beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
No. 3 of the 4th sentence of the text "No. ......"
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) Since the defendant's written protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant prepared by the police consents to the use of it as evidence to the meaning of denial of contents as evidence, the admissibility of evidence is not possible under Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant directed the victim's driving vehicle at the time of overtaking, and the defendant did not use the brake in front of the victim's driving vehicle.
B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspended sentence of two years, the community service time of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding admissibility of evidence in a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor is admissible as evidence only when the present or former criminal suspect or his/her defense counsel recognizes its content at a preparatory hearing or a public trial date.
According to the records, the defendant agrees to consider the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police at the first trial date of the court below as evidence, and the court below did not adopt it as evidence.
According to the above facts, although there is no admissibility of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the police, the court below convicted the defendant that the defendant stated that "the defendant did not secure the safety distance from the vehicle being overtaken in the course of overtaking the damaged vehicle in the course of overtaking it, and makes a sudden change in the lane from the foundation."