Whether the statement made by the police officer in charge on the process of inspection or seizure is admissible if the defendant gives consent to the protocol of inspection of evidence as evidence (affirmative)

Even though the defendant denies the discretion of the statement made by the police and does not consent to the police inspection protocol as evidence, the statement made by the police officer in charge of the process of inspection or seizure cannot be admitted as evidence.

Articles 146, 216, and 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 89No458 delivered on November 29, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant and defense counsel:

In light of the records, the court of first instance, cited by the court below, can fully recognize rape and robbery in the judgment of the defendant, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of evidence preparation.

In addition, even though the defendant denies the discretion of the statement made by the police and does not consent to the police inspection protocol as evidence, the statement made by the police officer in charge of the process of inspection or seizure cannot be admitted as evidence even if the defendant does not agree to the inspection protocol. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and twenty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won