This article discusses a murder case involving a superstar concert, focusing particularly on the interaction between the police and the defendant. The confession of the defendant during police interrogation becomes a central controversy, especially when the police inform them of the potential legal consequences of not confessing. The main points of the article are as follows: 

The article begins by describing the case, mentioning that the defendant, due to their participation in the superstar concert and role as the president of the fan club, entered the superstar’s dressing room alone before the concert. When the superstar had not yet appeared, screams were heard from the dressing room. Upon investigation, the superstar was found lying in a pool of blood while the defendant sat nearby with blood on their hands. The defendant was taken away and remained silent during police questioning until the police informed them of the potential legal consequences, after which they confessed to the murder. 

The focus is on whether the police violated the defendant’s right to silence. The article mentions Article 156, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with “inducement,” and whether informing the defendant of the legal consequences is indeed crucial. The Supreme Court unanimously held that if the information about the legal consequences is true, it does not constitute “inducement,” and therefore the defendant’s confession should not be excluded. However, whether this interpretation complies with Article 95, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants the defendant the right to remain silent, is debated in the article. There are differing views in legal scholarship, some arguing that the defendant should have complete freedom to decide whether to speak and not be influenced by external factors. 

The analysis section points out that Supreme Court rulings often rely on the concept of “statutory admonition,” considering informing the defendant of the legal consequences as civilized and not a violation of the right to silence. However, there are differing scholarly views suggesting that the defendant should have complete autonomy in maintaining silence and should not be bound by “statutory admonition.” 

The conclusion emphasizes that the key lies in “how” law enforcement officers inform the defendant of the potential legal consequences. If, in a situation where the defendant has already indicated a desire to remain silent, law enforcement officers continue to persuade them, it may violate the defendants right to silence. Ultimately, the article argues that in assessing whether a confession is made freely, the specific circumstances, including the defendant’s desire to remain silent, should be considered comprehensively.