The case that reversed the original judgment on the grounds of incomplete hearing and violation of the rules of evidence.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the grounds that there are errors in the incomplete deliberation and violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Byung-mo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No5295 delivered on November 20, 1987

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

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel:

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendant is that, in collusion with the co-defendants of the court below on November 7, 1986, the Defendant issued a check number agreement with the Seoul Branch of the City Bank and the Defendant on November 28, 1986, at the three-story offices located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul on November 28, 198, the joint Defendant issued one check number e.g., the check number e., e., the check number e., e., 7242, and e., e., 1.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., e., 1.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.

The first instance judgment, which was a co-defendant of the lower court, convicted the Defendant of the facts charged on the part of the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the court testimony of the co-defendant of the lower court and the interrogation protocol of the prosecutor’s protocol; (b) the testimony of the court testimony of the stuff and the prosecutor’s testimony; and (c) the written statement of the prosecutor’s protocol of the co-defendant’s prosecutor’s testimony; and (d) the white flag, the old-age, the military mar, and the prosecutor’s testimony

From October 1986, the Defendant denied the public offering and asserted as follows. In other words, the Defendant, at the time of construction of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Non-Indicted 1’s father at the end of October, 1986, was executing construction works to extend or rebuild the entrance and bath located in 1.10 million won, which had been under pressure at the time of the original judgment, he would be able to open a bank account because he would have been able to open a bank account because he would have been able to do so, so, the Defendant would not raise the construction capital. Accordingly, the Defendant would have accepted this objection and issued a certificate of personal seal impression for submitting to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, certificate of property tax imposition, resident registration, and business registration and seal of Non-Indicted 2, which was issued to the co-defendant 1 in his name. At the time of the original judgment, the Defendant would still have been waiting for the Co-Defendant 1 to enter the name of the Defendant in the name of Non-Indicted 1 to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund to the effect that he would not open a new account.

As to the above change of claim by the defendant, the co-defendants of the court below led to the defendant's false assertion that he was unaware of the fact that the check was issued in 11 sheet of the number of outstanding shares, as well as that the check was paid or issued in consultation with the defendant with the approval of the defendant and was made.

However, there are many points that it is difficult to accept to conclude that the defendant had a criminal intent as to the issuance and default of the check of this case by the evidence adopted by the court below (including the statement of the court below co-defendants) including the statement of the court below.

First of all, considering the statement of the court below, the joint defendant was entrusted with the construction work in the name of the defendant in the name of the joint defendant in the court below, and he was aware of the fact that the joint defendant in the court below was entrusted with the construction work in the name of the defendant in the name of the joint defendant in the court below, and prepared necessary documents, and the non-indicted 2 company in the name of the defendant in the name of the joint defendant in the court below was already discontinued with the defendant in the name of the non-indicted 2 company in the name of the non-indicted 2 company in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in the name of the joint defendant in the court below, and the joint defendant in the court below was judged disqualified from credit investigation in the Credit Guarantee Fund because he had already discontinued with the defendant in the name of the non-indicted 3 company in its actual management, and it was possible for the defendant to receive credit inquiry from the defendant in the name of the defendant in the name of the non-indicted 3 company in his name, and it was consistent with the statement of the defendant in the court below below 900 million won.

Even if there are matters indicated above, it is difficult to find that the defendant's joint defendants first known in the contract relationship with construction work, in the name of the defendant, entrusted the comprehensive authority of ordering them to issue the check sheet and bill in the name of the defendant, and if they are alleged by the joint defendants of the court below, the defendant approved or impliedly approved the issuance of the check, etc. due to the obligation of the joint defendants of the court below which are not related to his transaction, and there is no motive and reason for such issuance in accordance with the records.

The co-defendants of the court below alleged that some of the bills and checks issued by himself in the court of first instance were issued as construction cost, but the remainder was issued as maintenance cost in operating a joint business of Nonindicted Co. 3, and asserted new facts that have not been released by the police or the prosecutor's office because they again promised to construct another building work between the defendant and the defendant. In particular, it is difficult to grant credibility because they do not reveal any kind of statements or extremely vague and grounds. In particular, the co-defendants of the court below confessions that some of the bills and checks issued in the defendant's name have been issued without the defendant's consent (the fourth protocol of examination of the court below). Other evidence than the statement of the court below which the co-defendants of the court below adopted as evidence of guilt against the defendant is not consistent with the rules of evidence in light of the fact that when the co-defendants of the court below prepared and delivered the check number, and thus, they did not have any knowledge of the fact that they were issued, and therefore, they do not have any legal relation with the defendant, as alleged in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)