A. The meaning of "when the contents are recognized" under Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. The case denying admissibility of evidence of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the assistant judicial police officer on the ground that the defendant consistently states that confessions made before the assistant judicial police officer were false, and that the statement of "content recognition" written in the protocol of trial contains errors, etc.

A. Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not mean that the contents of the protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than the prosecutor are recorded as the contents of the statement (the contents are included in the authenticity of the document), and that the contents of the statement as mentioned above are consistent with the facts.

B. The case holding that if the defendant consistently stated that the confession before the judicial police assistant was false from the prosecutor's office to the court of the court below, the contents of the protocol of suspect interrogation prepared by the judicial police assistant should be deemed not to have been acknowledged. Thus, although the defendant stated on the trial date in the court below's records that he recognized the contents of the protocol, the above protocol shall not be admissible as evidence prior to the determination of credibility on the ground that it was erroneous in the protocol since it was stated as the defendant's statement, or that there was an error or fact that the defendant stated as such, as stated in the

Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney General Law Office and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93No1860 delivered on May 26, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the case of this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not conviction, since the suspicion that the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim, even though the defendant was finally accompanied by the victim, and was in the vicinity of the scene at the time when the victim was rescued, etc., is likely to inflict an injury on the victim, and there is a possibility that the victim suffered an injury by being in a cement corner, and there is a possibility of injury by a third party other than the defendant. In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below examined the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the record, and it does not seem that there is no evidence to directly recognize the defendant's crime except the protocol of examination of judicial police assistant prepared as evidence denied as evidence, and further, the facts charged about the motive or method of crime do not seem to be reliable or consistent with the examination.

The prosecutor argues in the ground of appeal that in the second suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the judicial police assistant, the defendant was led to the crime of this case, and then the prosecutor denies the above confession by the defendant to the court of original trial, and that the confession statement before the judicial police assistant was not consistent with the truth, although there was a false statement, if the defendant did not commit a crime, it cannot be accepted in accordance with the experience law, the defendant's second suspect examination protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant cannot be accepted as evidence, and it is against the rules of evidence that he did not accept the confession under the second suspect examination protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant which recognized the authenticity and contents of the above defendant.

According to Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor may be admitted as evidence only when the defendant who was the suspect or defense counsel admitted the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or a public trial date. The above provision does not mean that the contents of the above suspect interrogation protocol are recorded as the contents of the statement (which refers to the matters which belong to the authenticity of the document), and that the contents of the statement are consistent with the actual facts. According to the records of this case, the defendant is consistent with the defendant's statement that the above confession before the judicial police assistant was false until the court below was held by the public prosecutor. Thus, the defendant of this case must be deemed not to recognize the contents of the above suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant (According to the original trial record, the defendant of this case is stated as recognizing the contents of the above evidence on the third public trial date, but the above statement is deemed to have been recorded as the defendant's statement, or it appears to have been corrected by mistake that the defendant stated as the facts or stated

If so, the protocol of interrogation of the above judicial police assistant cannot be admissible prior to the judgment of credibility.

Therefore, there is no reason to raise an appeal to criticize the court below's measures against the interrogation of suspect who has no admissibility of evidence, and to criticize the contents of such examination.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)