마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was notified of the defendant's right to refuse to make statements before the prosecution investigation conducted against the defendant before the commencement of the prosecution investigation, so the confession of the defendant received by the prosecution investigator before the preparation of the protocol cannot be deemed as evidence illegally collected, and it is admissible as a matter of course for examining the defendant's suspect.
B's legal statements are consistent, as well as there is no room for false intervention, and their credibility can be sufficiently recognized.
The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the suspect was not admissible and the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the suspect cannot be trusted, even though the facts charged of this case is fully acknowledged in light of the records of the prosecutor's office protocol and the prosecutor's statement in B, etc.
2. Determination
A. (1) The court below acknowledged the admissibility of evidence in the protocol of interrogation of the defendant by the prosecutor's office against the defendant (1) without notifying the defendant of the right to refuse to make statements at the time of investigation by the prosecutor's office against the defendant, and acknowledged the fact that the prosecutor's investigation officer informed the defendant of the right to refuse to make statements after the confession, and the defendant prepared a protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant. The court below determined that the confession of the defendant by the prosecutor's investigator before notifying the right to refuse to make statements as illegally collected evidence, and that the protocol of interrogation of the suspect by the prosecutor's office against the defendant, which is the secondary evidence acquired based on
(2) As to this, the prosecutor did not assert any argument regarding the Defendant’s failure to give notice of the right to refuse to make statements in the investigation process and in the court below’s trial. Rather, the suspect’s written protocol of interrogation of the suspect at the above prosecutor’s office states that the Defendant was notified of the right to refuse to make statements.