[사법서사법위반][공1986.7.15.(780),898]
Whether the preparation of a complaint by an administrative secretary is a violation of Article 3 of the Judicial Police Act.
Although a criminal complaint is filed with the chief of the police station who is an administrative agency, it ultimately belongs to the scope of duties of a judicial secretary as provided in Article 2 of the Judicial Records Act, because it belongs to documents related to the duties of the court and the prosecutor's office. Thus, if an administrative secretary prepared the above complaint, it constitutes a violation of Article 3 (1)
Articles 2, 3(1), and 40 of the Judicial Secretariat Act
Supreme Court Decision 75Do1301 Delivered on January 13, 1976
Defendant
Defendant
Daejeon District Court Decision 85No57 delivered on December 19, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
Although the preparation of a criminal complaint is submitted to the chief of a police station who is an administrative agency, it ultimately belongs to the scope of the duties of a judicial secretary as provided in Article 2 of the Judicial Records Act, because it belongs to the documents related to the duties of the court and the prosecutor's office. Therefore, the application of Articles 3 (1) and 40 of the Judicial Records Act to the so-called "judicial Records Act" to the judgment of the defendant who is an administrative secretary is just (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1301, Jan. 13,
In addition, considering the evidence presented by the court of first instance, the defendant's "self-statement", which asserts the voluntariness, was not admitted as evidence by the court of first instance, as well as the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the voluntariness of confession or the evidence for reinforcement of confession, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground to see that the defendant did not have the awareness of illegality in the act of this case in the record. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to errors
Ultimately, all arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)