Degree of probative value of convictions

The evidence of conviction in a criminal trial should be sufficient to the extent of superior probative value, and should have probative value that makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt without any reasonable doubt.

Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do2178, 85Do311 Decided December 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1080 Decided August 19, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney-at-Law

Gwangju High Court Decision 85No166 delivered on February 28, 1986

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

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

원심은, 피고인의 제1심 법정에서의 진술, 증인 피해자의 원심 및 제1심 법정진술과 검사 및 사법경찰관 사무취급작성의 동인에 대한 각 진술조서의 기재를 종합하여 공소사실을 인정하고 있는바, 기록에 의하면, 피고인은 경찰이래 원심법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 공소사실을 극력 부인하며, 그가 1984.10.17. 10:00경 군산시 금동 소재 어판장 앞에서 피해자를 만나 동녀가 피고인이 선원으로 있는 제1 선박의 선장의 조카인 것으로 직감하고 동녀에 말을 걸었고, 돈을 빌려달라는 동녀를 피고인이 하숙하고 있는 군산시 장미동 8의2, 선경여관 3층 3호실로 데리고 가서, 동녀를 그곳에 기다리게 하고서 빌려줄 돈을 구하기 위해 밖으로 돌아다니다가 돌아와 여관에서 함께 점심을 먹은 후 여관을 나와 헤어졌다가, 그날 저녁 피고인이 부근 샤넬미장원에서 머리를 깎고 있는데 피해자가 다시 찾아와 15,000원을 빌려달라고 하기에 피고인을 중국음식점에 데리고 간 일이 있을뿐, 위 여관에서 동녀를 강간하려 한일은 전혀 없다고 변소하고 있음을 알 수 있다.

Therefore, the court below examined the evidence, first of all, denies the facts charged by the defendant to the court of original trial, and there was no statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the court of first instance. Ultimately, the court below collected statements from the victim's investigative agency, the first instance court, and the court of original instance to find the defendant guilty. If the victim's investigative agency's statements were made at the victim's investigative agency on October 17, 1984, the court below decided that the defendant was guilty. At the same time, at around 13:00 on the so-called "the first vessel captain of the Simsan-dong, the Simsan-si, the first vessel was approaching and approaching the first vessel, and the defendant tried to come out of the court of first instance, and he was waiting to go out of the court of first instance, and the defendant was waiting to go out of the court of first instance, and he was waiting to go out of the court of first instance, and then he was waiting to go out of the court of first instance.

그런데, 제1심 증인 박동섭의 법정진술에 의하면, 위 증인은 피고인의 동료선원인데, 그날 아침 피고인과 함께 피해자를 만나 함께 여관으로 와서 피고인과 피해자는 여관 3층으로 올라가고, 증인은 여관 2층에 있는 증인의 하숙방에 들어가 있었는데 증인이 여관에 있을 당시 비명소리 같은 것은 전혀 들은 일이 없고, 피해자가 여관을 나갈적에는 피고인, 피해자, 증인 등 세사람이 함께 나갔는데 그 때에도 피해자의 옷차림이나 표정 등에서 아무 이상스런 점을 발견할 수 없었으며, 셋이서 여관을 나와 근처 다방에 가서 함께 차를 마시다가 피해자가 취직걱정을 하기에, 증인이 잘 아는 샤넬미장원에 취직부탁을 해보겠다고 이야기한 바도 있다는 것이고, 제1심증인 최 임숙의 법정진술에 의하면, 위 증인은 위 여관의 주인인데, 위 여관은 방음장치가 전혀 되어 있지 않아 방안에서 나는 작은 소리도 모두 옆방이나 아랫층까지 들리게 되어 있으며, 그날 피해자가 피고인의 하숙방에 있을 적에 증인도 계속 위 여관에 있었으나, 구호를 요청하는 등의 이상한 소리는 전혀 듣지 못하였고, 그날 낮에 피고인, 피해자 등과 함께 여관 2층에서 점심을 먹었고, 그후 15:00경 피해자가 피고인 및 박동섭 등과 함께 여관을 나갈적에도 피해자의 옷매무새나 얼굴표정 등에 전혀 이상한 점이 없었으며, 피해자가 여관을 나간 후에 위 박동섭을 찾는다고 하며 세차례 정도 여관에 찾아온 일도 있다는 것이다(피해자 는은 제1심 법정에서, 취직건을 알아보기 위해 위 박동섭을 찾아 샤넬 미장원에 갔더니 피고인이 그곳에 있었다고 진술하고 있다).

In comparison with the statement of the victim, first, the victim stated that he was "no person" or "no person". Second, the victim was unable to listen to such sound on the second floor of the above 2nd floor where soundproofing devices are not installed. Second, the victim went away from the entrance. The above gambling interference and the maximum gambs, etc. naturally left the victim's room. The victim stated that she had no natural and abnormal points that could have been raped in the clothes gams or gambs, etc., and that there was no mental and abnormal points that could have been raped. Third, even after the above gambling, the victim, the victim and the gambs person tried to find out the vehicle by the victim, and the victim did not have been able to find the gambs or gambs of the above gambs and gambs of the victim, considering that the victim did not have been able to find it as the above gambling interference.

The evidence of conviction in a criminal trial is not sufficient to the extent of superior probative value, and it should have the probative value that can cause a judge to have a conviction to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt.

However, in this case, the victim's statement is extremely doubtful as mentioned above, and it cannot be seen that the protocol of inspection of evidence prepared by the judicial police officer, which was not presented by the court below, was prepared on the basis of the victim's statement, and there is no evidence to exclude such doubt.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty only on the basis of the macroficial evidence, so it is reasonable to discuss the appeal pointing this out.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)