Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Evidentiary competence of an investigator's court testimony on the defendant's statement
Supreme Court, Oct. 26, 2023, 2023Do7301 (judgment)
Case name: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when does an investigator's trial testimony reproducing the defendant's out-of-court statement become admissible as evidence, and who must prove that it was made in a state particularly worthy of belief, and to what degree?
Holding
The statement was made in a state particularly worthy of belief where there is almost no room for falsity to have entered into it and there are concrete, external circumstances that guarantee the truthfulness or voluntariness of its content. Because that state is an element of evidentiary competence, the prosecutor must specifically assert and prove it, and mere probability is not enough; the proof must exclude reasonable doubt. Admitting such testimony is a serious exception to the rule in Article 312(1) and (3), so allowing it too freely would greatly damage the purpose and function of those provisions.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 특신상태는 증거능력의 요건에 해당하므로 검사가 그 존재에 대하여 구체적으로 주장·증명하여야 하는데, 피고인의 수사기관 진술이 ‘특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음에 대한 증명’은 단지 그러할 개연성이 있다는 정도로는 부족하고 합리적인 의심의 여지를 배제할 정도에 이르러야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Since such a state of particular reliability is a requirement for admissibility of evidence, the prosecutor must specifically assert and prove its existence, and "proof that the defendant's statement to an investigative agency was made under circumstances in which it is particularly reliable" is not sufficient at the level of there merely being a likelihood that this was so, and must reach the extent of excluding all reasonable doubt.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘그 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음’이란 그 진술을 하였다는 것에 허위 개입의 여지가 거의 없고, 그 진술내용의 신빙성이나 임의성을 담보할 구체적이고 외부적인 정황이 있음을 의미한다
Unofficial English translation
Here, "that the statement was made under circumstances in which it is particularly reliable" means that there is little room for falsification to have been involved in the making of the statement, and that there are specific and external circumstances guaranteeing the reliability or voluntariness of the content of the statement
Factors
- 그 진술을 하였다는 것에 허위 개입의 여지가 거의 없고, 그 진술내용의 신빙성이나 임의성을 담보할 구체적이고 외부적인 정황이 있음을
- 증거능력의 요건에 해당하므로 검사가 그 존재에 대하여 구체적으로 주장·증명하여야 하는데
- 단지 그러할 개연성이 있다는 정도로는 부족하고 합리적인 의심의 여지를 배제할 정도에 이르러야 한다
- 중대한 예외를 인정하는 것이어서
Unofficial English translation
• there is little room for falsification to have been involved in the making of the statement, and there are specific and external circumstances guaranteeing the reliability or voluntariness of the content of the statement
• since it is a requirement for admissibility of evidence, the prosecutor must specifically assert and prove its existence
• it is not sufficient at the level of there merely being a likelihood that this was so, and it must reach the extent of excluding all reasonable doubt
• as it is to recognize a significant exception,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 12. 10. 선고 2015도16105 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do16105 decided December 10, 2015
Decisions referred to
대법원 2001. 9. 4. 선고 2000도1743 판결(공2001하, 2203), 대법원 2015. 12. 10. 선고 2015도16105 판결
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
이러한 특신상태는 증거능력의 요건에 해당하므로 검사가 그 존재에 대하여 구체적으로 주장·증명하여야 하는데
Unofficial English translation
Since such a state of particular reliability is a requirement for admissibility of evidence, the prosecutor must specifically assert and prove its existence
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances beyond the absence of a voluntary detailed statement of facts only the perpetrator could know can themselves establish the special state of belief to the required degree?
A later decision revising the meaning of the state particularly worthy of belief or the degree of proof would require this entry to be read again. So would a record showing that the defendant volunteered details only the perpetrator could know, or that the prosecutor proved concrete external circumstances the trial court did not weigh.
