beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant entered a victim D’s white sewage farm located at Jeju around 16:30 on October 12, 2015, into the victim D’s white sewage farm at around 1,550,000 won in total, thereby capitaling the 26 ppuri 1,550 won in his/her hand.
In addition, from around that time to November 5, 2015, the total market price of 3,700,000 won was stolen on seven occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Table.
2. Determination
A. The main evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged in the instant case lies in witness E and D’s respective legal statements, reports on site identification results, field photographs, etc.
B. First, among the witness E’s legal statement, a statement that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she recognized a crime is admissible as evidence, when it is proved that the statement at the trial date of a person other than the Defendant is the content of the Defendant’s statement, and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, it can be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.
In this case, the term “when the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances” means that there is little room for false intervention to the fact that the statement was made, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement. The evidence is sufficient to the extent that it is likely to do so, and there is room for reasonable deliberation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do725, Apr. 30, 2014). We can see: (1) The witness who was a police officer in charge has the character of “F” has the character of “F” in the same market; (2) the victim’s speech is doubtful that the victim’s oral investigation is doubtful; and (3) the defendant discovered the defendant at the place of the above increase while making a criminal investigation; and (4) the defendant appears to have made a statement in the process of the crime; and (2) the defendant appears to have made a normal statement in the process of making the statement.