The case denying the admissibility of evidence of each protocol of examination prepared by a prosecutor and not guilty on the grounds that the confession of the defendant was made by the suspicion of an investigative agency in an illegal confinement and the establishment of voluntariness and authenticity is denied, in the retrial case on the case where the defendant, who is the shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot, and the defendant

The case denying the admissibility of evidence of each protocol of examination prepared by a prosecutor and not guilty on the ground that the confession of the defendant was made by the suspicion of an investigative agency in an illegal confinement and the establishment of voluntariness and authenticity is denied, in the retrial case on the case where the defendant, who is the shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-s

Articles 309, 312, 420 Subparag. 7, and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Sho Lakes

Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Cho Yong-hwan et al.

Jeonju District Court Decision 84Gohap109 delivered on November 15, 1984

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

It is as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination:

(a) Evidence that has no admissibility;

(1) Each protocol of examination of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

According to the statement of each person subject to investigation as to Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by the investigator of the past history conciliation committee (hereinafter “AD”) in the statement of the defendant in this court, the defendant’s statement in this court, the record of appeal, and the return of evidence in this court (the trial records in the case subject to review); the statement of each person subject to investigation as to Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by the investigator of the past history conciliation committee; and the statement of each person subject to investigation as to Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by the investigator of the past history conciliation committee, the defendant only graduated from an elementary school after birth in the open field; the defendant can only use 14 years after his life as a seafarer; ② the defendant was affiliated with the security unit prior to May 26, 1984 and was investigated under an illegal confinement without a warrant from that time to June 27, 1984; ③ the security investigator of the military unit prepared the suspect examination committee as to whether the defendant was subject to investigation during the above illegal period or not.

According to the above facts, even if there was no suspicion of the defendant at the time when the prosecutor examined the defendant and prepared each protocol of interrogation of the defendant, the status of the defendant's hearing without voluntariness due to illegal confinement, assault, or cruel act continues to continue the above protocol of investigation of the prosecution. Thus, each protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor as to the defendant is inadmissible as it has no ar

(2) Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, each written statement prepared by the judicial police officer against Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, each written statement prepared by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, and each written statement prepared by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 3,

According to the statement made by the Defendant in this court, Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 in this court, the statement made by Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 in this court, and each statement made by the investigator of the past investigation committee as to Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, the fact that Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 together with the Defendant during their opening hours from July 1970 to December 1972, 2, Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 were examined by the former Security Unit around June 1984, and that Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 were examined by the former Military Prosecutors' Office in relation to the facts charged in this case, and that Nonindicted 3 was detained for 6 weeks at the time of the investigation by the North Korean Military Prosecutors' Office, and that Nonindicted 4 and 5 were arrested by the prosecution and 5, and that Nonindicted 3 were arrested by the prosecution and 5, and that Nonindicted 4 were arrested by the prosecution and 5, and that it was confirmed that the investigation was conducted within 9 years before the prosecution or 6th day.

According to the above facts, Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 made a statement at the above preceding state security unit in a state of voluntariness, and Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 continued to continue to continue to continue to continue the above prosecutor's investigation stage. As such, each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, each written statement prepared by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, and each written statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5, and each written statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 3, 4,

(3) ① Each protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by a judicial police officer denies its content, and ② each protocol prepared by the accused at the police investigation stage is not admissible as evidence to the effect that it denies its content. As such, all of the protocol is inadmissible.

(4) Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; ② each written statement prepared by a judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13; ③ each written statement prepared by a prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14 are admitted as evidence by the Defendant; and in this court, all of the written statements are inadmissible.

(5) ① The part of the Defendant’s statement in the actual investigation report prepared by a judicial police officer, as evidence to the effect that the Defendant denies its content, is consenting to the remainder of the statement as evidence, and this court did not recognize the authenticity by the originator, and thus, there is no admissibility. ② The part of the Defendant’s statement in the investigation report prepared by a judicial police officer, as seen in the above (1), is not voluntary as shown in the above (1), and the remainder of the statement made by the Defendant, as evidence, is consenting to the Defendant’s use as evidence, and this court did not recognize the authenticity by the originator. Therefore

B. The remaining evidence 1) The probative value

(1) Part of the trial records in the first and second cases subject to review

According to the above evidence, although the defendant made a statement to the purport that he/she recognized the facts charged at the first trial of the case subject to reexamination, the above evidence is hard to believe, considering that the defendant was illegally detained by the security unit of the previous state, and the defendant committed harsh acts, according to the defendant's statement in this court, the security unit investigator at the above trial date of the case subject to reexamination continued to exist on the above trial date in light of the fact that the defendant's investigation officer at the above trial date of the case subject to reexamination was found to have been in the court, and as seen above, the defendant did not read or use almost his/her Korean language as stated in the facts charged, so it is difficult to assemble and read the secret code as stated in the facts charged, or send him/her a letter to the broadcasting station.

