Requirements and record of evidence necessary for the prosecutor of a false terminal to have admissibility of evidence;

The prosecutor of a false last-end detection machine may be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only when the premise, such as the performance, operation technology, etc. of the device is deemed to have high credibility and that the inspector is a qualified person, the person who undergoes the inspection consented to the inspection, and the inspector faithfully states the method, process, and result of the inspection conducted by the inspector, is confirmed by evidence. Even in cases where all the above conditions are satisfied and admissible as evidence, the examination results function as circumstantial evidence to measure the credibility of the statement by the person under examination.

Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 86No359 delivered on January 9, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's testimony, such as the fixed number of witnesses of the court of first instance, strawing, Kim Jong-sik, and Jinle, which seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, and each statement of the prosecutor and senior judicial police officer's preparation of the same person cannot be believed to be reliable for the same reason as stated in its reasoning. Furthermore, according to the contents of the report as a result of the false last-end detection of the public prosecutor's office in Daegu District Public Prosecutor's false last-end detection machine, it can be recognized that the defendant's statement denying the instant crime was false, but the public prosecutor's false last-end detection machine is deemed to have high credibility in its organization's performance, operation technology, etc., and the public prosecutor consented to the examination, and the prosecutor's prosecutor's statement was consistent with the examination, and even if it was confirmed by evidence that the prosecutor's method, process, and faithful statement was conducted by the prosecutor, it cannot be accepted as evidence of the above facts charged even if it was found to be admissible as evidence.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there is no error of law that misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of such judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)