Whether there is admissibility of the victim's statement protocol or seizure protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant who the defendant consented to evidence (affirmative)

If the statement or seizure of the victim prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, but the defendant consented to the admissibility of the facts charged, all of them shall be admissible.

Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do453 Decided July 20, 1965 (Gong1983, 1446) 83Do196 Decided January 23, 1968

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 89No3903 delivered on February 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

Number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

If the defendant consented to the statement or seizure of the victim prepared by the assistant judicial police officer as evidence of the facts charged, all of them shall be admissible. (See Supreme Court Decision 67Do1518 delivered on January 23, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 65Do453 delivered on July 20, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 83Do196 delivered on August 23, 1983, etc.)

Therefore, there is no error of law as pointed out in the court of first instance that the defendant's written statement of the victims of the preparation of judicial police assistant who agreed to use the evidence of this case and the seizure protocol as evidence of guilt of this case.

In this case, a judgment sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for less than ten years cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground that sentencing is unreasonable. All of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)