Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Co-suspect statements denied at trial as evidence of guilt
Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 2026, 2025Do20396 (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: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Even where a co-suspect's written statement taken by an investigating authority other than the prosecutor satisfies the requirements of Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, may it be used as evidence of the defendant's guilt when the defendant denies its content at the trial hearing, and does 'accomplice' for this purpose include necessary accomplices and opposing parties?
Holding
No. Even if a co-suspect's written statement, taken by an investigating authority other than the prosecutor, satisfies the requirements of Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it may not be used as evidence of the defendant's guilt once the defendant denies its content at the trial hearing. For this purpose, 'accomplice' includes not only accomplices under the general provisions of the Criminal Law but also necessary accomplices and opposing parties in the scholarly sense, which require only that opposing acts exist while each realises its own statutory elements and is punished under a separate penal provision. 'Recognises the content' means that what was so stated accords with actual facts, not that the record transcribed the statement as given.
Points at issue, verbatim
피고인과 공범관계가 있는 다른 피의자에 대하여 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서가 형사소송법 제312조 제4항의 요건을 갖추었더라도 해당 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인한 경우, 이를 유죄 인정의 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에 강학상 필요적 공범 내지 대향범도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 위 규정에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
Whether, even where a statement of the suspect prepared by an investigating authority other than a prosecutor with respect to another suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant satisfies the requirements of Article 312, paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it may be used as evidence to support a finding of guilt if the defendant denies its content at a trial date (negative) / Whether the 'accomplice' referred to therein also includes, in doctrinal terms, a necessary accomplice or a counterpart offender (affirmative), and the meaning of 'where the content is admitted' in the foregoing provision
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 춘천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
형사소송법 제312조 제3항은 "검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서는 적법한 절차와 방식에 따라 작성된 것으로서 공판준비 또는 공판기일에 그 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 그 내용을 인정할 때에 한하여 증거로 할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 312, paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides: "A statement of the suspect prepared by an investigating authority other than a prosecutor may be admitted into evidence only where it has been prepared according to lawful procedures and methods and the defendant, who was the suspect, or the defense counsel admits its content at a preparatory hearing or at a trial date."
Factors
- 피고인과 공범관계가 있는 다른 피의자에 대하여 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서가
- 형사소송법 제312조 제4항의 요건을 갖추었더라도
- 해당 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인한 경우
- 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에 강학상 필요적 공범 내지 대향범도
- 위 규정에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
• A statement of the suspect prepared by an investigating authority other than a prosecutor with respect to another suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant
• even where it satisfies the requirements of Article 312, paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
• where the defendant denies its content at a trial date
• whether the 'accomplice' referred to therein also includes, in doctrinal terms, a necessary accomplice or a counterpart offender
• the meaning of 'where the content is admitted' in the foregoing provision
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 6. 11. 선고 2016도9367 판결(공2020하, 1425)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9367 decided June 11, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 1425)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2007도6129 판결, 대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010도5040 판결(공2010하, 1529), 대법원 2020. 6. 11. 선고 2016도9367 판결(공2020하, 1425)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
For what purposes other than proving guilt may a co-suspect's written statement taken by a non-prosecutorial authority be used when the defendant denies its content at trial?
The remand judgment of the Chuncheon District Court will show how the rule is applied on remand and whether any remaining evidence supports the sale charge. Any amendment to Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or a later decision addressing permissible non-guilt uses of co-suspect statements, 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) · 2026-10-24
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 “For what purposes other than proving guilt may a co-suspect's written statement taken by a non-prosecutorial authority be used when the defendant denies its content at trial?” vs Independent “Can admissible evidence obtained on remand establish the disputed methamphetamine sale?”
The primary asks about uses of the excluded record other than proving guilt, while the independent asks whether admissible evidence on remand can establish the methamphetamine sale.
피고인과 공범관계가 있는 다른 피의자에 대하여 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서가 형사소송법 제312조 제4항의 요건을 갖추었더라도 해당 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인한 경우, 이를 유죄 인정의 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에 강학상 필요적 공범 내지 대향범도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 위 규정에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미Raw 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 Chuncheon District Court, in its judgment of 14 November 2025 (2025No657), upheld the first-instance conviction on the charge of selling methamphetamine. It held that the co-suspect's police statements and the investigative report on the co-suspect's testimony had evidentiary capacity, and relied on them together with the defendant's partial courtroom testimony to convict. The first-instance order of KRW 100,000 in confiscation on the drug use charge was also kept.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that even where a co-suspect's statement taken by a non-prosecutorial authority satisfies Article 312(4), it cannot be used as evidence of guilt once the defendant denies its content at trial. The defendant and defence counsel stated that they did not consent to use of the statements, and the record's notation that the defendant had consented at the first trial hearing to use of the investigative report was either a clerical error or an entry wrongly summarising as consent the fact that the co-suspect had so testified, and in no event gave the report evidentiary capacity. With only the defendant's partial courtroom testimony remaining and the defendant denying the charge, the sale conviction could not stand; because the sale part and the use part were concurrent offences under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Law and had been sentenced to a single punishment, the entire judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the defendant or defence counsel recognises the content of the statement as factually accurate at the preparatory or trial hearing, so that Article 312(3) is satisfied.
- A case in which the statement was taken by the prosecutor rather than another investigating authority, since Article 312(3) governs only statements by authorities other than the prosecutor.
- A case in which the suspect whose statement is at issue has no accomplice relationship with the defendant, even in the broad sense covering necessary accomplices and opposing parties.
Record verification notes
First confirm who took the statement, since the rule governs only statements by an authority other than the prosecutor. Then check the hearing record for whether the defendant or defence counsel denied the content, and for any notation of consent to use of the statement or the investigative report, because a notation of consent with denial of evidentiary purpose does not by itself confer evidentiary capacity. Finally, establish whether the defendant and the suspect are in an accomplice relationship, including as necessary accomplices or opposing parties, since the rule reaches that far.
From the official text
Points at issue
피고인과 공범관계가 있는 다른 피의자에 대하여 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서가 형사소송법 제312조 제4항의 요건을 갖추었더라도 해당 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인한 경우, 이를 유죄 인정의 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 여기서 말하는 ‘공범’에 강학상 필요적 공범 내지 대향범도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 위 규정에서 ‘그 내용을 인정할 때’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
Whether, even where a statement of the suspect prepared by an investigating authority other than a prosecutor with respect to another suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with the defendant satisfies the requirements of Article 312, paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it may be used as evidence to support a finding of guilt if the defendant denies its content at a trial date (negative) / Whether the 'accomplice' referred to therein also includes, in doctrinal terms, a necessary accomplice or a counterpart offender (affirmative), and the meaning of 'where the content is admitted' in the foregoing provision
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 춘천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제312조 제3항, 제4항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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