A. Whether the prosecutor can examine co-defendants who are necessary co-defendants as witnesses in the investigation stage for the preservation of evidence (affirmative)

(b) Rights to participate in examination of witnesses in the procedure for preservation of evidence;

(c) Probative value of each of the contents on different trial records;

A. Even if the co-defendant and the defendant have a requisite co-defendant in relation to a bribe, the prosecutor may request the judge to examine the co-defendant as a witness, if necessary to preserve the evidence in advance at the investigation stage.

B. Where a judge examines a witness as a procedure for the preservation of evidence under Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he/she shall notify the public prosecutor, the suspect or his/her defense counsel of the date and place of the examination of witness in accordance with Article 163 of the same Act, different from the case of the examination of witness under Article 221-2 of the same Act, and give him/her an opportunity to participate in the examination of witness pursuant to Article 163 of the same Act, but he/she has consented that even if the defendant and his/her defense counsel are not given an opportunity to participate in the examination of witness, and where

C. In a case where the protocol of public trial containing two different contents concerning the same matter exists concurrently, both parties have the same probative value, and it shall be deemed that there is no heat in such probative value. Therefore, whether either of them is deemed true or not is a matter of determining the probative value of the protocol of public trial, and it is difficult for a judge to free examination of evidence by a judge.

(b)Article 184(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 308 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Do276 delivered on May 17, 1966, Decision 66Do482 delivered on June 28, 196, Supreme Court Decision 67Do1067 delivered on December 17, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 65Do826 delivered on December 10, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547 delivered on September 23, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Counseling, Han-Gyeong-Gyeong

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1396 delivered on July 14, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the Defendant and his defense counsel

Even if there are necessary co-defendants in the court below's relation between the co-defendants of the court below and the defendant giving and taking a bribe, a public prosecutor may request a judge to examine the co-defendants of the court below as witnesses if necessary to preserve evidence in advance at the investigation stage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Do276, May 17, 196; Supreme Court Decision 66Do482, Jun. 28, 196; Supreme Court Decision 67Do1067, Dec. 17, 1968). According to the records, the Seoul Criminal Court judge's examination of the co-defendants of the court below as witnesses at the request of the public prosecutor that it is necessary to examine the defendant as witnesses to preserve evidence in advance is just. However, if the judge examines the witness through the procedure of preservation of evidence under Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is not obvious that the defendant has an opportunity to participate in the examination of witness at the court below as witnesses or his defense counsel.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The prosecutor filed an objection to the accuracy of the protocol while claiming a change in the part in which the defendant's statement was written in the first trial record during the first trial date at the court of first instance, and the defense counsel stated an opinion that the entry in the protocol is correct. However, the chief judge of the first trial court stated that the request of the prosecutor was reasonable and ordered the Junior Administrative Officer who participated in the trial to change the entries in the first trial record at the request of the prosecutor, and it is obvious that the defendant made the statement to the same effect as the entries in the first trial record at the continuing examination at the court of first instance. It is obvious that the defendant made the statement to the same effect as those recorded in the first trial record at the court of first instance. Accordingly, the two trial records at the same time have the same probative value, and thus, it cannot be said that there is any heat in their probative value. Thus, when the entries in the second trial records conflict with each other, what part of the trial records should be deemed true, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the first trial court's judgment or the first instance court's judgment's judgment is unlawful.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

As to the third protocol of interrogation of the co-defendants of the court below prepared by the prosecutor and the statement of the witness in the court of first instance, in light of the results of the examination of evidence in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, it is recognized that the statement of the court below co-defendants of the court below and the court of first instance had been made voluntarily,

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

If the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below are examined by comparing it with records, it can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant received 4,500,000 won in cash as a bribe in relation to duties from the co-defendants of the court below at around 19:00 on June 26, 1985 at the second cafeteria 19:0,000, and the judgment of the court of first instance is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

5. Ultimately, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)