[공무집행방해등피고사건][고집1967형,93]
Evidence of the victim statement prepared by the prosecutor
Even if the defendant denies the authenticity of the written statement of the victim prepared by the public prosecutor, if the victim was adopted as a witness and was summoned as a legitimate witness, but the court below issued a writ of arrest, but it cannot hear the statement made by the person making the original statement because it was impossible to execute it, the written statement constitutes a case where the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement on the court date due to other reasons as prescribed in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is admissible unless there are special grounds
Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant 1 and three others
Prosecutor
Seoul District Court (66Da23645)
The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 is dismissed.
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 3, and 4 shall be reversed.
Defendant 1, 3, and 4 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.
The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 180 days each included in the original sentence.
The Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal on the instant case are as follows:
First, the court below rejected the prosecutor's non-indicted 1's statement, which corresponds to the above facts charged, for the reason that there is no proof of violation of the Punishment of Violence Act against the defendant 1, 3, and 4, and further rejected the prosecutor's non-indicted 1's allegation that the contents of the statement of the court below as to non-indicted 2 were denied the above facts charged before the court below's decision and the prosecutor's statement of non-indicted 1, which was not admissible as evidence of the above facts charged, because the prosecutor's non-indicted 4's prosecutor's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's statement and the defendant's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted - the defendant's non-indicted 3's non-indicted - the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted - the defendant's non-indicted 3's non-indicted -indicted 3's evidence evidence.
The criminal facts and evidence relations acknowledged by a member against Defendant 1, 3, and 4 are the same as those in the original trial except for the criminal facts and evidence relations added after the following. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
around 23:20 on October 13, 1966, Defendant 1, 3, 4, and deceased non-indicted 6 jointly moved to the victim non-indicted 1, who was passing around 131 in Yang Dong-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul around 13:20 on October 13, 1966, and Defendant 3 1 gets off the vision without any reason, and Defendant 1 attached a son's upper arms to the alley so that he was towed up to about 40 meters away from 40 meters away from her upper arms, and Defendant 1 turned off the son's, etc., and Defendant 6 in the war committed an act of assaulting the son's face with the son's hand.
The facts of the judgment, as the case may be, shall be
1. Each statement that conforms to the facts contained in the judgment of the court below and in the trial court of a party branch;
2. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 in response to the facts stated in the judgment
As a whole, there is sufficient proof.
In the court below's decision, there is a criminal offense against Defendant 1, 3, and 4 in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act, Article 260 (1) of the same Act, and Article 136 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 136 (1) of the same Act and Article 30 of the same Act are criminal offenses against Defendant 3, since the defendant's obstruction of performance of official duties constitutes criminal offenses against Defendant 3, under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, repeated crime is aggravated, and several crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below's decision shall be delivered with the order of each of the above Articles 38 (1) and Article 50 (2) of the same Act, within the scope of punishment competition with punishment for the serious crime of obstruction of official duties under Article 57 of the same Act.
Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)