상해
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On January 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 22:40 around Kimcheon-si, the summary of the facts charged: (b) on the ground that the victim E (49 years old) was sleeped in a restaurant; and (c) on the ground that the victim E (49 years old) was sleeped, the Defendant was sleeped at the victim’s fee and taken a drinking face; (d) on the other hand, the victim was sleeped with the detailed slick and the slick slick
2. Determination E cannot be admitted as admissibility of a written statement, since it was impossible to appear and make a statement on the trial date due to the death on June 20, 2017, and it was not proven that it was done under particularly reliable circumstances.
D The testimony of F, a restaurant operator, is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.
① Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes admissibility of evidence only where strict requirements are met, such as guaranteeing the right of cross-examination of a defendant or his/her defense counsel with respect to a written statement that a witness states or prepares.
Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the exception to basic principles such as direct psychological principle in the case of the death of a witness, and recognizes a new exception to the case of the death of a witness, and when it is proved that the statement or preparation has been made under particularly reliable circumstances, it is possible to grant admissibility of evidence without any opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the original statement.
Therefore, in such a case, “proof of whether a statement or preparation by a witness was made under particularly reliable circumstances” ought to be ensured to the extent that it is difficult and reasonable doubt is ruled out (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do12981, 2015 Do218, Jul. 18, 2017, etc.). The police investigated E in a way that the statement or preparation by a witness is substituted by a written statement of E, who is the franchise, without preparing the written statement statement of E, and conducted an investigation by the investigative agency. This is because E does not fall short of intellectual ability and the Defendant’s ability to express opinions.