logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.06.27 2018노50
국가보안법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not confession all of the crimes at the court of first instance in the case subject to review, but actively expresses his/her opinion by denying the crimes with respect to part of the facts charged; (b) the joint Defendants were denied all of the crimes; and (c) G, an accomplice, at the appellate court of the case subject to review, denied the crimes with respect to the part of the facts charged other than those in relation to the Defendant and his/her accomplice; and (d) the Defendant and G continued to have any voluntary state of absence

shall not be deemed to exist.

In full view of the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the principal part of the crime in the above court, G also made a statement consistent with the facts charged, the court below judged otherwise and sentenced the defendant not guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each protocol, statement, and written statement of suspect interrogation prepared by the investigative agency among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be admitted as evidence, and, in the case of a statement made by the defendant, D, or G in the court of first instance in the case subject to retrial, the state in which the defendant, D, or G has no voluntary nature caused in the course of investigation

As it is difficult to see it, the Voluntaryness is not recognized, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the charge against the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant tried to talk about the facts at the time of the trial of the case subject to review, but it was too difficult for the court below to reach the age.

The personnel of the Central Information Department shall be the protection.

arrow