Admissibility of evidence of the test result of a false terminal detection device

First, in order to recognize admissibility as evidence with factual relevance to the result of the inspection of a false terminal detection device, there is a change in a certain psychological condition, second, the changes in the psychological condition must cause a certain physiological reaction, third, the determination of whether the words of the person is false or not by the physiological response can be made accurately. In particular, the determination of whether the last physiological response is false or not shall be a device that can accurately measure the physiological response of the person who has consented to the examination, the determination of whether the final physiological response is false or not shall be a device that can be able to accurately measure the physiological response of the person who has consented to the examination, the technology and method of the examination shall be rational, and it shall be possible for the inspector to ensure the accuracy only if the person has the ability to objectively and accurately read the measuring content of the detection device, and so long as the conditions of the examination are not satisfied, the admissibility of evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act can not be granted to the results of the inspection of the false terminal detection device unless various requirements are met.

Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do36 Decided March 13, 1984 84Do277 Decided April 9, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Hong Sung-woo

Seoul High Court Decision 85No1076 Decided June 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding admissibility of evidence of the examination results of a false speech detection machine, the principle of examination of a false speech detection machine takes place when a person makes a false speech, such changes in psychological condition due to books of conscience or concerns about scoppy. Under the premise that this is caused physiological reaction to respiratory pressure, beer, skin, etc., this is decognizing whether a false testimony is admissible or not. As such, first, if it is possible to recognize admissibility as evidence having factual relations with the above examination result, a change in a certain psychological condition occurs, second, the change in the psychological condition is not always consistent with a certain physiological response, and the defendant’s ability to make a false testimony at the time of his physiological response is not necessarily satisfied, and the defendant is not obliged to make a false testimony at the time of the examination, and the defendant is not obliged to make a false testimony at the time of the examination, and there is no other premise that the defendant is not obliged to make a false testimony at the time of the examination, and in particular, it is not possible to have a reasonable and objective method of examination to determine credibility and reliability of the examination.

2. With respect to the credibility of the statement of the witness on board:

According to the records, the above witness was the head of the above 5-day cafeteria, which had been 5-day, see the above 5-day garrecing and 1-day garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the above 6-day garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the above 6-day garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the above 5-day garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the above garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the 1-day garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the above garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the suspect’s garrecing of the above garrecing and 5-day garrecing of the suspect’s garrecing, and the defendant would have been subject to an investigation by the court of the first instance on the 1-day 2-day.

As seen above, the witness's statement is first of all, 03:15 times before and after the witness's appearance, which is 03:15 times before and after the witness's appearance, and it is hard to view the witness's face as the witness's face before and after the witness's appearance, even if the witness's appearance was 03:00 on the road in the Youngcheon cafeteria where the witness works, until 02:40, the witness's statement was 15 meters after the witness's appearance from the Youngcheon cafeteria and the witness's appearance was 15 meters after the witness's appearance. Thus, it is hard to view that the witness's appearance was 8:0 times after the witness's appearance and the witness's appearance were 15 meters after the witness's appearance and the witness's appearance were 5:0 times after the witness's appearance and the witness's appearance were 5:0 days after the witness's appearance and the witness's appearance were 80 days after the witness's appearance.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the statement made by the witness in favor of the witness is just and it cannot be argued that it is the preparation of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. As to the evidence regarding the crime relevance of seized articles, etc.

(가) 원심이 확정한 사실과 기록에 의하면, 이 사건 폭발현장에서 압수된 증 제9호(스윗치 작동 동선판이라는 것)는 연분홍색 페인트 얼룩이 묻은 합판조각에 두줄의 동선을 박아 만들어진 것으로서 피고인이 제작한 폭발물에 쓰여진 스윗치 작동장치라하여 증거로 제출되어 있으나, 같은 증 제9호의 합판조각은 이 사건 폭발에도 불구하고 전혀 손상된 흔적이 없고, 그 표면에 묻은 연분홍색 페인트 얼룩 역시 전혀 오염된 흔적이 없이 말짱하다는 것인바, 이 사건과 같이 한 사람이 사망에 이르게 되고 그가 앉아 있던 마루바닥에 구멍이 뚫릴 정도의 화력을 가진 폭발과정에서, 다른 물건들은 모두 손상되었는데도 그 폭발물에서 나왔다는 같은 증 제9호만이 위와 같이 아무런 손상없이 말짱하였다면, 같은 증 제9호는 그 폭발물에서 나온 것이 아니어서 이 사건 폭발사건과는 사실상의 관련성이 없지않나 하는 강한 의문이 생기고 따라서 그와 같은 증거상의 의문이 해결되지 아니한 이 사건에 있어서는, 같은 증 제9호에 대비된 피고인으로부터 압수된 증 제20호 내지 제27호(연분홍색 페인트 얼룩이 있는 합판조각들)의 각 존재와 이에 대한 각 감정결과 및 그 각 감정인 심상로, 박종철의 각 진술내용 모두는 이 사건과의 증거관련성의 근거를 상실하였다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그렇지 않고 같은 증 제9호가 이 사건 폭발물에서 나온 것으로서 이 사건과 관련이 있다 하더라도 기록에 의하면, 같은 증 제9호와 같은 증 제20호 내지 제27호의 페인트 얼룩이 각 그 색상, 성분, 분사형태에 있어 동일한 것이기는 하나 같은 합판에서 나온 조각들이라고 단정할 수는 없다는 것이고(증인 박종철의 진술 및 수사기록 1174, 1175면의 동인작성의 감정서 참조), 또 같은 증 제9호와 같은 증 제24호의 각 합판은 그 각 횡단면 조직만 동일할 뿐 그 각 7겹의 두께가 각각 다르고 그 수종의 동일성을 가릴수 없어, 같은 합판에서 나온 조각들이라고 단정할 수도 없다는 것일뿐만 아니라(증인 심상로의 진술 및 수사기록 1339면의 동인작성의 감정서 참조), 피고인으로부터 압수한 위의 증 제20호 내지 제27호의 각 합판조각들은 종전에 피고인이 쓰고남은 7장의 합판중의 3장중에서 나온 조각들이고 나머지 4장은 피고인의 손을 떠난지 이미 오래되었다는 것이므로, 위 증 제9호와 피고인과의 관련성 및 증 제20호 내지 제27호와의 관련성은 더욱 희박하다 할 것이다.

