A. The admissibility of evidence of the witness's testimony and the statement about the witness's testimony that the defendant directly reported that he had committed a crime while he was investigated by the police.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it found the defendant guilty of rape injury without any evidence in violation of the rules of evidence

A. The above evidence is inadmissible inasmuch as the witness’s testimony and each statement of statement in the judicial police officer, and the prosecutor’s preparation are not different from the contents of the defendant’s statement when the defendant was investigated by the police while the defendant was investigated by the police, and directly reported the victim to seek a letter. The witness’s testimony and each statement of statement in the judicial police officer and prosecutor’s preparation are all the contents of the defendant’s statement when he was investigated by the police.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it found the charge of rape injury without any evidence in violation of the rules of evidence.

Articles 312(2) and 316(1) and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do385 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983,1367) and 83Do2799 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984,407) (Gong1985,455) decided Feb. 13, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Il-chul

Daejeon High Court Decision 94No201 delivered on June 23, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) around 04:00 on August 27, 1993, the defendant opened a door at the seat of the victim (hereinafter referred to as "the victim at the age of 21 years") located in the Chungcheongnam-gun Design map (hereinafter referred to as the "defensive"), and prevented the victim from getting out of being out of being able to rape the victim's seat and getting out of being locked by intrusion upon the victim's room; and (b) around three times at the face of the victim's face, the court below dismissed the defendant's testimony at the court below, which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged of the crime of 10 days in consideration of the following circumstances: (c) the victim's non-confising the victim's secret interest and the victim's non-confising the victim's secret interest, and the victim's non-indicted 1 was unable to take out and attempted at the wind of the victim; and (d) the victim's testimony and the market value of the above 1010%."

2. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s recognition that the Defendant was the immediate criminal who tried to rape the victim.

The direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case is that the police officer, prosecutor's office, prosecutor's office, prosecutor's office and prosecutor's office, and the defendant committed a crime against the police officer in the course of investigation conducted in this case from the present seat of the victim and the victim's money, and the defendant directly reported the victim's death to the non-indicted 1, the police officer in the course of investigation into the present seat of the court below, and the defendant directly reported the victim's death to the non-indicted 1, the police officer in charge, and the defendant's request for a letter of suspicion. Each statement of the non-indicted 1, the police officer's preparation of each statement of the court police officer, the past record of the prosecutor's investigation, the past record of the prosecutor's preparation, each statement of the statement of the Kim Yong-il, the witness Kim Jong-ok, the front record of the court of first instance, and the testimony of non-indicted 1

(1) Examining the circumstances and circumstances at the time of the instant crime by Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the first instance trial and the lower court’s trial, the Defendant, who was a technical employee of the Central Elevator, had been in charge of the instant crime, was placed in a beer factory for the same cause before the occurrence of the instant accident, and was able to get out of the said present drawing and lodging. In order to carry out the elevator installation work, the Defendant was able to ask Nonindicted Party 1, who was in charge of the instant accident, to leave the scene near the victim’s house at the time of the first instance trial and the lower court’s trial. The Defendant, who was in charge of the instant investigation, was able to find out the victim’s face while leaving the front door of the instant case, and was able to find out the victim’s seat on the day of the instant accident. However, the Defendant, who was in charge of Nonindicted Party 1’s scambling and scambling the victim’s door on the day of the instant accident.

(2) Next, we examine the credibility of each of the statements made by the victim and Nonindicted 1 to the effect that the defendant is not a criminal offender in light of the circumstances surrounding the above recognition.

(가) 피해자가 경찰에서부터 원심법정에 이르기까지 범인의 외모와 인상착의에 관하여 한 진술을 종합하여 보면, 범인은 키가 작고 말랐으며 안경을 쓰고 있었고, 범인 얼굴의 앞 부분 특징은 잘 식별하지 못하였으나 옆모습은 확실하게 보았는데, 귓바퀴의 중간부분(또는 귀밥)이 뒤로 제쳐졌고 이마가 뒤로 경사졌으며 얼굴이 타원형이 아니었다는 것이며, 비록 야간이었지만 날이 새고 있었고 범인과 5분 내지 10분(또는 10분 내지 15분) 동안 이야기를 하였기 때문에 확실히 범인을 식별할 수 있었다는 것이다.

However, the victim initially stated in the police that the time of crime was 3:4 o'clocks, and Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement at 3:0 o'clocks, and the victim made a statement at the prosecutor's office that 4:0 o's time was 4:0 o's time when the crime was committed. However, according to the fact-finding in the court below's astronomical register even if the latter's statement is correct, the time of the crime was 05:55 o's week, Daejeon, 05:58 o's week, and Daejeon, 00:07 o's week, and Daejeon, 00:11 o's week was 2 hours before the victim's house and 00:0 o's week was 4 hours after the end of the month. Thus, it can be said that there was a lack of measures for the victim at the time.

