[1] Persons subject to the application of Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and those who make a statement by a specialist include a defendant's statement before the investigation agency other than the prosecutor, and where the defendant denies the contents of the statement, whether the statement is admissible (negative)

[2] The case holding that admissibility of evidence cannot be admitted in light of the provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and its purport, as long as the defendant denies the contents of the statement in court, in the case where the investigative police officer made a statement to the effect that the victim led the defendant to be present in company with the victim for questioning with the victim, and that the defendant's statement was not denied in court

[1] Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the examination of a suspect conducted by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor shall be deemed imminent guarantee of credit, and even if authenticity and arbitability are recognized in a trial or preparation procedure, it is legislative to deny admissibility of evidence unless it is acknowledged by the defendant or his/her defense counsel who made the original statement in the trial or preparation procedure. In light of the legislative intent and the text of the law, it is not applicable only to the interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor of the defendant who made the original statement, and it is not applicable only to the interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor of the defendant who made the suspect, and it is applicable only to the interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor of the defendant who made the former suspect. Thus, in case where the statement of a specialist is made by the defendant before the investigative agency other than the

[2] The case holding that admissibility of evidence cannot be admitted in light of the provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and its purport, as long as the defendant denies the contents of the statement in the court, in the case where the investigative police officer made a statement that the victim led the defendant to be present in company with the victim for questioning the victim about his identity, and as long as the defendant denies the contents of the statement in court

[1] Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1905 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2912), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2287 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1783)

Cho Man-man

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Changwon District Court Decision 2000No232 delivered on September 8, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an interrogation of a suspect conducted by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor shall be deemed imminent guarantee of credit, and thus, even if authenticity and voluntariness are recognized in the interrogation of a suspect, it was legislated to the effect that the admissibility of evidence is denied unless the defendant who is the original person, or his/her defense counsel admits the contents in a public trial or its preparation procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2287, Mar. 24, 1995). In light of the legislative intent and the text of the law, it is not applicable only to an interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor of the defendant who was the suspect, and it shall be deemed that the statement made by the former public prosecutor itself is subject to the application of the investigation agency other than the public prosecutor. Thus, in a case where the statement made by the professional person is denied the contents of the statement made by the defendant before the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor, it shall be deemed inadmissible regardless of whether the contents of the statement are written in the interrogation protocol or whether the professional is a third person, not a victim (see.

According to the records, even if the defendant made a statement of confession of his crime to the victim, such statement by the investigative police officer was made on March 26, 1999 after the defendant arrested the defendant, and the second examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant against the defendant on March 26, 1999 after the date of the second examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant against the victim. Thus, since the defendant's statement by a professional witness who made a confession from the defendant is denied the contents of the statement in court, the admissibility of evidence cannot be acknowledged in light of the provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and its purport.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as alleged in the

2. In light of the records, the decision of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and there is no evidence to prove the defendant's criminal facts, is just and there is no error of misconception of facts due to

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

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)