In case where Co-defendant in the relation of the defendant and accomplice testified to the effect that he made a statement of the same contents as the suspect interrogation protocol in the police investigation protocol, the admissibility of such testimony

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is admissible as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused. Therefore, the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor with respect to the co-defendant in relation to the accused is acknowledged as genuine by the court statement of the co-defendant, the admissibility of the protocol is denied if the accused denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date. In such case, even though the co-defendant testified to the effect that the co-defendant made a statement with the same contents as the protocol in the police investigation in court, such testimony is merely the purport of recognizing the authenticity of the interrogation protocol of the police preparation of himself, and it is not recognized as independent value of evidence separately from the above protocol, as long as the admissibility of the protocol is denied on the grounds as seen earlier.

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185 Decided July 15, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1393) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4202 Decided February 14, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 407) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2865 Decided July 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1386)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Yoon Jung-chul

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No3919 Decided February 6, 2009

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The part of the facts charged against Defendant 1

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is admissible as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185 delivered on July 15, 2007, etc., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7185 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). Therefore, even if the authenticity of the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor against the co-defendant in relation to the accused is recognized by the court statement of the co-defendant, the admissibility is denied if the accused denies the contents of the protocol at the trial date. Even if the co-defendant testified with the same contents as the interrogation protocol in the police investigation in such a case, it is not justified in the judgment of the court below that it is not admissible as evidence of the above evidence.

In addition, in light of the records, there is no violation of the rules of evidence in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground of appeal pointing out the ground of appeal pointing out that the court below erred in the

2. The part concerning the facts charged against Defendant 2

In light of the records, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the court below's exclusive authority to establish evidence and facts.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)