Probative value of the protocol in which statements are written by non-suspects.

A protocol in which a statement of a person other than a suspect is written shall not be admitted as evidence unless the authenticity of its formation is recognized by the statement made by the person making the original statement in court, unless the defendant consents to the recognition of its formation in the courtroom, unless it is admitted by the statement made by the original

Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66No498 decided Jan. 19, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In recognizing the Defendant’s bodily injury by assault, the original judgment admitted the Defendant’s statement to Nonindicted 1 and 2 in the public prosecutor’s preparation, the written diagnosis to Nonindicted 3 in the preparation of a written verdict, and the written diagnosis to Nonindicted 2 in the preparation of a doctor’s career path as evidence.

However, a protocol containing a statement of a person other than a suspect is not accepted by the statement of the person making the original statement in the court or by the defendant's consent to the conclusion that the formation can be admitted as evidence even if the defendant acknowledged the formation in the court court. In light of the case records, the statement statement of the health department, the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 2 is not admitted as the authenticity of its formation in the court court, and the defendant's consent that it can be admitted as evidence even though it is admitted as evidence, all of the above statement statement cannot be admissible as evidence. Since each of the above medical statements is not proven as the authenticity of its formation in the court court, and there is no fact that the defendant did not agree to the authenticity of its formation by the statement of the person making the statement in the court court, and there is no fact that the defendant did not have consented to it as evidence, and even if there is no fact that it was presented at all, it cannot be admitted as the admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Therefore, according to Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.