[특정강력범죄의처벌에관한특례법위반(특수강도){인정된죄명:특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(강도)·절도}][미간행]
[1] The procedural requirements to enhance the credibility of the victim's statement in the criminal identification procedure based on the suspect's appearance, etc., and the degree of credibility of the victim's statement in cases where one suspect in the criminal identification procedure face face-to-face with the victim or listens to the victim's voice only for the suspect and confirms
[2] The case holding that the victim's criminal identification statement is highly reliable despite the procedural defect
[1] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7033 delivered on February 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 579) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1461 Delivered on June 10, 2005
Defendant
Defendant
Attorneys Jeon-soo et al.
Daejeon High Court Decision 2006No65 decided June 21, 2006
The appeal is dismissed. 84 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In order to evaluate the credibility of the victim's statement in the criminal identification procedure through the appearance, etc. of the suspect, a detailed statement or description of the victim's statement or description concerning the suspect's appearance, etc. shall be recorded in advance. The victim's statement or description, including the suspect, shall be conducted concurrently with several persons similar to the suspect, and the suspect shall not be in contact with the victim, and the suspect and the victim shall not be in contact with the suspect in advance, and the face-to-face process and result shall be taken in writing so that the value of evidence may be evaluated later, and the victim's voice may be heard solely with the victim or the suspect's voice and confirmed the criminal shall be conducted in writing. In addition, it is dangerous that the victim's statement in the criminal identification procedure may reduce the victim's malicious cancer that the suspect is suspected of being a criminal under the limit and inaccurate and detailed circumstances. Thus, the victim's statement in such a method shall be deemed to have been conducted in addition to 200, if the suspect and the suspect are aware of the previous suspect, 2013.574.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's judgment and the first instance court's judgment that Co-defendant 1 did not know that the defendant was the defendant's accomplice at the time of the crime, and that the defendant was not the defendant's accomplice at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant's statement that he was not the defendant's accomplice at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant was merely the defendant's face at the time of the crime of this case. However, according to the non-indicted 2's statement that the defendant was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant's statement that he was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant's statement that he was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case was not the defendant's witness at the time of the crime of this case.
The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the credibility of a criminal identification statement by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)