Whether the provision of Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the limitation on admissibility of an interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a prosecutor applies to the relationship with another defendant who was a co-suspect (affirmative)

The provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning restrictions on the admissibility of evidence of the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agencies other than the prosecutor shall apply not only to the accused who was the suspect but also to the relationship with the other accused who was the co-suspect.

Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do287 Delivered on April 10, 1979

Defendant Saryary and Appellants for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Tae-ok

Gwangju High Court Decision 83No7,83No2 delivered on November 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. The provisions of Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning restrictions on the admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor shall apply not only to the defendant who was the suspect in question but also to the relation to other defendant who was the co-suspect (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do287 delivered on April 10, 1979). In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the interrogation protocol prepared for handling affairs by the judicial police officer against non-indicted 1 who was the co-suspect in the same purport is not admissible, and there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below

2. In addition, according to the original trial, the contents of the protocol of examination of Nonindicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor as to Nonindicted 1 in the protocol of interrogation of the public prosecutor cannot be trusted in light of the changes of the defendant and the respondent for defense, or the testimony of the court of first instance and the court of original instance. However, although the defendant and the respondent for defense cannot be trusted, the testimony of the above witness cannot be trusted, the court below rejected the protocol of examination of Nonindicted 1 in the protocol of examination of the prosecutor, which is obvious evidence of guilt, in violation of the rules of evidence

However, according to the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the contents of the protocol of examination of the non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor as to the non-indicted 1 in light of the witness's testimony or the change of the defendant's and the respondent's defense, it is insufficient to use it as evidence to recognize the facts charged against the defendant and the respondent's defense, and it cannot be viewed that there is any violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)

Since the erroneously refunded of the Supreme Court judges is during overseas business trips, it is impossible to sign and seal.The judge of the Supreme Court is the vice versa.