[직무유기,뇌물수수][공1989.11.1.(859),1531]
Whether the issuance of a detention warrant constitutes a pre-trial intervention (negative)
The case where a judge has issued a warrant of detention to a defendant at the stage of investigation shall not be deemed to fall under "the case where a judge is involved in the previous trial or the investigation and trial based on which it is based" under Article 17 subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure
Article 17 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 68Do817 Decided July 22, 1969
Defendant
Defendant
Attorneys Kim Yong-sik et al.
Daegu District Court Decision 88No724 delivered on February 17, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment on the Defendant’s first ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of a statement in the supplemental appellate brief submitted by the defense counsel after the deadline for the supplemental appellate brief)
If the court below and the first instance court's evidences maintained by the court below are examined by comparing them with records (if the defendant and the defense counsel are excluded from the statement of each statement in the order of full-time preparation, which is alleged to have no admissibility of evidence), they may fully recognize the defendant's criminal facts of abandonment of duties and acceptance of bribe, which the court below found guilty, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to erroneous facts or a crime of abandonment of duties in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason to discuss.
2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2
Where a judge has issued a warrant of detention to a defendant at the stage of investigation, it shall not be deemed to fall under "when a judge is involved in the previous trial or an investigation and a trial based on which the case is based" (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do817, Jul. 22, 1969). Thus, there is no reason to discuss the case.
3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3
According to relevant evidence and records, it is not only recognized that the order of the witness stand in the second trial of the court of first instance recognized the authenticity of the establishment of the interrogation protocol for the suspect himself prepared by the public prosecutor, but also recognized that the statement, which is its content, has been made voluntarily. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the interrogation protocol for the order of the interrogation of the suspect prepared by the public prosecutor
4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)