상해
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Around August 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 17:40 on August 4, 2014, the summary of the facts charged: (b) around 17:50, the Defendant: (c) made a dispute with the victim D (the age of 58) and drinking, which was known from China, on the front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C on the road in front of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (d) made it difficult for the Defendant to d (58 years of age); (c) and (d) caused a
2. Determination
A. There is only a statement in D’s police as direct evidence that can be acknowledged that the Defendant used assaulting and injuring D as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
However, the above evidence did not consent to the defendant as evidence, and it was proved by the statement of the person making the original statement or the authenticity of its establishment was not proven by the statement of the person making the original statement.
B. We examine whether the above evidence is admissible under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Article 314 and Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “When a statement or preparation has been made under particularly reliable circumstances” refers to cases where there is little room for false entry in the preparation of the content of the statement or the protocol or documents concerned, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the content of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 2006). Furthermore, in cases where the whereabouts of a witness is unknown, it is recognized that the admissibility of the statement or the written statement made by the witness is admitted. As such, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the admissibility of the evidence of the written evidence, such as the statement of witness, provided that the cross-examination right of the defendant or his defense counsel is guaranteed, so that the admissibility may be recognized only when the strict conditions are met, thereby recognizing an exception to the basic principles such as direct psychological principle, etc.