Whether a protocol prepared by a judicial police officer handling affairs is a protocol prepared by a person without authority (negative)

Since the protocol of interrogation, statement of witness, and seizure protocol prepared by the judicial police officer handling affairs, are those prepared by the judicial police officer to assist the investigation affairs under the direction of the prosecutor under Article 2 of the Judicial Police Officers Act and Article 196(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, they cannot be deemed as the protocol prepared by the unauthorized person.

Article 196(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 2 of the Rules on Judicial Police Officers

Supreme Court Decision 69Do1884 Decided December 9, 1969

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-soo (National Assembly)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No815 delivered on March 24, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty days, out of the days of detention pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

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

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, among the records adopted as evidence of this case, the protocol of examination of suspect, statement of witness, and seizure prepared by the judicial police officer, but such protocol is a document prepared by the judicial police officer to assist in investigation under the direction of the prosecutor, etc. under Article 196 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 2 of the Rules on the Duties of Judicial Police Officials based on these records, so it cannot be deemed a protocol prepared by any person without authority (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do1884 delivered on December 9, 1969). According to the records, the court of first instance decided the simplified trial procedure under Article 286-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act by confessioning the criminal facts by the defendant and co-defendant of the court below, and accordingly, it cannot be deemed as consent of the defendant to the preparation of administrative affairs by the judicial police officer under Article 318-3 of the same Act and it cannot be deemed as evidence, and even if each of the above protocol contains any defects in the short term statement or evidence, it cannot be admitted as evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the inclusion of detention days in the calculation of detention days.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)