상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not injure C.
2. On September 28, 2013, at around 21:45, the Defendant: (a) immediately met a victim C (year 52) who had not been able to give appraisal prior to the 15 Incheon taxi platform of the Nam-dong Incheon-dong Incheon-dong 15 Incheon-dong, and was drinking, the Defendant sent the victim’s chest part of his chest to the drinking house; and (b) exceeded the victim’s floor, and caused the victim to go beyond the floor, thereby making it difficult for the victim to know the number of days of treatment.
3. Determination
A. Pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court: (a) admitted an interrogation protocol of the assistant judicial police officer C as evidence; and (b) found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged; and (c) admitted the admissibility
B. The above suspect interrogation protocol as to C does not consent to the defendant as evidence, and it is not acknowledged as authentic by the statement of the person making the original statement. Thus, the above suspect interrogation protocol can be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the person making the original statement or the person making the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Act, because it is impossible for the person making the original statement or the person making the statement to make a statement on the date
C. The phrase “when the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false intervention in the fact that the statement was made, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9661, Apr. 14, 2006). This refers to cases where the admissibility of evidence is recognized only when the strict conditions, such as the right of cross-examination of the defendant or his defense counsel, are met with respect to the written evidence, such as the statement of witness, etc. under Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act.