[폭행치사,직무유기][공1991.2.15.(890),673]
A. The admissibility of evidence of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the inspector and the judgment criteria for the voluntariness thereof; however, whether the watchkeeping officer's duty performance is established in the event he/she retires without taking over duty while playing his/her duties after drinking alcohol at the inner base (affirmative)
A. The protocol of interrogation of the accused in preparation of the prosecutor's protocol is admissible unless there is a reason to suspect in particular that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrarily made if it is acknowledged to be genuine by the defendant's statement in the court room. In case where the accused contests that his statement is not made at will, the military court shall make a judgment with free conviction in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, etc. according to specific cases.
B. In the Army First Class who served as a watchkeeping officer on duty at the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, if he/she drinks alcoholic beverages with two school officer candidates at the Jami Army's training room while performing the duty of watchkeeping with two school officer candidates, two school officer candidates, and patriotic persons, etc. in the internal affairs team, and if he/she retires from the duty team without handing over or taking over the duty of a worker on duty to a worker on duty who will shift his/her own, the crime of abandoning duty is established.
A. Articles 361 and 365 of the Military Court Act, Articles 309 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 122 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,695) 86Do1429 delivered on September 23, 1986 (Gong1986,300) 83Do1718 delivered on November 25, 1986 (Gong1987,121) 87Do929 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Gong1987,1673) 87Do2048 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988,204) 88Do1251 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong190,65) 90Do64190 delivered on June 8, 1990 (Gong1964, Oct. 29, 209)
Defendant
Attorney Lee In-bok et al.
Military Court of Armed Forces in the Army, etc., 90No82 delivered on August 30, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
95 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
1. The grounds of appeal as to the act of assault and death by attorney Lee In-bok and the grounds of appeal by the defendant
According to the records, the defendant's protocol of examination of suspect prepared by his/her defense counsel recognized only the authenticity of each protocol of examination of the defendant, and the voluntariness of his/her statement is proved. The protocol of examination prepared by the military prosecutor of the defendant's suspect who became the defendant is admissible unless there are special reasons to suspect that the defendant's statement in the protocol of examination is not made arbitrarily. Where the defendant contests that his/her statement is not made arbitrarily, the military court should judge whether the defendant's statement was made arbitrarily by free examination of evidence according to specific cases, such as the type and contents of the protocol, the defendant's academic background, career, social status, intelligence, etc., and the defendant's testimony was not made at the time of the examination of the suspect's interrogation of the suspect's suspect's suspect's protocol prepared by his/her defense counsel, and there is no reason to view that the defendant's statement was made at the time of the examination of the defendant's personal history from the military prosecutor's own discretion until the time of such examination of facts, and there is no reason to view that the defendant's statement of evidence.
In addition, if the court below and the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below are examined by comparing them with records, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of the crime resulting from assault in this case, and the court below's decision did not properly conduct a hearing like the theory of litigation, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles or by exceeding the rules of evidence, or by omitting any error of law or judgment found erroneous
2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the waiver of attorney’s duty of dual interest.
The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that there was no justifiable reason to acknowledge the duty of the worker on duty and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes without any justifiable reason, since the defendant, from January 17:00 to 20:00, 24:00, 24:00 to January 5, 1990, 200, 24:00 to the duty officer of the 148 Reserve Forces of the 148 Reserve Forces, 3:00 to the duty officer of the 148 Reserve Forces of the 148 Reserve Forces of the 1990, 3:00 to the duty officer, 4:00 to the duty officer of the 24:00 branch of the 24:0 branch of the 199 Reserve Forces of the 148 Reserve Forces of the 1990.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)