도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground of appeal is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, although the statement of police officer E in the court of original instance, which controlled the drinking driving of the defendant, was admissible under particularly reliable circumstances, without recognizing the admissibility of evidence in the above E's statement.
2. Determination:
A. First, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant is inadmissible, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.
In addition, the defendant's statement about driving circumstances among the report on the status of driving under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the driver under the direction of the defendant under the direction of the defendant under the direction of the investigative agency under the direction of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant under the jurisdiction of the investigative agency regardless of its form and its legal nature
B. Next, the police officer E, who controlled the defendant by drinking alcohol driving, stated in the court below that "the defendant was found to have driven alcohol at the time when the police officer arrests the defendant," falls under the case where the statement made by a person other than the defendant on the trial date is the content of the defendant's statement. Such statement is admissible as evidence when the defendant's statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4814, Sept. 8, 200; 2001Do3106, Oct. 9, 2001; 2004Do482, Apr. 27, 2004). However, the court or the documents stating the testimony made by the above police officer to the effect that the defendant properly led the defendant to the crime at the time when the police officer arrested the defendant at the time of arrest or investigation, and so long as the defendant's statement was denied before the police officer.