logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.06.21 2013노134
여객자동차운수사업법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. As to the vehicles listed in the separate list Nos. 1 through 3, 12, 14, and 26 among the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal does not allow the Defendant A to operate passenger transport business using the vehicles listed in the separate list Nos. 1 to 3, 12, and 14 through 26.

2. Determination

A. First, an ex officio examination of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a prosecutor is admissible as evidence only when the defendant who was the suspect or defense counsel acknowledged its contents at a preparatory hearing or a trial date.

In addition, if the defendant denies the facts charged continuously since the court of first instance, it is understood that even if the defendant entered in the evidence list as recognizing the contents of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the police, it is wrong to correct the protocol by recognizing the fact that the defendant stated as such or stated as such, and thus, the above protocol of interrogation does not have admissibility of evidence.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant A, which included the purpose of recognizing part of the facts charged on the second trial date of the court below, has been entirely acknowledged. The defendant's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant A, which included the purpose of recognizing part of the facts charged, should be deemed to have been recorded by mistake or mistakenly arranged the protocol. Thus, the above interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant No. 1, 3, 12, 14, and 26 among the facts charged in this case since the first trial date of the court below.

Therefore, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant A who has no admissibility of evidence.

arrow