[1] The elements for the admissibility of evidence in a case where a preparatory hearing or a trial by a person other than the defendant, or a protocol stating the statement or its statement, contains the defendant's statement

[2] The case holding that the admissibility of evidence is recognized on the ground that the statement of a person who is not the defendant in the preparation of a document handling affairs by a judicial police officer is a statement about the confession of a crime of the defendant and it is proved that it was true and it was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances

[1] A protocol in which a full text statement or a full text statement is made shall, in principle, be inadmissible in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That when a statement made by a person other than the defendant at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial contains the contents of the defendant's statement, it may be admitted as evidence only when the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the protocol in which a full text statement is made shall be admitted as evidence in cases where it is admissible under Articles 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as cases where it is recognized as admissible under Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[2] The case holding that the admissibility of evidence is recognized on the ground that the statement of a person other than the defendant in the preparation of a document handling affairs by a judicial police officer is based on the statement about the confession of the defendant's crime, and it is proved that it was true and it was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances

[1] Articles 310-2, 312, 313, 314, and 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 310-2, 312, 313, 314, and 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Do3032 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 410) Supreme Court Decision 94Do1905 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2912) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do159 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong200Sang, 101)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 99No2716 delivered on October 7, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On September 26, 1998, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in collaboration with the Nonindicted Party, opened a corrected entrance in excess of the fence at the machinery factory located in the area of the victim’s management in which the victim’s right to instigate was located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and intruded into the factory; and (b) had one handphone in excess of 450,000 won at the market price of the victim’s possession, which was charged in the factory office, and stolen it.

2. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the contents of the statement on the leapability of the judicial police officer's preparation of a document which corresponds to the facts charged, that "the defendant stolen a Handphone from the defendant," which is a fact requiring proof that the defendant's theft cannot be admitted as evidence (it seems that the contents of the statement on the victim's statement and the statement on the prosecutor's preparation in the trial records of the court of first instance were concealed, or the contents of the statement on the victim's statement and the statement on the victim's preparation in the trial records of the court of first instance were not sufficient to use it as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. A protocol in which a full text statement or a full text statement is made shall, in principle, be inadmissible in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That in case where a statement made by a person other than the defendant at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial contains the contents of the defendant's statement, it may be admitted as evidence only when the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The protocol in which a full text statement is made shall be admitted as evidence in cases where it is admissible under Articles 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and shall be exceptionally admitted as evidence when it satisfies the above conditions under Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do159, Mar. 10, 200).

4. However, according to the records, the part of the statement of the defendant concerning the statement of the judicial police officer's response to the criminal defendant's statement is that "the defendant made a telephone conversation after considering the victim's warning that he might steals a mobile phone," and "the defendant took a cell phone for the purpose of using it after entering the factory together with the non-indicted," and the above statement satisfies the requirements of Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is a signature seal who is the statement, and it is proved that it is true by the statement of the sex exchange at the trial date, and the defendant's statement is judged to have been made under particularly reliable circumstances, and the part of the above statement of the defendant's statement is admissible as evidence, since it is judged to have been made under particularly reliable circumstances.

5. If so, the court below's decision which did not examine and determine the probative value of the defendant's statement since the part of the above statement which contains the defendant's statement is inadmissible, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the admissibility of evidence of the protocol in which the full text statement is entered,

6. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)