Korean criminal responsibility and evidence
Start with the principle of legality: identify the offense and apply the statutory elements without extending criminal liability by an analogy unfavorable to the accused. Separate the prohibited conduct, required mental state, unlawfulness and culpability. A result alone does not prove intent, and a voluntary failure to act requires analysis of the relevant legal duty before it is treated as commission by omission.
Defenses also have elements. Self-defense concerns a current unlawful infringement and a response supported by the applicable requirements; it is not permission for revenge after the danger ends. Mistake of law is not automatically an exemption simply because the defendant says the prohibition was unknown. Identify the legal standard and the facts supporting or undermining it.
Criminal procedure supplies independent safeguards. Determine whether evidence is admissible before asking how persuasive it appears. A confession suspected of involuntary extraction cannot be treated as reliable merely because it fits an investigator’s theory. Korean criminal procedure also requires corroboration rather than conviction resting only on the defendant’s confession. Written interrogation records and statements by other persons involve distinct admissibility requirements. Do not collapse them into a single rule that every official document proves its contents. Practice explaining both the substantive offense issue and the procedural evidence issue in a concise, fact-linked answer.