(2) The protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 8 in the third protocol of the trial for the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the Facts of the prosecution)

According to the above evidence, even though it is recognized that Nonindicted 8 made a statement that he was the Defendant by asking him about the fact of the placement and installation of soft, etc. of Cheongdo's Navy at the third trial date of the case subject to reexamination, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware of national secrets, such as the charge No. 1 (A) on the ground that this is based on Nonindicted 8's trend.

(3) Each protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 in the third protocol of trial of the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (b) of Article 1 of the Facts of prosecution)

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 stated in this court that Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 stated that they had talked differently from the facts at the time of suspicion or fear by the investigative agency, it is difficult to believe this.

(4) The protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 10 among the third protocol of the trial of the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (3) of Article 1 of the Public Prosecution Act)

According to the above evidence, although it is recognized that Nonindicted 10 made a statement that he was asked by the Defendant about the organization of the reserve forces and the method of keeping arms from the Defendant on the third trial date of the case subject to review, according to the Defendant’s statement in this court and the third trial record, the Defendant did not ask Nonindicted 10, a commander of the reserve forces, to the above above questions, and as to the organization of the reserve forces, it is difficult to believe the above evidence in light of the fact that the Defendant could recognize the fact that he was educated in the reserve forces training.

(5) The protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 9 in the third protocol of the trial for the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (2) of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, in the third trial of the case subject to review, Nonindicted 9 made a statement from the Defendant on the date of the third trial of the case subject to review that “the fishermen in the north are superior to that in the north, and the two Koreas also come to the fishermen’s colleges.” Even though the fishermen are aware that the fishermen were to receive free of charge if they get sick, it is difficult to believe the above evidence in light of the fact that according to the Defendant’s statement in this court, the investigator’s statement in the investigator’s statement of witness to Nonindicted 9 in the past History Adjustment Committee’s preparation, it can only be recognized that the Defendant took part in North Korea.

(6) The protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 7 in the third protocol of the trial for the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (f) of the first protocol of the prosecution)

According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that Non-Indicted 7 was asked by the defendant on the third trial date of the case subject to review on the duties, location, number of employees, equipment, etc. of the maritime inquiry station established at an intermediate point between the Gunsan and the Yancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the head of the Dong-gun, and made an answer. However, according to the defendant's statement in this court, and each statement of witness's statement made by the investigator of the investigation committee about the defendant at the time, all times times entering and departing from the military port at the time was subject to inspection by the above maritime inquiry office, and the defendant also had the above maritime inquiry office at all times. According to this, even if the defendant did not ask Non-Indicted 7 about the above contents, it is difficult to believe the above evidence.

(7) The protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 14 of the fourth trial record of the case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (1) of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant participated in the industrial inspection of the North Korean defectors on June 17, 1983 and visited the military fighting power plant. However, according to the statement statement of the witness on Nonindicted 14 prepared by the investigator of the Investigation Committee of the past History Settlement Commission, 30 persons were in the above industrial inspection and 10 police officers were in charge of leading the above fishing team, and the above fishing team employees were in charge of guiding the above fishing team according to the course determined by the above fishing team. According to this, it is deemed impossible for the defendant to detect the situation of security because the defendant was out of the confusion during the above industrial inspection. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the above evidence alone detection of national secrets as stated in the facts charged by the defendant as the second paragraph of the charges.

(8) A certificate, etc.

In addition to the above evidence, it is insufficient to recognize each of the charges of this case solely on the written confirmation of the 5030 commander in the Navy, each written confirmation of the preparation of the 5030 commander, each written confirmation of the preparation of the 2632 commander in the NA, the confirmation of the preparation of the 2632 commander in the coast guard register in the Army, the confirmation of the preparation of the Korea Coast Guard Register in the Gunsan District, the document of the preparation of the Maritime Police Register in the Gun

3. Conclusion

Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime as seen earlier, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Jeong Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) A written return of the records of appeal and evidence submitted by the prosecutor is accompanied by the records of the trial in the case subject to a retrial, which are attached to the above evidence, and an expression that the said evidence is attached to the protocol of the trial in the case subject to a retrial, and the protocol of examination of witness