요건을 실현하고 별도의 형벌 규정에 따라 처벌되는 강학상 필요적 공범 또는 대향범까지 포함한다. 따라서 피고인이 자신과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서의 내용을 부인하는 경우에는 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에 따라 유죄의 증거로 쓸 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제312조 제1항
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