Sudden Confession After Court Detention... Supreme Court: "Credibility of Confession Must Be Examined"

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a defendant suddenly confesses to the crime after being taken into custody in court, the credibility of such a confession cannot be automatically assumed.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on August 7, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Ma Yongjoo) overturned the appellate court's decision, which had sentenced Defendant A to one year in prison with a two-year suspended sentence for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (resulting in death), and remanded the case to the Jeju District Court.

In October 2020, Defendant A was put on trial for allegedly causing the death of a motorcycle driver by colliding with the motorcycle while making a left turn onto a two-lane road from a tractor on a rural road in Seogwipo, Jeju.

The court of first instance acquitted A. The trial court found that there was no evidence to support the prosecution's claim that A entered the road without making a temporary stop. However, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. Citing concerns about destruction of evidence and risk of flight, the appellate court ordered A to be taken into custody in the courtroom. Afterwards, A's attorney submitted a statement asserting that "the defendant, after hearing the judge's indication that he did not have the right of way at the intersection, realized his mistake and fully admitted his fault." Based on this, the appellate court found A guilty.

The Supreme Court overturned and remanded the case, stating that when a defendant suddenly confesses to the charges after being taken into custody in court, the credibility of such statements must be thoroughly examined. The justices noted, "A person who is detained during investigation or trial may feel tempted to make a false confession in order to regain freedom," and emphasized, "When assessing the credibility and probative value of a confession made suddenly after detention, particular caution is required."

The court further stated, "The appellate court should have exercised its authority to clarify the facts and seriously examined the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses who had been called at the time, through cross-examination. Nevertheless, the appellate decision, which relied primarily on the defendant's statements made during the trial as the main evidence for conviction, misunderstood the law regarding the credibility and probative value of confessions, resulting in an error that affected the outcome of the verdict."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.