When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed(the Criminal Act §40). But when it comes to sentencing a defendant with multiple convictions at the same trial, the sentence on each conviction shall be merged to the most severe sentence(death, life imprisonment) or the aggravated sentence by one half of the maximum term/amount(determinate imprisonment, deprivation of qualification, suspension of qualification, fine, confiscation), or the sentences for each crime(different penalty) shall be imposed separately(the Criminal Act §37, §38). And when the defendant is adjudicated as committing multiple convictions spilt by an earlier final judgment with imprisonment at the following trial, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be imposed by considering equity with sentencing all convictions at the same trial, and the sentence may be mitigated or exempted(the Criminal Act §37, §39 ①). If amnesty or remittal is granted to any crime of multiple convictions, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be determined de novo(the Criminal Act §39 ③). In the execution of punishment for multiple convictions, the period of sentence already served shall be taken into account(the Criminal Act §39 ④). Recently the supreme court delivered a judgment that the defendant may be benefited by sentencing on multiple convictions only when she or he is adjudicated at the same trial or there is a possibility of adjudicating at the same trial. But when the defendant committed crimes before and after a judgment with imprisonment is finalized, she or he should be sentenced according to the equity and by the discretionary mitigation or exemption because the sentencing on multiple convictions and its execution is based on the principle of pro reo.

Although vivid testimony of the witness and/or the defendant in the courtroom is very important in fact-finding, hearsay evidences are widely accepted in relation to the criminal cases. Recently diverse medias such as documents, audio-tapes, video-tapes, computer discs or electronic files which recorded statements spoken by a private person under the private circumstance are available as evidences to prove the fact asserted in such statements.According to the Criminal Procedure Act in Korea the document which contains the statements of the defendant or the witness written by a private person is admissible when autograph, sign or seal of the writer or the speaker is certified and correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer or the speaker in the courtroom during the trial. But the document which contains the statement of the defendant is admissible when correctness of recording is confirmed by the writer in the courtroom during the trial and especially reliable circumstance is affirmed, even if the speaker deny the statement in the document.With regard to the admissibility of recorded statement, the authentication of record might be established by the speaker or the recorder. And the correctness of recording in principle should be confirmed by the speaker. But the defendant is inclined to deny his/her own past statement which may be construed as evidence leading to conviction. So the recorder might confirm the correctness of recording if the speaker made the statement under the especially reliable circumstance.

The hearsay rule was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Law by the Act No. 705, Sep. 1, 1961 in Korea. Any document which contains statements in place of the statements made at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt except as provided by a few articles of the Criminal Procedure Law(§310-2). The investigation report which contains statements of witnesses prepared by the public prosecutors or by the judicial police officers may be introduced into evidence if the genuineness thereof is established by the person who made original statements at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial(§312 (1), §313 (1)). If the witnesses are unable to be present or to testify at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial because of death, sickness, residing abroad or other reasons, the recorded statements of witnesses are not excluded by the hearsay rule(§314). And the probative value of evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judges(§308). Recently the innovative reformation of trial has been the hottest issue and the Criminal Procedure Law is amended by the Act No. Apr. 30, 2007. During that turmoil the Supreme Court ruled that even though the admissibility of recorded statements of witnesses is accepted on the basis of agreement between adversarial parties(§318), the credibility of those statements is extremely restricted in the case the confrontation right of the defendant is limited. The witness-investigation report may have probative values when the recorded statements are so accurate that they are self-evident or if other evidences collaborate the reliability of the recorded statements.