A. Admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor who recognized the authenticity

B. Method of determining the Voluntaryness of the statement

(a) The protocol of interrogation of the accused who was a suspect in the court of the prosecutor's protocol which acknowledged the establishment of the petition is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement of the accused in the protocol has not been made voluntarily, or it has been made under no particularly reliable circumstances.

B. The court should consider all the circumstances in accordance with the specific case and determine whether the statement of the suspect as stated in the protocol of examination of suspect prepared by the public prosecutor is voluntary or not, in case of dispute as to whether it is voluntary or not.

A. Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 308 and 312 of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do754 delivered on June 8, 1982, 84Do378 delivered on May 29, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2001 delivered on November 13, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

85 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

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

1. The suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor who was a suspect in the court room is admissible unless the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is made arbitrarily, or there is any reason to suspect that it was made under no reliable circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570, Dec. 23, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 82Do754, May 29, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 84Do378, May 29, 198). The second suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor (which was prepared at the prosecutor's office) admitted the defendant as evidence of the first instance court, and it is not admissible as evidence of the defendant's testimony as evidence of the court below's 194 testimony which was adopted by the prosecutor's office within the scope of 19 years old as evidence, and it cannot be admitted that there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles as evidence of the suspect's testimony adopted by the prosecutor's 84 days old as evidence, and it cannot be admitted as evidence evidence of the suspect's testimony.

2. According to the records, the protocol of verification prepared by a judicial police officer does not contain any particular statement other than any statement made by the defendant who was a suspect according to the scene of the crime which the defendant made in the presence of a judicial police officer, and the judicial police officer made a statement and re-written the statement and re-written the statement or taken photographs according to the scene of the crime which the defendant made in the presence of a judicial police officer. Since the defendant denies not only the contents of the statement written in the interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in the court court but also all the contents of the statement and the circumstances of the crime committed in the above inspection protocol, the protocol of verification of evidence shall be inadmissible as evidence. Since the testimony prepared by the court below was merely the statement that the defendant led to the confession of the crime in the investigation process of this case, each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to each of the testimony prepared by the court below was merely the statement that the defendant led to the confession of the crime in the investigation agency, it cannot be admitted as evidence of the crime, and since gas No. 1, among seized evidence No. 1, it can be admitted as evidence as evidence.

However, in the first trial of the court below's approval of the defendant, since the facts constituting the crime of this case can be acknowledged by the remaining evidence (in particular, the statement of request for appraisal by the chief of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation) cited by the court below, the above facts of the crime of this case as stated in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the public prosecutor do not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the confession of the defendant as to the crime of this case as stated in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the court below shall be supported not by the processed facts of the confession but by the letter of request for appraisal by the chief of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, and by the letter of request for appraisal by the chief of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, etc. prepared by the court below, the confession

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. In applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)