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 Busan District Court, in its judgment of 19 May 2023 (2023No469), assumed that the trial testimony of Police Officer A had evidentiary competence. On the strength of that testimony together with the hair analysis result, it held that the defendant had injected methamphetamine as charged and left the first-instance guilty judgment unchanged.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the officer's testimony carried the defendant's out-of-court statement as its content, so the prosecutor had to prove, excluding reasonable doubt, concrete external circumstances guaranteeing the truthfulness or voluntariness of what was said. The defendant had given the statement without counsel present, said nothing voluntarily that only the perpetrator could have known, first admitted the offence when the officer pressed for a urine sample and then changed the account after the officer confronted him with cell-phone base-station location. No such guaranteeing circumstances were found, so the testimony lacked evidentiary competence, and the court below misapprehended the law on investigator testimony; the judgment was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the defendant or counsel admits the content of the suspect interrogation record at the preparatory hearing or trial, since Article 316(1) is then not the route by which the statement reaches court.
- A case in which there are concrete external circumstances guaranteeing the truthfulness or voluntariness of the statement, such as a voluntary and detailed statement of facts only the perpetrator could know.
- A case in which the prosecutor asserts the special state of belief but the proof goes no further than making it probable.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the person who testified examined the defendant or took part in the examination before indictment, since Article 316(1) covers only that person. Then take each interrogation in turn: whether the account was given or withdrawn under pressure, and whether anything only the perpetrator could know was said voluntarily. Set the resulting circumstances against the level of proof required, and confirm that the prosecutor specifically asserted and proved the special state rather than leaving it to inference.
From the official text
Points at issue
형사소송법 제316조 제1항에서 정한 ‘피고인의 수사기관 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음’의 의미 / 이러한 특신상태의 존재에 대한 주장·증명 책임의 소재(=검사) 및 피고인의 수사기관 진술이 ‘특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음’에 대한 증명 정도(=합리적인 의심의 여지를 배제할 정도)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of "the defendant's statement to an investigative agency was made under circumstances in which it is particularly reliable" as provided in Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / The party bearing the burden of asserting and proving the existence of such a state of particular reliability (= the prosecutor) and the degree of proof required to establish that the defendant's statement to an investigative agency "was made under circumstances in which it is particularly reliable" (= to the extent of excluding all reasonable doubt)
Summary of the holding
형사소송법은 검사, 사법경찰관 등 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서는 그 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 공판준비 또는 공판기일에 내용을 인정하지 아니하면 증거능력을 부정하면서도(제312조 제1항, 제3항), 검사, 사법경찰관 등 공소제기 전에 피고인을 피의자로 조사하였거나 그 조사에 참여하였던 자, 즉 조사자의 공판준비 또는 공판기일에서의 진술이 피고인의 수사기관 진술을 내용으로 하는 것인 때에는 그 진술이 ‘특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음이 증명된 때’에 한하여 이를 증거로 할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다(제316조 제1항). 여기서 ‘그 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음’이란 그 진술을 하였다는 것에 허위 개입의 여지가 거의 없고, 그 진술내용의 신빙성이나 임의성을 담보할 구체적이고 외부적인 정황이 있음을 의미한다. 이러한 특신상태는 증거능력의 요건에 해당하므로 검사가 그 존재에 대하여 구체적으로 주장·증명하여야 하는데, 피고인의 수사기관 진술이 ‘특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여졌음에 대한 증명’은 단지 그러할 개연성이 있다는 정도로는 부족하고 합리적인 의심의 여지를 배제할 정도에 이르러야 한다. 피고인이나 변호인이 그 내용을 인정하지 않더라도 검사, 사법경찰관 등 조사자의 법정증언을 통하여 피고인의 수사기관 진술내용이 법정에 현출되는 것을 허용하는 것은, 형사소송법 제312조 제1항, 제3항이 피고인의 수사기관 진술은 신용성의 정황적 보장이 부족하다고 보아 피고인이나 변호인이 그 내용을 인정하지 않는 이상 피의자신문조서의 증거능력을 인정하지 않음으로써 그 진술내용이 법정에 현출되지 않도록 규정하고 있는 것에 대하여 중대한 예외를 인정하는 것이어서, 이를 폭넓게 허용하는 경우 형사소송법 제312조 제1항, 제3항의 입법 취지와 기능이 크게 손상될 수 있기 때문이다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제308조, 제312조 제1항, 제3항, 제316조 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