The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected all the application of the applicant for compensation, and since the above application for compensation cannot be filed pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, the part of the court below's rejection of the above application for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the trial of

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) alleged unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn such assertion on the first day of the appeal by this court.

Among the facts charged in the instant case, each statement of the victims who identified the Defendant as the offender in relation to the injury by robbery (hereinafter “the witness statement of this case”) is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence lacking procedural requirements for the criminal identification procedure, and is not so.

Even if the witness's statement is reliable, it cannot be said that the witness's statement has credibility.

If the witness statement of this case was excluded, it cannot be deemed that there was no reasonable doubt to prove that the defendant committed the crime of injury by robbery of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant committed the crime of injury by robbery of this case due to the witness's statement which has no admissibility or probative value. This is a mistake of fact.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the witness’s statement in this case is inadmissible, Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Any evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence.” As such, any evidence collected in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Constitution, shall not be admitted as evidence for conviction, in principle, since it

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do3061 Decided November 15, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10648 Decided September 7, 2017