Evidence of inspection protocol prepared by judicial police officers

Among the protocol of examination of evidence prepared by a judicial police officer, the part of the statement, and the photographic phenomenon of the criminal defendant shall be admissible unless it is deemed that the original person is the original person and the defendant is authentic by the defendant who is the offender, or that the statement and the record of the criminal defendant in the place of examination are made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

April 14, 1981, 81Do343 decided Apr. 14, 1981 (Court Official Gazette 657, 13910)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (79Gohap496)

Supreme Court Decision 80Do1289 Decided August 12, 1980, 80Do1289, April 14, 1981, 81Do343 Decided April 14, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too unfasible, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is unreasonable, even though the defendant did not commit a crime at the time of original adjudication, the court below erred in finding the facts and affected the judgment, and even if not, the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too unreasonable.

The grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor shall be examined prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel.

The court below acknowledged the facts charged that the defendant divided the victim's timber into two hands at the time and place of the prosecution of this case, and made the victim die on the left-hand side by pressure and pressure, and abandoned the body to saw the body into saws. The court below admitted the charges as evidence that the defendant abandoned the victim's timber to saws.

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below rendered by the non-indicted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the witness

2. Statement of the first interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the facts contained in the judgment;

3. Each statement that conforms to the facts contained in the judgment in each written statement concerning Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 prepared by the prosecutor and senior judicial police officer in charge of handling affairs;

4. Each statement consistent with the judgment in part of each inspection protocol of preparation of handling affairs by the lower court and the senior judicial police officer.

5. Statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment among written statements prepared by the defendant.

6. Statement that corresponds to the cause and date of death in the body autopsy report and the appraisal report on the victim Nonindicted 9 prepared by a doctor

7. Records consistent with the judgment in the records of seizure of affairs conducted by judicial police officers.

8. Among seized articles of evidence, the existence of subparagraphs 1 through 11 is cited.

According to the records of the case, the defendant only denies the facts charged in this case until this court was established, and it is clear that he did not consent to the admissibility of all evidence against the defendant's rejection statement in the court court. Among evidence that the court below admitted as evidence of guilt: (i) according to the testimony of the defendant by the police prior to the court below and the first instance court witness, the defendant's voluntary statement prepared under these circumstances is hard to recognize voluntariness; and (ii) the statement by the witness of the court below was made by the defendant when the defendant is investigated as a suspect, and this is so-called hearsay evidence because the defendant's statement was made to the defendant when the defendant was investigated as a suspect; (iii) the defendant's statement was made at the time of the defendant's oral statement by the police's questioning; and (iv) the defendant's statement was merely made at the time when the defendant was made as a suspect and it is hard to find that the defendant's statement was made at the time of the defendant's oral statement and the record, which is evidence evidence of the court below's testimony.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is groundless and the defendant's appeal is reasonable, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the same Act, and it is again decided after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant was sentenced on June 2, 1978 to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Busan District Court, which was sentenced on June 2, 1978, as the night guard of the iron manufacturing factory of non-indicted 10, located in the north-gu Busan District Court (hereinafter omitted), and was sentenced on January 5, 1979, in addition to the completion of its execution, the defendant was in bad character as the ordinary character of the non-indicted 4, such as special larceny, injury, etc.

1. On June 19, 1979: At night guard service at the office of the above company around 10: At night guard service, the victim (the victim (the age of 58) who leased part of the end of the above company and the victim (the age of 50 to 100 won per trade name omitted) who took part of the above company's back at night guard service and took part of the above company's end at the intervals of 50 to 100 won per time and made an appraisal of the "land white" at the same time; at 22:20 on the same day, the victim took part of the 43.5 meters away from the above office, and followed the time after the victim took part of the above office, and the victim took part of the above company's drinking water and took part of the above company's drinking water and took part of the above company's drinking water back to each other, and the victim's laver by pressure, pressure, pressure, etc. on the left side of the victim, and the victim's death shall be lad by the death.

2. At the above temporary location, the victim’s death and the defendant, who had worked in the same place as on the same day, is likely to be suspected of being a criminal; the victim’s personal belongings was killed; the victim took away his personal belongings; and then abandoned the body as if the body was abandoned; in the same place, the head of the gold-in log was cut into the victim’s left hand so as to cut off one point on the part of the victim’s left hand and cut off one point on the river running along the above factory, and then the body was deep at about 1 meter at a height of 84 meters away from the front wall of the factory; and the body was 1 meter at a height of 1 meters from the front wall of the factory, which is 84 meters away from the front wall, and the body was laid down with the victim’s body, and there is no sufficient evidence to find the person guilty of the crime as being found to have intruded by the latter part of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the body was destroyed by the 2nd 5th saw.”

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)