In addition, the victim was 0.3 to 0.5 and 0.5, and the victim was frightened, and she was frightened, and she was frightened, and at the time she was frightened, one of the things at the time she was frightened. / While she was street lamps, she was testified at the court below that she was not frightened (as a photograph attached to the 138th of the trial record, she can be known that she was frighten in the inside of the victim's house and there is considerable difference from the victim's house), and in the prosecutor's office, "the she was frighten in the kitchen, and the offender was frighten in the front of the kitchen, but the she was frighten when she was frighten in the front of the victim's house."

If so, at the time, the victim cannot be seen as observing the characteristics of the offender's face sufficiently as it is possible to identify the same person later because the victim did not respond to the fact that the police did not respond immediately when the victim testified at the court of original instance, but the victim did not respond to the fact that the defendant's appearance in the protective room does not seem to be conclusive by considering the defendant's appearance and appearance in the protective room. However, it is clear that the victim's appearance in the protective room is about the defendant's appearance and the degree of slope of the ma, which appears in the middle part of the face, can not be seen as being identified later. Thus, the victim cannot be seen as observing the characteristics of the offender's face sufficiently as it is possible to identify the same person later.

그런데 어두운 방안에서 범인의 정면을 바라보고 있었던 피해자가 날이 밝은 후에 앞모습을 보고는 피고인을 범인으로 단정하지 못하였으면서 옆모습을 보고는 범인으로 단정하였는데, 범인으로 단정한 옆 얼굴 특징이 귓바퀴의 중간부분이 뒤로 젖혀졌다는 것과 이마가 뒤로 경사졌다는 정도에 불과하다면, 피고인과 범인이 동일인임이 분명하다는 취지의 피해자의 진술은 신빙성이 없는 것이라고 하지 않을 수 없고, 키가 작고 말랐으며 안경을 쓰고 있었고 귓바퀴의 중간부분이 뒤로 제쳐졌고 이마가 뒤로 경사졌으며 얼굴이 타원형이 아니었다는 취지의 범인의 외모와 인상착의에 관한 피해자의 진술만으로 범인이 피고인과 동일인이라고 단정할 수는 없을 것이다.

(나) 다음으로 범인이 입고 있던 상의가 자주색 티셔츠였는데 그 색깔이 피고인의 방안에서 발견된 티셔츠와 똑같았으므로, 피고인이 범인임에 틀림없다는 취지의 공소외 1의 진술의 신빙성에 관하여 보면, 공소외 1은 경찰 이래 원심법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 진술하기를, 당시 피해자의 방에서 나는 소리를 듣고 또 부부싸움을 하는 줄로 알고 부엌에 불을 켠 후 건넌방을 거쳐 피해자의 방에 들어갔더니, 범인이 도망가려고 반대편 창문을 발로 서너번 찼으나 방문은 열리지 않고 유리창만 깨지니까 범인이 어쩔줄 몰라 왔다갔다 하기에 붙잡으려고 보니까 안경을 쓴 조그만 사람이 뿌리치고 건넌방 쪽으로 도망을 갔다는 것이다.

Thus, Non-Indicted 1 only sent a criminal during a very locking type of a motor vehicle, and it is very difficult for Non-Indicted 1 to accurately classify the colors of Titrts suffered by the criminal at night. Even if it is autonomous color, it is difficult to conclude that Non-Indicted 1’s testimony was the same as the color of the defendant’s Titrts immediately.

In particular, Nonindicted Party 1 stated at the police that “I, at the time, she had been in our house by suffering from e-mail so that I had been in my house, and asked at the time, so I would like to know if I am in my self-fe-fe-fe-mail, and we can see that I would am in my own color, and if I would am in my arms, I would like to know if I would am in my arms and sell. I would like to know. At that time, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know how I had known about how I had tts suffered by the offender, and that the victim had talked with the offender for five to ten minutes, was also a serious color, and that I would like to doubt how I could accurately distinguish the clothes of the offender at night during the moment when I escaped.

Thus, there is no credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement to the effect that the defendant and the same person are not the same as the defendant’s body color, kis and kis of the defendant’s clothes as the offender’s body color at night, and written with his awareness. / Even if the color of clothes kept by the defendant was the same as the color of the defendant’s body color, such fact cannot be a direct evidence to acknowledge the defendant’s guilty of the crime of this case.

C. Next, according to the contents of each statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2,

3. However, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor is merely circumstantial evidence and does not constitute direct evidence to support the instant facts charged. However, even if such circumstantial evidence and the statements made by the victim and the victim on the external appearance and face characteristics are combined, it seems that the Defendant would not be the criminal. As such, it is difficult to view that the instant facts charged was proven to the extent that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt by the judge.

In the end, the court below has maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found the above facts charged guilty without any evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is a reason to challenge the reversal.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)