[1] Whether Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the limitation of admissibility of a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency is also applicable to the admissibility of evidence such as a statement, written statement, and written statement prepared by the suspect during the investigation process conducted by an investigative agency (affirmative), and whether it is also applicable to the admissibility of an

[2] The admissibility of a video tape, CD, etc. recorded by an investigative agency to investigate a suspect

[1] Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do442 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1647), Supreme Court Decision 96Do67 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2565), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6548 delivered on January 13, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 277) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Do682 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2316), Supreme Court Decision 96Do169 delivered on October 15, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3484), Supreme Court Decision 9Do29719 delivered on March 28, 1997 (Gong196Ha, 3484).

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Jin-Jon et al.

Jeonju District Court Decision 2007No249 Decided June 29, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an interrogation protocol of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor may be used as evidence only when the defendant who was a suspect or defense counsel acknowledged the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or at a trial date. If a document or document recording or recording a suspect's statement is prepared in the course of investigation at an investigative agency, it cannot be viewed differently from the interrogation protocol prepared by the pertinent investigative agency even though it was written in the form of statement, written statement, or written statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do42, Apr. 14, 1992; 2003Do6548, Jan. 13, 2006). The above provision applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of a suspect prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt of the defendant, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of another defendant or suspect prepared by the investigative agency other than the public prosecutor is used as evidence of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g.

As long as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 denies the contents of the protocol of interrogation of Defendant 3 prepared by the prosecution assistant, each protocol of interrogation of the prosecution assistant, each protocol of statement of Defendant 3 prepared by the prosecution assistant, each protocol of statement of Defendant 3 prepared by the prosecution assistant, and each statement of Defendant 3 written by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 who are co-offenders with Defendant 3 are denied in the court, the court below's decision that all of the admissibility is not admissible under Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is justifiable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no need to modify the legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 312 (

2. The court below rejected the evidence in accordance with its reasoning as to the remaining part of the charges of this case except for those found guilty among the charges of this case, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants on this part because there is no proof of criminal facts. The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence

3. Since video tapes, CDs or other similar things recorded in the investigative agency's investigation process as a suspect do not differ from the interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency which actually recorded suspect's statements, evidence should be admitted as evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do682 delivered on June 23, 1992, etc.).

The court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles that the court below's decision that the admissibility of evidence is not recognized on the ground that the contents of the recording and video recording of Defendant 3 prepared by the prosecutor's assistant in the prosecutor's office (the document containing the video participant, the date and place of recording, the summary of the statement contained in the recorded CD) do not differ from the interrogation protocol, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)