Cases which are not deemed to have been made under any particularly reliable circumstances in the investigative agency of a witness;

When the first request for detention warrant based on the facts A as to Eul was dismissed by a public prosecutor, the part was submitted to the public prosecutor without any supplement to the investigation, that is, the defendant's police officer and the public prosecutor's office, without any supplement to the investigation, prepared a written statement that corresponds to the facts B of the crime of Eul, and prepared a confession protocol corresponding thereto, and added the facts B to the facts A, and received a warrant by requesting a detention warrant again, and if the Gap again was sent to the public prosecutor's office after he was sentenced to the above statement, i.e., the suspect who was sent to the public prosecutor's office and was handed over to the public prosecutor's office and again made the same statement, it is difficult to view that the statements made at the public prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office were made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (86 High Court Decision 578)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred and sixty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, the Defendant was acquitted that at around 18:00 on December 21, 1985, the Defendant charged the Victim Nonindicted 1 with a gold of KRW 10,000 from the Victim Nonindicted 1 at the waiting room in the Namnam Line of the Seoul Station.

1. The summary of Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal is that the above Defendant’s witnessed and posted the retail line of Defendant 2’s co-defendant 2 at the time of original adjudication. Rather, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the above Defendant was engaged in retailing with Defendant 2, and that Defendant 2 was inflicted an injury upon Defendant 2, and that Defendant 1’s part of the facts constituting the crime at the time of original adjudication was illegal because the court below acknowledged that the above Defendant committed the crime at all, although the above Defendant did not commit the crime. The summary of Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal is unreasonable because the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. First, as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, the part of the guilty and the part of the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty is recognized as a substantive concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below against the above defendant should not be exempted from the whole reversal. Next, considering all circumstances of the sentencing indicated in this case, such as the fact that the amount of damage is insignificant and the amount of damage is divided into several parts of the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2, the judgment of the court below should not be exempted from the whole reversal of the judgment of the court below. Thus, considering all circumstances of the sentencing indicated in this case, such as the fact that the defendant's error is divided into several parts of the judgment of the court below.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 10 months for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at a wooden branch of the Gwangju District Court on November 20, 1985; Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years; Defendant 2 was sentenced to 8 months for an attempted larceny in the Seoul District Court’s Southern Branch on November 22, 1984; Defendant 2 was sentenced to 8 months for an attempted larceny in the Yeongdeungpo District Court’s Southern Branch on February 16, 1985; and the execution of the sentence was completed;

(1) Defendant 1:

On January 14, 1986, at around 21:00, the joint Defendant 2 was found to have discovered and accessed that place in the Woopo-gu Seoul Seopo-si Woo-si Woo-si, and then that scam to scam, at around 21:20 on the same day, the part left side of Defendant 2 75 centimeters in length is 1 time and 10 days on the hand, in order to let scam to scam a retail machine as scam to scam around the above station and let scam scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam to scam.

(2) The Defendants jointly agree:

At around 21:30 on the same day, the victim non-indicted 2 was found to be able to purchase boarding passes in the waiting room in the front of the ticket box. Defendant 1 reported the network in his surrounding area and Defendant 2 stolen KRW 5,000 in cash by inserting hand on the left hand of the above victim's left hand after the above victim's attachment.

1. Statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment at the trial court of Defendant 2;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below by Nonindicted 3 and 4 of the witness

1. Statements consistent with the facts stated in the judgment of Defendant 2 among the first trial records of the court below;

1. The statement in the second trial record of the court below that corresponds to the facts of the non-indicted 5's decision

1. Statement made by a public prosecutor and judicial police officer as to Defendant 2's suspect interrogation protocol prepared for performing duties, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. The written statement made by the prosecutor with respect to the defendant 1 and each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to the non-indicted 2 and 5, which conforms to the facts in the judgment;

1. Entry of the results of seizure consistent with the facts in the records of seizure prepared in the course of performing duties by judicial police officers;

1. Statements in Nonindicted 5’s written statements that correspond to the facts indicated in the judgment

1. Statement that corresponds to the part and degree of the injury as indicated in the judgment among the statement of opinion about Defendant 2 of Nonindicted 3’s preparation of Nonindicted 3

1. References to criminal records against Defendant 2 in the preparation of the chief of the police station in Seodaemun-gu and the investigation report prepared by Nonindicted 6 in the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office assistant public prosecutor's office, corresponding to the judgment of Defendant 2;

(1) As to Defendant 1, Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 (a) of the Criminal Act (as to Defendant 1’s concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., with heavy punishment) and Article 57 of the same Act

(2) As to Defendant 2, Articles 331(2) and (1), 35, and 57 of the Criminal Act

In the facts charged of this case, the defendant 1 discovered that the victim non-indicted 1 (the victim non-indicted 24 years old), who was the five-offenders of the thiety and the five-year old crime, was inside the waiting room in the Daenam Line of the Seoul National District, and confirmed that he was able to get the victim's 10,000 won away from the 10,000 won of the plaintiff's main money in front of the above victim, while he did not receive money and did not know that he did not know that he did not receive money, he did not report it to the investigation agency on December 21, 1985, and did not know that he had the victim report it to the above investigation agency, and in other words, he did not receive the above 10,000 won as evidence from the above victim's witness interrogation as evidence, and then he did not receive the above 10,000 won as to the crime of violence and punishment, etc., and then, he did so.

First, according to the third protocol of interrogation of the above defendant in the preparation of duty handling of judicial police officers, the above defendant denied the above fact of crime to the court below and the court of the trial, and denies its contents without the consent of the above protocol of interrogation as evidence, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence for the above facts charged.

Next, according to the prosecutor's and the judicial police officer's statement concerning non-indicted 1, the above protocol does not consent to the defendant's use of evidence, and since it is not recognized as the authenticity of the establishment by his legal statement because his whereabouts is unknown, it should be acknowledged that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. According to the one-time record, the first request for a warrant of detention was dismissed by the prosecutor's office on January 15, 1986 without any further investigation supplementation, and it is difficult to view that the above protocol was again submitted to the prosecutor's office for the defendant's first time after the completion of ten days of detention to the public prosecutor's office, and it was hard to view that the defendant's first request for a warrant of detention was made under the same circumstance as the defendant's first statement in the public prosecutor's office on December 22, 1985 (the first statement in the public prosecutor's office after the completion of the sentence of 10 days of detention to the public prosecutor's office and the first statement in the public prosecutor's office after being assigned to the defendant's office.

In addition, Non-Indicted 1 made clear that he did not cut 10,00 won from AC’s machine’s 10,000 won (so-called “non-Indicted 1”), and stated that he was 25,00 won of his money which he had been under suspicion, and that he was subject to the above Defendant’s face at first 2,60,000 won, but he could not be forgotten because he did not put his face to the prosecutor’s question and did not cut her money more than 6,00 won (see, e.g., “non-Indicted 1” and “non-Indicted 1” and “non-Indicted 1, 140, 144, 145,” and Defendant 1, who was arrested at the above court below, see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 80, Dec. 21, 1985.

According to the above, the evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged and submitted by the prosecutor has no admissibility or credibility, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts charged. Thus, not guilty according to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges' Maintenance (Presiding Judge) and Min Il-young