[1] In the criminal identification procedure based on the suspect's appearance, etc., procedural requirements to enhance the credibility of a witness's statement confirming the suspect, and the case where one-to-one confrontation between the suspect and witness is allowed

[2] The case holding that one-to-one confrontation between the suspect and the victim is allowed in case where the victim and the police officers discovered the suspect by searching for the house facing the alleys immediately after putting the suspect on the alleys where the victim was tracking the criminal at the scene of the crime

[1] Generally, a witness’s statement in a criminal identification procedure through the appearance, etc. of the suspect is low unless there are additional circumstances such as where the suspect is aware of the suspect’s identity, or where there are other circumstances to suspect the suspect as the offender, it should be determined that the witness’s statement or description of the suspect is recorded in advance in order to enhance the credibility of the witness’s statement in the criminal identification procedure, and that the witness’s statement or description as to the suspect’s appearance should be recorded in detail in advance, and that the witness’s identity should be ensured immediately after facing the witness’s appearance, and that the suspect and the suspect’s identity should be resolved in advance, and that the witness’s identity and value should be determined in light of the following: (a) the witness’s statement or description as to the suspect’s appearance, etc., and (b) the suspect, including the suspect, should be resolved immediately after facing the witness’s identity and face with the suspect; and (c) the witness’s identity and value should be determined in advance; and (d) the witness’s identity and value should be determined in advance.

[2] The case holding that one-to-one confrontation between the suspect and the victim is allowed in a case where the victim and the police officers discovered the suspect by searching for the house facing the alleys immediately after putting the suspect on the alleys where the victim was tracking the criminal at the scene of crime along with the police officers

[1] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4587 Decided September 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1950 Decided May 10, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 934) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5201 Decided January 17, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 264)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Ahn Jong-sung

Busan High Court Decision 2008No123 decided Dec. 4, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In general, in the criminal identification procedure based on the appearance and appearance of the suspect, etc. of the suspect, one suspect alone and one photograph of the suspect presented to the witness to confirm the suspect is due to the limitation and inaccuracy of the suspect's memory, and the possibility that the suspect or his photograph may identify the suspect as the offender under specific circumstances, and thus, the witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure according to such a method is low unless there are additional circumstances such as where the suspect is aware of the suspect before and after the victim's statement, or where there are other circumstances to suspect the suspect as the offender, the credibility of the witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure should be recorded in detail in advance, and the witness's statement or description should be presented to the witness immediately after the suspect's appearance and face with the witness's identity, and the witness's statement should be 0 years after the suspect's appearance and face with other persons similar to the suspect, and 10 days after the witness's face and face with other persons, 20 days after the witness's face and face value should be evaluated in advance.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, around 04:30 on November 4, 2007, the victim got home in Busan Southern-gu, Busan-gu (hereinafter omitted), and the police officer was able to look at the right side of the police officer before the 00-dong community center (Dong office) where the victim was married, followed by two descendants between the victim's winter and the victim's winter, leaving the victim's walk up on the ground and pushed up the victim's shoulder up on the 2nd floor, and opened the victim's shoulder and breast door on the 2nd floor above the victim's shoulder, and opened the above 2nd floor to find out the above 3rd house at the right side of the police officer's entrance where the victim got out of the police officer's park, and opened the above 2nd floor to the right side of the police officer's entrance where the victim got out of the police officer's park.

In light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, in a case where the victim sought the house from the alley to the alley road immediately after putting the offender on the alley road along with the police officers, and confirmed the suspect, one-to-one confrontation between the suspect and the victim shall be allowed at the scene of the crime.

Furthermore, according to the evidence duly examined by the court below and the court below, the victim made a statement that he had a face of the offender four times. Among them, at least after the victim's rear scambling, the victim scambling the chest, and when the victim scambling the body and assaulted on the ground, the victim could have sufficiently confirmed the face and appearance of the offender. According to the victim's statement, the victim's non-retailless autopsy was used in the door-to-door and scambling with the victim's face. In light of the above circumstances, it was hard for the victim to view that it was not appropriate for the victim to view that the defendant's non-re-scambling and scambling without retail to the defendant's face when she made a statement to the court below to the effect that it was not suitable for the victim's oral act and scambling with the victim's face at the time of the defendant's statement.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the victim's statement was not reliable because it was made after the victim's person who was the suspect alone face-to-face and confirmed whether the defendant was an offender. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal identification procedure by witness, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the credibility of the victim's statement. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)