Adoption of evidence and effect of the decision of the prosecutor's protocol without examination of evidence;

Although the protocol of the prosecutor’s protocol adopted by the court below as evidence was insufficient to have gone through legitimate evidence examination, it was erroneous in the evidence examination despite the lack of admissibility, the criminal facts of this case are recognized even if based on other evidence.

Articles 312 and 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 82No3574 delivered on July 28, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below's decision and the first instance court's decision, which did not dismiss the evidence, are sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance court, and it is not recognized that there was an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, as pointed out in the process of finding the facts, as pointed out in the court below's reasoning.

In addition, according to the records, the protocol of statement or protocol of examination of the defendant prepared by the labor inspector, which was pointed out by the court below, cannot be the object of controversy as to whether or not there is evidence ability, because it is obvious that the court below did not prove it, and since the protocol of statement on the territorial sea of the Park Jong-chul, which was written by the public prosecutor, has no trace of evidence investigation process, it is not admissible and there is no other evidence, and even if it is based on evidence other than this, it is not a result of the judgment, it shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The facts of the judgment of the court below are interpreted as follows: since the defendant was established on Jan. 13, 1953, when changing the name and representative of the non-indicted corporation and established the non-indicted corporation as stated in the judgment of the court below to become the representative director, it is interpreted to the effect that the above business is the employer who actually continued to be the defendant

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)