beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was as follows: (a) the Defendant led to a confession at an investigative agency, and only lent only the name of the principal H in the original instance.
In light of the fact that the defendant denies, the defendant did not submit specific materials to prove it, and the fact that H did not know about his personal information properly, the defendant's assertion is not persuasive, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant is sufficiently guilty.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. The burden of proof on the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that leads the judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309 delivered on April 12, 1996). (b) The court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case with detailed statement of the reasoning for the judgment. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in this case is beyond a reasonable doubt.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Of the second trial protocol, the witness K’s statement in the trial protocol is a confession made by the defendant while being investigated by the police. As long as the defendant denies the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol in the court below, the police officer’s statement in the above court protocol, which is the police officer who examined the defendant, also cannot be used as evidence of guilt because it has no admissibility of evidence in light of the purport of Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da8548, Aug. 23, 2002).