A. Conditions on the premise to acknowledge admissibility of evidence as to the result of the examination by a false speech detection device

(b) the value of evidentiary evidence of the test results of the detection device;

A. The prosecutor of a false horses detection machine may be admitted as evidence in accordance with Article 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act in a case where it is proved by evidence that the inspector is extremely high credibility in the performance and operational technology of the device, and that the inspector consented to undergo the inspection, and that the inspector has faithfully entered the method, process, and result of the inspection conducted by himself/herself.

B. Even in cases where the result of the inspection of a false horses detection device has admissibility, that is, the result of the inspection, is that it functions as circumstantial evidence to measure the credibility of the statement by the person who undergoes the examination.

A. Articles 171 and 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Do547 delivered on May 22, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 83Do712 delivered on September 13, 1983

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jae-in

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2067 delivered on November 4, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 (the part concerning occupational embezzlement)

If evidence is collected according to the records, it shall be sufficient to recognize the crime of occupational embezzlement during the original adjudication, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts, and there is no evidence to see that the confession of the defendant as to this point has no voluntariness due to the police's strict questions. Meanwhile, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months by the original judgment, the amount of punishment heavier than that of the defendant cannot be presented as a legitimate ground for appeal in light of the provisions of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no reason to hold the appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal by prosecutor (Death resulting from rape)

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (1) confessions made by the police of the defendant at the scene of the crime is admissible as it is recognized by the statement of the statement prepared by the defendant. (2) The fact that the defendant puts panty with the defendant puts panty is a flexible circumstantial evidence against the fact of liver death. (3) The fact that the examination of the defendant's panty in the shower system shows that the result of appraisal is similar to that of the victim's materials loaded at the scene of the crime, and that the examination of the victim's materials taken within the lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's conviction. (4) Even if the result of the examination of the crime at the scene of the crime of this case and the examination of the defendant's conspiracy cannot be directly proven, it is unreasonable to acknowledge the defendant as guilty on the contrary ground that the defendant's testimony at the scene of the crime of this case cannot be reasonably admitted as an indirect evidence of the victim's death.

However, in this case where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged by the prosecution and asserts that the confession at the police or the fact charged at the time of on-site inspection is not voluntary, the suspect interrogation protocol, verification protocol or self-written statement prepared at the police investigation stage cannot be admitted as evidence of this case unless the defendant contests the formation thereof or agrees to it as evidence. In the opinion, the result of the appraisal that the defendant puts panty into the victim's house, the materials taken at the shower of the defendant's house, and the materials taken at the stander at the scene of the accident are similar ingredients, the result of the appraisal of the defendant's conspiracy, the result of the examination of the witness's house, the witness's testimony, the testimony of the witness at the scene of the rape of this case from the date of the rape of this case to the time of the police at the time of the occurrence of the rape of this case, and the defendant's movement, etc. cannot be viewed as a criminal of rape of this case, and it cannot be concluded that there is no reason to conclude that the court below's conviction of this case is inappropriate.

In a case where it is confirmed by evidence that the public prosecutor's performance, operation technology, etc. of the organization is extremely reliable, and that the inspector was a qualified person and the inspector consented to undergo the inspection, and that the inspector's written statement was faithfully written, it shall be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 313 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, even in such a case, the prosecutor's result of appraisal functions as circumstantial evidence to measure the credibility of the public prosecutor's statement. Thus, the court below's oral statement alone cannot be said to be erroneous in the protocol that held that it is insufficient to determine the accuracy of the inspection results.

Finally, when examining the defendant's behavior before and after the time of the crime in this case in the indictment, based on the evidence of the court below, the court below's decision that there is no clear explanation about the result of appraisal that the defendant's behavior before and after the time of the crime in this case is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the court below's finding, and that there is no error of law against the measure of the court below since it is sufficiently acceptable and even if it is difficult to file a lawsuit or prosecution such as the theory, it cannot be said that there is no error of law against the measure of the court below, even though it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the court below's finding of the facts, and the situation and method of crime of the victim's bodily condition and the method of crime in light of the defendant's confession from the police.

In the end, there is no reason for the prosecutor's appeal.

3. Therefore, all of the appeals by the prosecutor against the defendant and the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)