성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수강간)등
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
1. On January 14, 2020, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence with respect to rape around 22:00 among the part of the defendant's case, and rendered a judgment of conviction with respect to the remaining part of the defendant's case ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for 15 years. As to the defendant's and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant") filed an appeal with respect to the above guilty part and the claim for the attachment order, the court below's judgment of acquittal without both parties became final and conclusive separately (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992, etc.). Accordingly, the scope of judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the defendant's case (hereinafter "the charges charged") and the part concerning the attachment order claim.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the legal principles on admissibility of evidence 1) When the police seizes a black SD card installed in the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “SD card of this case”), the Defendant did not state that he would bring the said vehicle keys to the police or would bring the said vehicle to the police, and the Defendant was not guaranteed the right to participate in the seizure process.
Therefore, this case’s SDR constitutes illegally collected evidence, and the seizure protocol (voluntary submission No. 27), list of seizure (Evidence List No. 28), voluntary submission (Evidence List No. 29), protocol of seizure (Evidence List No. 60), total list of seized articles (Evidence List No. 61), digital evidence custody confirmation (Evidence List No. 62), each witness and digital information delivery confirmation (Evidence No. 63,64), previous file CD (Evidence No. 65), suspect A’s vehicle image file recording (Evidence No. 69), black image CD (Evidence No. 70) collected by unlawful evidence is also inadmissible as secondary evidence collected by unlawful evidence.
2) The police officer is the defendant.