beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The statement of the D statement that recognized the admissibility of evidence by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is reliable, and according to the record, the court below found guilty of fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in this case, and judged that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and acquitted
2. Determination
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part concerning the fraud and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in the judgment of the court below is that “the defendant was given money under the pretext of solicitation as to the cases handled by the public official while receiving KRW 5 million in total, which is KRW 3 million from March 22, 2011, by deceiving D and deceiving D with the friendship with the senior public official even though he did not have the capacity to mediate the criminal case.”
In regard to this, the court below recognized only the part concerning dialogue or delivery of money between D andO only with the statement of the court below of the court below, the prosecutor's office of the defendant and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, and the police protocol of the prosecutor's office of the prosecutor's office of the prosecutor's office of the defendant, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant deceiving D by deceiving it, and that he received money as a solicitation with regard
B. First of all the judgment of this court, we examine the evidence (the statement of D and the protocol of interrogation of the accused's suspect) on which D's statement was written.
In the event the whereabouts of the person making the original statement or the person making the statement (hereinafter referred to as the “person making the statement or the person making the statement or the person making the statement (hereinafter referred to as the “person making the statement”) is unknown, recognizing the admissibility of evidence of the written statement or the written statement made by the witness is limited to cases where strict requirements are met, such as guaranteeing the right of cross-examination of the defendant or his defense counsel, etc.