[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][공1982.11.1.(691),919]
Co-defendant's legal statement and admissibility of examination protocol of suspect who is prosecuted for separate facts and is conducting consolidated trial.
Co-defendant who is prosecuted for separate facts from the defendant and is conducting consolidated trial shall be a witness with respect to the facts constituting the crime of the defendant, so the co-defendant's statement without oath or interrogation of the suspect against the co-defendant who does not consent to the defendant as evidence shall not be admitted as evidence to recognize the facts constituting
Articles 318 and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 78Do1031 Decided March 27, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 82Do898 Decided June 22, 1982
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No6263 delivered on March 17, 1982
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the evidence presented by the first instance court, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment on the ground that it is sufficiently sufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant.
However, according to the records of the judgment of the court of first instance, Co-defendant 2 denies all the facts charged at the prosecutor's office and court. The statement of the court of first instance on the record of the prosecutor's protocol is without any relation to the facts charged of this case. The statement of the witness cannot be found on the record, and the witness's seat, the witness's testimony, and the witness's testimony on the witness's own as witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's oral appearance, and there is no fact that the defendant's witness's witness's witness's oral appearance (fact) or flick's face's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's oral and witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's testimony.
If the injury of Nonindicted 2 was caused by his own act, the medical certificate cannot be used as evidence for the crime of this case, and no evidence exists to prove the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that supported the judgment of the court of the court of first instance that found the facts charged only with macroscopic evidence that does not constitute evidence or credibility of the case is erroneous in finding facts against the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, and therefore,
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)