(B) Review of the facts and records established by the court below

Even by the witness's statement that the defendant handled the same kind of spawnum as the 17th (Mail Mail), which was submitted by the defendant as packaging the explosive box of this case, the issue of whether the spawnum was packed in the product package to the defendant. On the other hand, there is no objective fact in that the witness's statement that the defendant left the same spawn as the spawn box on the spawn box on the spawn box on the day before the crime was committed and the witness's statement that the defendant made the spawn's statement is stated as a white spawn, as well as any material that can be recognized that the spawnum was the same as the spawnum box of this case.

(C) In addition, as to the fact that he saw 1,00 (No. 18) and one (No. 3) belt (No. 18) of the reserve forces were enclosed with the instant explosive winners, the record reveals that he made 32 and 33 of the plastic paper, seized at Defendant house, which is the same kind as No. 18 of the same certificate, and he sold 12,000 copies of the above plastic paper No. 12,00 together with 120 copies of the above plastic paper No. 120 copies of the witness's statement that he sold the above plastic paper No. 1 and the deaf-gu No. 18 of the reserve forces. The witness's statement that the witness's statement that he sold the above plastic paper No. 3 of the above certificate No. 1 of the same as the above is without memory, and the witness's statement that the witness's statement is identical with the witness's statement that the defendant's statement to this effect is identical to the witness's statement of the above 30000 square paper.

(D) The above existence of the seized articles and its related appraisal results, or the statements of the witnesses, etc. are not even enough to readily conclude the defendant as a criminal. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be determined as a criminal based on the above evidence is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence by violating the rules of evidence which did not judge comprehensively the evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and according to the contents of each appraisal document bound by the 130 pages and 1332 pages of the investigation records, one fingerprint in the form of a vinyl paper (the above evidence No. 18) detected in the finite paper (the above evidence No. 18) contained in the finial paper (the above evidence No. 18) contained in the finite paper, which contained the agricultural finite (the above evidence No. 18) of the police investigation, and there is no fingerprints identical to each one of the suspect at the time of the investigation. Accordingly, this is also a part that is a strong counter-proof against the defendant

4. As to the evidence relevant to the motive and circumstances of the crime

(A) According to the records, although the defendant was found to have been under bad appraisal due to the fact that he fights such as the victim's stuffed couple and pro-friendly relationship with the victim, such as the record of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant's evaluation alone was sufficient to conclude that the defendant passed a resolution to kill the same victim as explosives, and each statement of the witness's stuff's booms or witness's booms, etc., related to the above, are merely a side of his prosecution, and there is no value of evidence.

(B) In light of the circumstantial fact-related witness lease order, and the record, each statement made by the defendant, such as the statement that the defendant had to destroy evidence, and there is no doubt that the court below's decision on this point is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in its judgment. The court below's decision on this point is just and there is no further doubt that the defendant cannot be readily determined as guilty with only the evidence as above, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in its judgment.

5. As seen above, the evidence submitted in this case is not admissible as evidence, or its credibility is uncertain as evidence, or it is merely a factual relation with a case or circumstantial evidence, and it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is a criminal in view of the organic relation. The first instance court and the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant is not based on the evidence but the criminal process such as the manufacture, possession, transport, etc. of explosives in the resolution of the crime alleged in the facts charged against the defendant in this case is not based on the evidence, but rather on the virtual inferred conclusion. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the rules of evidence selection in the process of the examination of evidence.

6. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)