The credibility of the statements made by the Judicial Prosecutor General that witnesses and arrests the defendant's crime is inconsistent with the statements made by the victim.

The statements made by the judicial police assistant that the defendant escaped from the handbag of the victim by his accomplice who gets off the front of the victim, and the victim runs away from the victim's handbag, is not reliable in view of the fact that the victim is unable to memory such situation.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant Saryary and Appellants for Custody

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2700,83No538 Decided February 16, 1984

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defendant and the defense counsel are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant habitually combines with the non-indicted 1 on April 15, 1983, and uses the gap in which passengers are mixed at the new village bus stops located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul with the passengers, thereby placing the so-called wind on the side of the victim's red scarde, and the non-indicted 1 cut off cash of 5,050 won and 5,000 won in the handbag of the above victim's shoulder, in which the above victim scarkes, and then cut off cash of 5,00 won in cash and 5,00 won in two handets by retail.

2. According to the records, the records include the non-indicted 3's statement, the statement of the private-indicted 1's home, the testimony in the first and second trials, and the statement of the judicial police officer's preparation of handling affairs against the victim, as evidence supporting the above recognition of the court below, and the testimony of the second instance court by the victim.

First of all, Escopic and Escopic are those who arrest the defendant and directly investigate the defendant as judicial police assistant, and the summary of the statement is that two other police officers have stopped in the second floor area between the bus stop and delivery of the above bus stop and that two other police officers have escaped from the bus stop. While the defendant was carrying about about 20 buses, while he was waiting for the behavior of getting about 20 buses, he could not walk the victim's front in order for the defendant to get out of the bus, the accomplice who was later under the victim's order to get out of the bus stop and gets out of the victim's handbag.

However, the above victim did not memory the work at the time of the court below's decision, but only stated that it is the case where the police is the victim's remarks. Meanwhile, according to the statement of the victim prepared by the above party as the judicial police assistant, the above victim made a statement to the effect that there were many people around the bus at the time of leaving the bus at the bus's bus stops, and that he did not listen well to the right side, and that he could not know about whether there was a person who was snick in the right side or behind, and that he could not know at all because he did not regard it. If the defendant acted to the extent that he would prevent the victim from leaving the front and leaving the horse, such behavior of the defendant could not be memory at all at the time of the police investigation.

Furthermore, according to the testimony at the second instance of the above 3rd trial, four persons, including the above 3rd party and the sick party, were holding a camera for the purpose of shooting the scene of the crime of retailing. However, if the above persons had considered the defendant's behavior as a water level, and it was possible to see the above behavior of the defendant in the second instance, the reason why the defendant was unable to take a photograph is not stated in the record.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty only by the above testimony of the police officer who arrested the defendant and investigated the defendant is just a ground for discussing this point, since the judgment of the value of evidence and the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations are justified.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)